Any experience with Voigtlander 40mm 1.4?

[rivi1969]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

Just wondering if you have tried the CV 40mm f1.4, I have the Zeiss 35mm f2 and I am interested in this little 40. The 1.2 is too big and heavy, and more expensive, so any comment will be appreciate.

Have a great week,

Ricardo

Edited July 19, 2020 by rivi1969

[Guest]

Matt osborne does a nice hands on review of the lens on his youtube channel and there is a review in german by a young guy taking some cool portraits of his girlfriend with the lens[ his name is florian hoflefner] .

Its said to be similar to the voigtlander 35mm f1.4. in its rendition.

[Advertisement]

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

[rivi1969]

57 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

Matt osborne does a nice hands on review of the lens on his youtube channel and there is a review in german by a young guy taking some cool portraits of his girlfriend with the lens[ his name is florian hoflefner] .

Its said to be similar to the voigtlander 35mm f1.4. in its rendition.

Thank you Steve, I will check those reviews. 👍🏼👍🏼

[jaeger]

someone has write up on DPreview with sample pictures. 

I personal had few CV lenses before (50mm 1.1, 35mm 1.2II, etc...) but now I only keep the 40mm f1.2 

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by jaeger

[pippy]

On 7/20/2020 at 1:10 AM, steve 1959 said:

...Its said to be similar to the voigtlander 35mm f1.4. in its rendition...

The 40mm f1.4 Nokton was the first lens I ever bought specifically for my first digi-M (an M8.2) and to this day, with full-frame bodies, is still an absolute favourite for general use. Often its the only lens I will take with me on an outing.

Whilst it can hardly be said to be as crisp as the newer Leica offerings wide-open it does, nonetheless, render o-o-f stuff beautifully (IMO) and has a nice 3D pop in its favour. Vignetting is present at f1.4 but pretty much disappears by f2.8 at which aperture(and beyond) it has sharpened-up nicely and behaves pretty much like any other 'standard' lens (with the M8.2 crop-factor it was the equivalent of a 53mm).

An example and a 100% crop to give an idea. Shot at f1.4 this was one of the very first, throwaway, images I took purely in the interests of seeing how the lens perfomed wide-open so please ignore any and all aesthetic considerations!;

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!

It is only fair to add that several people have reported experiencing unacceptable focus-shift issues with this lens. Having never noticed it in practice myself I decided to undertake some closely-controlled studio tests at various distances and apertures. I found that there were certain conditions under which images could be slightly back-focussed but, as I say, I had to go look for any issues as in 'real life' shooting there had never had a noticeable affect on any image I had shot - either before or, for that matter, since. YMMV.

As far as how it behaves in comparison to its sister 35mm f1.4 is concerned; there is a new-formula 35mm f1.4 Voiglander available. The V1 lens was reworked for a number of reasons; mostly a very marked tendency towards barrel-distortion and (apparently) worse back-focus issues than has the 40mm. I had, in fact, considered the 35 in place of the 40 but having seen how both behaved (the 40 exhibits some very minor barrel-distortion) chose the 40. My reasoning (bourne-out by experimentation) was that by the time I had reworked / corrected any images shot with the 35 I was effectively at the same point as had I used the 40 in the first place.

The 35mm f1.4 V2 is an altogether more-corrected lens than the V1 and would be well worth considering. I just happen to like the field-of-view of a 40!

One bit of advice I will offer; if (like me) you use any filter and a lenshood and are going to be using the lens on a full-frame body then it's worth buying the dedicated Voigtlander hood. I used a generic 3rd party vented hood with the M8.2 but, once I bought a FF body, this combination caused some image blockage / cut-off in the extreme corners at smaller apertures. This is rectified with the 'proper' hood because the Voigt offering clips-on (3-point-bayonet fashion) to the outside of the lens-flange and the filter, therefore, effectively sits inside the hood itself and the front-most part of the hood isn't as far forward as the front-edge of the generic 35mm hood was when it was screwed onto the front of a filter.

Philip.

Edited July 23, 2020 by pippy

[250swb]

I would say focus shift is the problem (not that Leica lenses of the era modeled don't do the same thing), so why choose a 40mm when you could have a 35mm which at least matches the framelines? I have both the 40mm and 35mm Nokton, and in their way they are typical of 1970's Leica lenses, but I have a 'better' lens in the 35mm Asph Summicron and the 35mm LTM Skopar. HOWEVER, wide open these Noktons are very impactful lenses, and my 35mm Nokton is SC (for single coated), so even more of an outlier. So bottom line, absolutely use these lenses if you have an EVF (to compensate for focus shift) and want to add a bit of random excitement, they work how they should, but not as everybody expects.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is my most unused lens, not a bad lens but I have a preasph Summilux and prefer that. But the images are good just too close to the Summilux in FL and the issue with the 50mm instead of 35mm frame is activated. Thinking about getting it adjusted.

[Laidley]

I used to shoot the 40mm 1.4 classic on a Bessa r3a back around 2008?.  It's a fantastic lens on film.  So much so that I've been thinking about putting some extra cash in my pocket and unloading my 35 cron for a 35 1.4 Voigt.

Voigtlander makes fantastic lenses that are extremely well built.  They have a good amount of contrast and a different rendering than Leica glass.  I find it more organic than the new Leica lenses that are more geared toward digital.  If you are looking for a fast lens because you are a boken junky the Voigt lenses generally have a slightly more noisy boken than Leica.  As a film shooter I'm more concerned about light collection so a 1.4 or 1.2 at a fraction of the cost of a Lux or Cron is invaluable and at the end of the day the differences are truly irrelevant.

The only thing I would suggest is if you are looking to buy the 40mm for an M body you may want to pass and get the 35.  I got by with the 40 on the bessa because it has native frame lines.  When I moved to the M, framing with the 50 framelines was fine as it gives you a little bit of breathing room to crop but it still felt unnatural in the view finder.

The other issue is the close focusing distance on the Voigt lenses.  They focus closer so on an M body you have a dead zone past .7m in the view finder.  I have a tendency to shoot stopped down and pull focus past the subject slightly to give an acceptable area of focus but it can be irritating if you are the type of shooter who doesn't reset your focus to infinity between shots as you may end up hunting a bit in the dead zone. 

All that being said.  Voigtlander lenses are right up there with Leica (don't kill me).  I still own the nokton 40 1.2 that I use on a Sony A7RIV and good god is it absolutely gorgeous. 

[pippy]

15 hours ago, 250swb said:

I would say focus shift is the problem...

Just to try to give Ricardo a bit more 'meat' to this issue I'd be interested to hear if the problem you have experienced matches up with mine, Steve?

With my example the back-focus becomes a problem when the subject-matter is at close-range (say near-focus to c. 3m) and gradually worsens from 'not an issue' to 'pretty bad' as the aperture is closed down to around f5.6 after which point DoF starts to make things acceptable once more and by f11 all is well. With subject-matter at the next 'range' (say 3m to 5m) the problem at wider aperture is less noticeable and, in stopping-down, I rapidly arrived at the point where, again, it was no longer an issue (subject-matter beyond 5m is, IMX, never an issue at any aperture). This was my experience in the studio test alluded to above.

For my use it hadn't been apparent because when I am close-focussing I am usually somewhere in the f1.4 - f2.8 zone and beyond 5m there is no problem (with my example).

Does this sound familiar or was your experience different?

Philip.

Edited July 24, 2020 by pippy

[rivi1969]

On 7/19/2020 at 10:16 PM, jaeger said:

someone has write up on DPreview with sample pictures. 

I personal had few CV lenses before (50mm 1.1, 35mm 1.2II, etc...) but now I only keep the 40mm f1.2 

 

I heard those new f1.2 lenses are pretty stunning, how do you like it??

[rivi1969]

On 7/23/2020 at 11:00 AM, pippy said:

The 40mm f1.4 Nokton was the first lens I ever bought specifically for my first digi-M (an M8.2) and to this day, with full-frame bodies, is still an absolute favourite for general use. Often its the only lens I will take with me on an outing.

Whilst it can hardly be said to be as crisp as the newer Leica offerings wide-open it does, nonetheless, render o-o-f stuff beautifully (IMO) and has a nice 3D pop in its favour. Vignetting is present at f1.4 but pretty much disappears by f2.8 at which aperture(and beyond) it has sharpened-up nicely and behaves pretty much like any other 'standard' lens (with the M8.2 crop-factor it was the equivalent of a 53mm).

An example and a 100% crop to give an idea. Shot at f1.4 this was one of the very first, throwaway, images I took purely in the interests of seeing how the lens perfomed wide-open so please ignore any and all aesthetic considerations!;

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!

It is only fair to add that several people have reported experiencing unacceptable focus-shift issues with this lens. Having never noticed it in practice myself I decided to undertake some closely-controlled studio tests at various distances and apertures. I found that there were certain conditions under which images could be slightly back-focussed but, as I say, I had to go look for any issues as in 'real life' shooting there had never had a noticeable affect on any image I had shot - either before or, for that matter, since. YMMV.

As far as how it behaves in comparison to its sister 35mm f1.4 is concerned; there is a new-formula 35mm f1.4 Voiglander available. The V1 lens was reworked for a number of reasons; mostly a very marked tendency towards barrel-distortion and (apparently) worse back-focus issues than has the 40mm. I had, in fact, considered the 35 in place of the 40 but having seen how both behaved (the 40 exhibits some very minor barrel-distortion) chose the 40. My reasoning (bourne-out by experimentation) was that by the time I had reworked / corrected any images shot with the 35 I was effectively at the same point as had I used the 40 in the first place.

The 35mm f1.4 V2 is an altogether more-corrected lens than the V1 and would be well worth considering. I just happen to like the field-of-view of a 40!

One bit of advice I will offer; if (like me) you use any filter and a lenshood and are going to be using the lens on a full-frame body then it's worth buying the dedicated Voigtlander hood. I used a generic 3rd party vented hood with the M8.2 but, once I bought a FF body, this combination caused some image blockage / cut-off in the extreme corners at smaller apertures. This is rectified with the 'proper' hood because the Voigt offering clips-on (3-point-bayonet fashion) to the outside of the lens-flange and the filter, therefore, effectively sits inside the hood itself and the front-most part of the hood isn't as far forward as the front-edge of the generic 35mm hood was when it was screwed onto the front of a filter.

Philip.

Beautiful picture Philip, thanks for sharing it. 

I had maybe 12 years ago the first version of the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2, I use it with the Epson R-D1, and I regret selling both! 

My only M-mount lenses at the moment are the CV 21mm f4 (which I really like) and the Zeiss ZM 35mm f2, optically excellent, but one-stop shallower DoF would be nice to have. Like you I also like the 40mm FoV, I have the tiny Canon 40mm f2.8 with my 5D and years ago I had the Lumix 20mm f1.7, also tiny and very good. I will check the hood once I decided which lens to get, my Zeiss for example is too long and blocks part of the finder.  

Cheers,

Ricardo

[rivi1969]

On 7/23/2020 at 2:55 PM, 250swb said:

I would say focus shift is the problem (not that Leica lenses of the era modeled don't do the same thing), so why choose a 40mm when you could have a 35mm which at least matches the framelines? I have both the 40mm and 35mm Nokton, and in their way they are typical of 1970's Leica lenses, but I have a 'better' lens in the 35mm Asph Summicron and the 35mm LTM Skopar. HOWEVER, wide open these Noktons are very impactful lenses, and my 35mm Nokton is SC (for single coated), so even more of an outlier. So bottom line, absolutely use these lenses if you have an EVF (to compensate for focus shift) and want to add a bit of random excitement, they work how they should, but not as everybody expects.

That would be nice, but unfortunately there is no finder for the M8 or M9P which are my cameras :)) 

[rivi1969]

On 7/24/2020 at 5:25 AM, pippy said:

Just to try to give Ricardo a bit more 'meat' to this issue I'd be interested to hear if the problem you have experienced matches up with mine, Steve?

With my example the back-focus becomes a problem when the subject-matter is at close-range (say near-focus to c. 3m) and gradually worsens from 'not an issue' to 'pretty bad' as the aperture is closed down to around f5.6 after which point DoF starts to make things acceptable once more and by f11 all is well. With subject-matter at the next 'range' (say 3m to 5m) the problem at wider aperture is less noticeable and, in stopping-down, I rapidly arrived at the point where, again, it was no longer an issue (subject-matter beyond 5m is, IMX, never an issue at any aperture). This was my experience in the studio test alluded to above.

For my use it hadn't been apparent because when I am close-focussing I am usually somewhere in the f1.4 - f2.8 zone and beyond 5m there is no problem (with my example).

Does this sound familiar or was your experience different?

Philip.

Philip,

So if I shoot wide open (which is what I like to do) the focus shift is not noticeable? I am not quite sure I get this whole focus shift issue. 

[FrozenInTime]

1 hour ago, rivi1969 said:

I heard those new f1.2 lenses are pretty stunning, how do you like it??

The 40/1.2 is amazingly good : very smooth transitions and contrast similar to the 50/0.95 noctilux wide open; sharp with low distortion all across the frame stopped down.

It is a fat lens, but not that long so, on camera, still fits in the small Newsware pouch.

I sold my 40/1.4 SC and MC lenses, a 50mm sonnar and a 50 summilux and now use the 40/1.2 90% of the time ( I even bought a second one to run monochrom/film on one body and colour on another).

[tommonego@gmail.com]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb rivi1969:

Philip,

So if I shoot wide open (which is what I like to do) the focus shift is not noticeable? I am not quite sure I get this whole focus shift issue. 

The focus shift is between f2.8 and f4 and is so slight that it only affects close-ups. You'd be fine at f1.4 and OK for anything over say 5 ft. Also over f4 DOF negates the focus shift.

Edited August 3, 2020 by tommonego@gmail.com

[jaeger]

22 hours ago, rivi1969 said:

I heard those new f1.2 lenses are pretty stunning, how do you like it??

I only shoot raw so I can't speak for jpg performance.  From what I see out of the raw files, the images are pale (washed) compare to the summilux, but I'm able to make it Leica after editing.  The low light and backlit are handled well but not excellent.  I think it has a little focus shift down to f4.  I keep it because it's the smallest f/1.2, M mount and reasonable priced decent glass.  If I only shoot still, I would probably get the classic 35mm f1.4 II, which gives a little vintage rendering that I love.  To answer your question, yes I like it, but it's not my most beloved lens. 

 

[rivi1969]

56 minutes ago, jaeger said:

I only shoot raw so I can't speak for jpg performance.  From what I see out of the raw files, the images are pale (washed) compare to the summilux, but I'm able to make it Leica after editing.  The low light and backlit are handled well but not excellent.  I think it has a little focus shift down to f4.  I keep it because it's the smallest f/1.2, M mount and reasonable priced decent glass.  If I only shoot still, I would probably get the classic 35mm f1.4 II, which gives a little vintage rendering that I love.  To answer your question, yes I like it, but it's not my most beloved lens. 

 

Thank you jaeger,

I think I will try to find a nice 35mm f1.4 II. I guess the extra investment, size and weight penalty for 1/2 stop faster of the f1.2 is not very worthy for my needs. (Besides I am not after clinical perfection).

[jaeger]

11 hours ago, rivi1969 said:

Thank you jaeger,

I think I will try to find a nice 35mm f1.4 II. I guess the extra investment, size and weight penalty for 1/2 stop faster of the f1.2 is not very worthy for my needs. (Besides I am not after clinical perfection).

have you watched this? 

 

[g2van]

I had the 40/1.4. didn't find any focus shift issues with my copy. The look wide open is more classic i e slightly softer and glowy but from f2 it's sharp and contrasty. It's super light and easy to use so it was my go to hiking lens some time back. Using it with 50mm framelines on a Leica was my biggest issue with it so I sold it. Later I had the Minolta 40/2 but it was home crafted to bring up the 35mm framelines and it was easier for me to shoot that way. 

I would go for the Voigt 35/1.4 II because it's sharper and has the proper framelines.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BOLEX]

I often am surprised at the images from the 40mm 1.4 MC.   Sharp, colorful lots of character and creamy backgrounds. Yes often some unusual Bokeh, but I always like it.  I'm simply shocked that I paid $400 for this lens.   I've had it for about 7 years.  Bought it again a couple of years ago because I gave the first one away, The newer one does seem a bit better.

The 40mm 1.2 absolutely takes my breath away.  Stunningly gorgeous images.

But both great, really,