Ecar Posted June 19, 2013 Share #21 Posted June 19, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I received my (chrome) copy of the new lens yesterday. Haven't had time to really test it, but FWIW here are some initial impressions on ergonomics: feels heavy, solid and very well built; I'd have preferred the metal hood and cap to be chrome and not black, but so be it you may or may not like its look and/or the knurled focus ring - I like the former and don't mind the latter (it actually provides a good grip for the fingers) focus and aperture rings are somewhat on the stiff side, but this is not uncommon in a brand new lens my biggest gripe is with the markings on the barrel: they are black, thin and hard to see, particularly in low light, on the shiny chrome (I don't wear glasses and have excellent eyesight). The black version, with white markings (and cheaper), is probably a better choice in this respect Regarding IQ, I feel it would be unfair to give an opinion after so little use. For the time being, suffice it say that I'm pleased by its old-school signature, bokeh and color rendering, but that the pronounced purple fringing is a bit of a nuisance. More to follow when I have time to put the lens through its paces. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Hi Ecar, Take a look here The new Voigtländer Nokton 1,5/50 aspherical. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wosim Posted June 19, 2013 Share #22 Posted June 19, 2013 Steve Huff published his review of the new Nokton: Steve Huff, The Voigtlander 50 1.5 Aspherical VM Lens Review Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted June 20, 2013 Share #23 Posted June 20, 2013 Steve Huff published his review of the new Nokton: ...with the strange opinion that aperture can significantly affect distortion. I'm too sure about it not being possible, that I'm not going to stack the focus series in PS, and I can not see it either. Funny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeswe Posted June 21, 2013 Share #24 Posted June 21, 2013 Yeah, funny indeed, I stumbled over the same thing and I think it tells us all we have to know about the competence of the reviewer ... That being said, for me personally he disqualifies himself by obtaining his review sample not from an ordinary dealer but directly from the "official" importer and in return advertizing for him. Taking into consideration that CV has obviously outsourced final quality control to the end customer I think it would be rather naive to not assume that Mr. G made dang sure that Mr. Huff received the very best sample available for his review ... and not just the random "dog" that could end up in your or my hands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted June 21, 2013 Share #25 Posted June 21, 2013 ...with the strange opinion that aperture can significantly affect distortion. I'm too sure about it not being possible, .... Why do you consider it strange that distortion can be significantly affected by aperture? Most distortion occurs at the outer edges of a lens so shooting with the aperture wide open will include many rays from the edge of the lens where distortion is most extreme. Stopping the aperture down inhibits a large proportion of the rays emanating from the edge and the image will contain less distortion. Clearly if the aperture is stopped down far enough diffraction starts to introduce distortion so the sweet spot with least distortion normal lies between wide open and closed right down. For Leica lenses it's typically around f/5.6 or f/8 depending on the lens. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted June 21, 2013 Share #26 Posted June 21, 2013 Taking into consideration that CV has obviously outsourced final quality control to the end customer I think it would be rather naive to not assume that Mr. G made dang sure that Mr. Huff received the very best sample available for his review ... and not just the random "dog" that could end up in your or my hands. 'Outsourced QC to the end customer' – Huh? No reason why a 'good' example should not be sent out for review as this in effect sets a standard of expectations for future buyers and they can complain if their purchases are below par. Anyway, I can think of at least three new Leica lenses I have bought where the imaging was not up to scratch and where other examples of the same lens were better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted June 21, 2013 Share #27 Posted June 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why do you consider it strange that distortion can be significantly affected by aperture? ... Pete. Well, simple, If distortion was heavily aperture dependent, it would make parts of the picture extremely smeared at full aperture, because the part of the rays that is included at a smaller aperture would draw the picture to different place than the part of the rays that is only included at full aperture. There is not that kind of smearing to be seen in the pictures of the lens in question, and I have not seen it in any other common lens either. Also, note that opening the lens from f/2 to f/1.5 does not increase the amount of light at the extremes of the field much, so how on earth could it make the distortion worse? BTW, diffraction does not introduce geometric distortion. Of course it would now be nice to have an optical expert weigh in and tell the full story. To what extent is the distortion aperture dependent usually or in extreme cases? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted June 22, 2013 Share #28 Posted June 22, 2013 The source of the information I offered is Rudolf Kingslake's 'Optics in Photography', SPIE Press 1992, ISBN 0-8194-0763-1, which I paraphrased of course, but if you don't consider him to be an expert in optical design then I'm afraid I'm unable to help. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted June 22, 2013 Share #29 Posted June 22, 2013 You seem to have read something without fully understanding it, since you take diffraction into the discussion, where it has absolutely nothing to do. It does not cause geometric distortion. And you seem to be referring to optimum resolution with your reference to those apertures, not to geometric distortion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted June 22, 2013 Share #30 Posted June 22, 2013 I suspect that we're talking slightly at cross purposes here. I think you're referring to geometric distortion only and I'm referring to distortion in the wider sense that includes all types of aberration that distort the rays as they pass through the lens and prevent faithful reproduction of the object. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted June 24, 2013 Share #31 Posted June 24, 2013 Mine will be here tomorrow:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted June 24, 2013 Share #32 Posted June 24, 2013 I would be interested to see how the new 1.5 actually stacks up against the recent screw mount optically. Is it correct that the optics are the same? If so then I guess it is looks and ergonomics that separate the two. I'm happy with the look and feel of the old lens - particularly now I've solved the easy to move aperture ring with a pair of thin O rings around the barrel. Using a screw to M adapter with code indents also allows for the added advantage of being able to easily code the lens as a Summilux for exif info in Lightroom. The lens is undoubtedly a terrific performer for the price - nice to see it reborn! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 24, 2013 Share #33 Posted June 24, 2013 I would be interested to see how the new 1.5 actually stacks up against the recent screw mount optically. Is it correct that the optics are the same?.... Apparently yes : there is a comparision of the two in another thread by Michali... and the pics look really identical : new body (based on the "historical" Nokton) , M mount and 0,7m min. focus are the differences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted June 25, 2013 Share #34 Posted June 25, 2013 I picked up a copy of this lens yesterday at Tin Cheung in Hong Kong, and initial impressions are very positive. Mechanically the lens feels wonderfully solid, although there is a difference between the chrome/brass and black versions, as you would expect. Sharp and contrasty, but not overly so, with a somewhat classical rendering. The bokeh was not terribly busy. Have only shot a dozen or so sample shots, so much more time needed, but I expect this will be a wonderful portrait lens. I am anxious to try it on a Monochrom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.