VC 35 1.2 v2

[shootinglulu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All the pictures i have seen taken with this lens remind me of the Nikon look.

[ezc203]

Hmmm, I'm curious as to what you mean of this "Nikon look"...

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[thompsonkirk]

I owned V1 of the Nokton & used it for available-light photography only – the rest of the time, a 35 v1 or 40 Summicron. The Nokton was a very nice copy that had been coded & adjusted precisely by DAG.

 

I bought ther FLE thinking this would be a practical way of getting down to just one 35mm lens.

 

But no – the FLE is smaller than the Nokton but IMO still annoyingly heavy, so here I am back to using a smaller 35/40 most of the time, & the heavier & more expensive Summilux ony when I anticipate low light levels.

 

So in retrospect I was just about as well off with the lens that cost $4K less.

 

Kirk

 

PS, here's a bit of foolish advice:

 

I tried coding the Nokton as a Summilux & as a Summicron. I can't remember which, but one way or the other, I saw less CA. Of course that's impossible or at least inexplicable, so don't follow this advice.

[zombii]

I've had two V1's and a V2. I never shot smaller than f/2. IMO, the V1's are as good and possibly a little better wide open and 2/3 the price. The V2 is slightly smaller but not enough to really matter and it doesn't come with a hood as the V1's do. I sold the V2 fairly quickly.

[mustafasoleiman]

I've had two V1's and a V2. I never shot smaller than f/2. IMO, the V1's are as good and possibly a little better wide open and 2/3 the price. The V2 is slightly smaller but not enough to really matter and it doesn't come with a hood as the V1's do. I sold the V2 fairly quickly.

 

Good point but the essential point for me is the fact that the v2 focuses down to .7m (actually a pretty useless .5m)

[mustafasoleiman]

I owned V1 of the Nokton & used it for available-light photography only – the rest of the time, a 35 v1 or 40 Summicron. The Nokton was a very nice copy that had been coded & adjusted precisely by DAG.

 

I bought ther FLE thinking this would be a practical way of getting down to just one 35mm lens.

 

But no – the FLE is smaller than the Nokton but IMO still annoyingly heavy, so here I am back to using a smaller 35/40 most of the time, & the heavier & more expensive Summilux ony when I anticipate low light levels.

 

So in retrospect I was just about as well off with the lens that cost $4K less.

 

Kirk

 

PS, here's a bit of foolish advice:

 

I tried coding the Nokton as a Summilux & as a Summicron. I can't remember which, but one way or the other, I saw less CA. Of course that's impossible or at least inexplicable, so don't follow this advice.

 

That is exactly what I am planning to do... My cron v4 is great for everyday use, small and light (190g).

My chrome cron asph weights as much as the new FLE and, even though it might be better than the v4 (I need to do some comparison shots to know for sure if the difference is a lot), I end up not using it because of the weight.

 

So then the 1.2 goes a long way in warranting it's weight, when needed.

 

Is the FLE much better?

 

How should I code the Nokton v2, does anyone know?

[Nick De Marco]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with those raving about this lens

I think it is the sweetest 35m I have ever owned, and very useable at f1.2

It is big. but feels smaller than the last version which I found too big

It;s also so flare resistant it doesn't need a hood

I like is so much I sold m other 35s and bought just one small one for walkabout when I don't need speed. Opted for the Zeiss Biogon f2.8-C for this - having tried many others. I think the latter is as good as the Summicron but one stop slower, but with the CV f1.2 I can have more speed whenever I want

[NB23]

I'm sorry guys but I don't see the point of this lens. At f1.2 the contrast is so bad that one has to stop to f1.4 at least to gain some quality.

And while we're at f1.4, the lux pre-asph is so small that it's nonsense not to own it. Or even the lux asph where it absolutely shines from f1.4.

 

My biggest question is the T-stop value of the Nokton. Because of its lack of contrast and insane falloff, is it truly a T:1.2? T:1.3 or even 1.4, maybe? If so, there is absolutely no purpose to this lens.

 

So, what is its T stop value? Any serious tests out there?

[fotolebrocq]

I'm sorry guys but I don't see the point of this lens. At f1.2 the contrast is so bad that one has to stop to f1.4 at least to gain some quality.

And while we're at f1.4, the lux pre-asph is so small that it's nonsense not to own it. Or even the lux asph where it absolutely shines from f1.4.

 

My biggest question is the T-stop value of the Nokton. Because of its lack of contrast and insane falloff, is it truly a T:1.2? T:1.3 or even 1.4, maybe? If so, there is absolutely no purpose to this lens.

 

So, what is its T stop value? Any serious tests out there?

 

 

Surely the 'point' is that it produces some superb pictures - really superb. And I have to disagree - the contrast and sharpness at f1.2 is excellent and eminently useable. As for the T Stop value, I just did a quick comparison with the M9 on auto on an object in my room with the 50 Summilux asph. At f1.4 both showed a speed of 1/15 sec. The Nokton at f1.2 showed 1/24.

 

Tony

Edited November 3, 2011 by fotolebrocq

[NB23]

The few first hand samples I've seen from this lens didn't impress me much when compared to my 35 lux asph. Low contrast wide open and the distortion and the size (ugh!!) weren't compelling. Geez, the size is horrible just for a tiny stop gain.

 

You can't use a 50mm lens and compare the light reading to a 35 lens. You have to use another 35mm lens to be accurate. And also don't forget to bracket by 1/3. If the original reading is accurate but if you have to strengthen the contrast or lighten the picture a little bit to give it some crisp, then it's not a stellar lens as it's claimed to be and the f1.2 stop has to be questioned, IMO.

 

I am not a lens tester, I don't shill on equipment I am about to sell. I just call what I see...

[jaques]

I think this is a great lens- and for the price- amazing. Build quality is fantastic- size is fine- and focus is spot on.

 

I don't know whether it has a Nikon look, a Leica like affect- or whatever- most of all it looks like a fast 35mm lens...

 

I will be selling off a few (now) redundant 35's and keeping this one.

 

I am pretty sure that it is a true 1.2 lens. I have tested it against summicron 35 f2 and CV 35 1.4.

[mustafasoleiman]

OK as promised here is a follow up with some images taken with the Nokton all of them wide open, the last one in very dim lighting 1000 asa, f1.2, 1/20th

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Hannes Lummes]

I'm sorry guys but I don't see the point of this lens. At f1.2 the contrast is so bad that one has to stop to f1.4 at least to gain some quality.

And while we're at f1.4, the lux pre-asph is so small that it's nonsense not to own it. Or even the lux asph where it absolutely shines from f1.4.

 

My biggest question is the T-stop value of the Nokton. Because of its lack of contrast and insane falloff, is it truly a T:1.2? T:1.3 or even 1.4, maybe? If so, there is absolutely no purpose to this lens.

 

So, what is its T stop value? Any serious tests out there?

 

Well I am sorry too, but you really don't seem to know the difference between lux pre asph and nokton 35/1.2. I have them both and have been shooting them extensively and compared directly because 35 is my favourite focal lenght. If you actually believe that pre ashp is f/1.4 then nokton is surely f/1.2. But I don't, and it is actually easy to see that the last step from 1.4 to 1.2 is not quite that big.

 

But to the other, much more important and obvious differences. Nokton is almost free from coma at 1.2, whereas lux pre asph is totally horrendous. Surely nokton contrast is not perfect at 1.2 but it is WAY better at 1.4 than pre asph at 1.4. And bokeh: Pre asph bokeh is not great at 1.4, actually it is only ok at 2.0 and good from 2.8 on, whereas Nokton bokeh is good at 1.2 already.

 

Nokton does not flare much, pre asph flares like hell sometimes, with annoying veiling effect.

 

Insane falloff? Really? Not worse than pre asph for sure, better. Size does matter.

 

I use both lenses. When I want to have a small and light lens, I obviously choose pre asph. When I don't want to all the time think whether a certain scene will work with pre asph's compromises I take Nokton, and surely hate the weight.

 

Pre asph is very good, actually still one of the best (but not the best) 35s for scenes requiring zero distortion and maximum of 2,8 aperture. (and not having difficult flare inducing lighning)

 

And to put it another way "and while we are at f/2.8 summicron apsh / biogon 35/2.8 are so small and perfect that it is ridiculous not to own them"

 

I don't think lens quality is that important for good pictures, but I am totally, I mean severely, interested in lens quality and optics and my bag would only have lux asph lenses in it if I could afford them. Just for the feeling to own the best.

[mustafasoleiman]

Well I am sorry too, but you really don't seem to know the difference between lux pre asph and nokton 35/1.2. I have them both and have been shooting them extensively and compared directly because 35 is my favourite focal lenght. If you actually believe that pre ashp is f/1.4 then nokton is surely f/1.2. But I don't, and it is actually easy to see that the last step from 1.4 to 1.2 is not quite that big.

 

But to the other, much more important and obvious differences. Nokton is almost free from coma at 1.2, whereas lux pre asph is totally horrendous. Surely nokton contrast is not perfect at 1.2 but it is WAY better at 1.4 than pre asph at 1.4. And bokeh: Pre asph bokeh is not great at 1.4, actually it is only ok at 2.0 and good from 2.8 on, whereas Nokton bokeh is good at 1.2 already.

 

Nokton does not flare much, pre asph flares like hell sometimes, with annoying veiling effect.

 

Insane falloff? Really? Not worse than pre asph for sure, better. Size does matter.

 

I use both lenses. When I want to have a small and light lens, I obviously choose pre asph. When I don't want to all the time think whether a certain scene will work with pre asph's compromises I take Nokton, and surely hate the weight.

 

Pre asph is very good, actually still one of the best (but not the best) 35s for scenes requiring zero distortion and maximum of 2,8 aperture. (and not having difficult flare inducing lighning)

 

And to put it another way "and while we are at f/2.8 summicron apsh / biogon 35/2.8 are so small and perfect that it is ridiculous not to own them"

 

I don't think lens quality is that important for good pictures, but I am totally, I mean severely, interested in lens quality and optics and my bag would only have lux asph lenses in it if I could afford them. Just for the feeling to own the best.

 

This was exactly my experience of the Lux pre asph as well... I ended up selling it for a cron asph when I got my first M digital and I missed it since... Now the Nokton is softening the longing.

[NB23]

I haven't used the pre asph next to the Nokton. But the pre-asph being actually smaller then the 40 cron and Minuscule next to the Giant Nokton, I see no reason in life to want half a stop gain in a giant DSLR-like package.

 

That's just me.

[fotolebrocq]

I haven't used the pre asph next to the Nokton. But the pre-asph being actually smaller then the 40 cron and Minuscule next to the Giant Nokton, I see no reason in life to want half a stop gain in a giant DSLR-like package.

 

That's just me.

 

 

You are quite right, the Nokton is a big lens - but it's small in comparison to my Canon 50 f1.2 and half the size of my Canon 35 f1.4 so it's definitely not in the 'Giant' SLR size league. It's all about image quality for me really and it shines in that dept. - and IMO the Nokton also looks pretty neat on the M9. Mind you, I would also quite like the Summilux pre-asph but my Summicron asph suits just fine when I want a compact 35mm.

 

As an aside, the Nokton is smaller and lighter than the 21mm and 24mm Summilux and the 50mm Noctilux...I know this proves little but I'm just saying..

 

Anyway, as you say, that's just me...

Edited November 7, 2011 by fotolebrocq

[viramati]

Unfortunately it is still big enough to nearly block at a 1/4 of the viewfinder!!!. Apart from that it would appear to be a superb lens

[Hannes Lummes]

Just a couple of boring but good flare test pictures. Onion ring bokeh is visible sometimes as you can see, but if requires fairly small lights far away to be obvious. (or very small lights near)

Both fully open. No filter.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[viboons]

I like this lens when taking picture in door. Just have got it and not yet taken any picture out door. Some friends told me , with ND at f1.2, out door picture looks special.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erure]

I had a question for the new v2 owners -- how did you overcome the 0.5m not being able to focus issue? I had no idea that Leica RF cameras can only focus down to 0.7m, so when I received the v2 on loan, I was extremely disappointed that you couldn't focus with the rangefinder until 0.7m. So much so that I'm now leaning more towards the v1 -- why have 0.5m when you can't use it at 0.5m? After taking a few dozen photos with the v2 I'm warming up to it but I still would rather get the v1. I guess it's because I was just really, really excited at the 0.5m close focus range. If anyone could give me some advice on this (for me, would the v1 be better?), I'd really appreciate it. Thank you!