35mm f1.2 VM Nokton III - New Arrival

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another example of the lens at f1.2 & MFD of 0.5m (on M10M).

 

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]

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

[mheine]

Am 25.11.2020 um 17:54 schrieb astrostl:

I own both. Would give the VM a major advantage on size, and a minor advantage on weight and bokeh. Everything else would go to the ZM. I still think they're both wonderful lenses, and that the VM in particular shines if wide open environmental shots/portraits where the center of the frame is the main concern. The ZM is still the safe context-neutral recommendation to me if one can get past the size concerns because it's such a stellar optical all-arounder.

I posted a few comparisons of output and size at https://flic.kr/s/aHsmQsybA1 a while back (bunch of M 35s including those two).

Thank you for your comparison! I just got the ZEISS but I‘ll take closer look on the VM. Would love to compare them in real world shots, especially portraits. 

Does the VM glow like the f1.4 Nokton? And how‘s the sharpness compared to the ZEISS @f1.4? A big deal or nothing to speak about? 

[astrostl]

I'd suggest looking at the comprehensive reviews on all three lenses at phillipreeve.net

[Keith (M)]

Into the light...  on M10M.

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!

[mheine]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb astrostl:

I'd suggest looking at the comprehensive reviews on all three lenses at phillipreeve.net

Thank you for mention these reviews, I already did read them a couple of times. But honestly, they were too technically for my taste. I just want to know how it performs in real world images with some samples. 

The website for example calls the Nokton 35mm f1.4 MC a "shitty lens" which is probably just right from a technical point of view. But when you know it's flaws and use it more than a few days it's basically not that bad as described.
Look at some talented photographers such as Andre Josselin (instagram.com/josselin), he uses it like all the time and I don't think his images are looking bad. It's just a more artistic than a modern, yet perfect rendering lens.

[astrostl]

7 hours ago, mheine said:

Thank you for mention these reviews, I already did read them a couple of times. But honestly, they were too technically for my taste. I just want to know how it performs in real world images with some samples. 

The website for example calls the Nokton 35mm f1.4 MC a "shitty lens" which is probably just right from a technical point of view. But when you know it's flaws and use it more than a few days it's basically not that bad as described.
Look at some talented photographers such as Andre Josselin (instagram.com/josselin), he uses it like all the time and I don't think his images are looking bad. It's just a more artistic than a modern, yet perfect rendering lens.

You asked about "sharpness", the reviews all have many real-world samples, and I'm not seeing the word "shitty" appear anywhere on the review 🤷‍♂️

IDK how often a professional Leica ambassador is using low-end Noktons, but I personally wouldn't judge lens character using tiny compressed images.

[mheine]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 4 Stunden schrieb astrostl:

You asked about "sharpness", the reviews all have many real-world samples, and I'm not seeing the word "shitty" appear anywhere on the review 🤷‍♂️

IDK how often a professional Leica ambassador is using low-end Noktons, but I personally wouldn't judge lens character using tiny compressed images.

I think you mixed a bit, I didn't talk about the Nokton f1.2 III to be called "shitty" but the f1.4. Spotted this in the comment section and look up their review about that lens.

And yes, everyone has it's opinion and it's totally okay.

I personally like "real world" images how a lens is actually performing than chart / bokeh comparison shots, that's all. And don't get me wrong either, I like to read phillipreeve.net and they are doing a great job but I prefer more "real images" that you actually take with the lens.

This is a kind of review which gives me more of an idea about how my images will probably look with one of these lenses:
https://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2016/3/5/battle-of-the-35s-nokton-vs-summilux

[astrostl]

The difference I'm seeing between Jay Cassario site and Phillip Reeve is that the former is almost exclusively large landscape portraits at wide apertures and that the latter is a wide variety of subjects and distances. Smal previews, but with high-res over at Flickr (linked in the review). Even if I were trying to assess how my images would look with one or the other, I would radically prefer a variety of subjects, compositions, and apertures (including but not limited to the technical exercises). YMMV.

[konstiq]

got the Voigtlander 35 1.2 III yesterday and made a quick size comparison with nokton 35 1.4 II and Summilux 35 FLE.

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!

[BrianS]

They certainly have made the V3 smaller than my original. Which is still a fine performer.

 

With regard to Phillip Reeve: it appears he does most of his tests using a Sony A7 series camera. He does caveat some statements such as 'high field curvature on a Sony'. It also appears he tested the Voigtlander 35/1.4 in Sony mount, not M-Mount. With wide-angle lenses made for a Leica, hard to judge performance using images taken with a Sony A7 series sensor. Even if the Sony camera is modified for a thin stack, the offset microlens array used in Leica M series cameras gives an advantage with wide-angle lenses.

Edited December 19, 2020 by BrianS

[cboy]

7 hours ago, konstiq said:

got the Voigtlander 35 1.2 III yesterday and made a quick size comparison with nokton 35 1.4 II and Summilux 35 FLE.

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!

Can you kindly offer up your thoughts and opinions of your Voigtlander 35 1.2 III compared to the rather sweet lineup of lens you have😃. IQ, bokeh, handling, preferences etc.

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by cboy

[Herr Barnack]

It would be nice if they would spray some black paint on that unsightly chrome ring that sticks out the front... 🙄

Edited December 19, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[konstiq]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb cboy:

Can you kindly offer up your thoughts and opinions of your Voigtlander 35 1.2 III compared to the rather sweet lineup of lens you have😃. IQ, bokeh, handling, preferences etc.

 

Sure  

Just a few words to my view on lenses: I am not a pixel peeping guy and I dont judge lens performance by pictures of charts, etc. I am always looking for lenses with a special/pleasing rendering. I mean this is what we all want from a Leica system, dont we? We are looking for a special Leica look in terms of contrast, color, bokeh, etc. A lot of people see pictures taken by the Voigtländer 35 1.4 and and think it is THE Leica look (nothing wrong about it).

Link to DNGs: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1p-tD69ZI2LEuZEnC3JQRZw4Gmi5wwfe-?usp=sharing

Comparison:

• Voigtländer 35 1.4 II MC, Voigtländer 35 1.2 III and Leica Summilux 35 1.4 FLE
• Pictures: wide open (1.2 and 1.4), 1.4, 2.0, wide open with 1/2 Tiffen Black Pro Mist Filter, wide open at minimum focus distance
• what the comparison is not made for: sharpness check in corners, sharpness check at different distances (shot approx. at a distance of 2m)
• things you can check with these pictures: center sharpness, contrast, colors (not all kind of colors :D), bokeh and transition.

I dont had much time to make a proper comparison and to take pictures outside because I got my Summilux 35 FLE back from Leica Wetzlar for the second time within one month and they still havent repaired it properly: sent it to repair because the focus and aperture ring were a bit loose. Leica fixed it for around 600eur and sent it back to me with broken aperture blades (see picture attached). Well everyone can have a bad day... Sent it to Leica again and received it back with some big pieces of dirt (looks like a piece of tooth) on the aperture blades - so its the third try now. Just a short side story  

Conclusion (Summilux vs Voigtländer 35 1.2):

The only big difference (in my very limited test pictures) between the Summilux and Voigtländer 35 1.2 III is the bokeh and the transition from In-Focus and Out-of-Focus zones. Voigtländer 35 1.2 III looks smoother, Summilux looks busier - nothing negative, just a matter of preference.

Center sharpness is on the same level (I dont judge it buy zooming in 500%).

Colors/contrast look very similar to me - Summilux looks a bit more contrasty.

Voigtländer 35 1.4 II MC is a different story and I will not compare it to the other lenses. I like this small lens (used it for a year) and it is the reason why many people bought a Leica M to take pictures á la Josselin. But this lens is kind of a special effects lens (red ring flare, old school bokeh, warm, unsharp) and not there for a comparison with modern optical formula lenses.

Handling: 

Size: same length, Summilux is a bit thinner (look at my previous post)

Weight: 320gr vs 330gr - Summilux (with hood) vs Voigtländer 35 1.2 III (without hood)

Both feel solid in terms of focussing and changing aperture. There is one special thing about the Voigtländer 35 1.2 which I wasnt aware of: by the time you pass the 0,7m focus mark the lens makes a silent "clack" (end of the rangefinder "range") and you have to focus with live view at 0,6m or 0,5m.

 

If you want to check out more pictures, feel free to go to my instagram https://www.instagram.com/konstiq/

Major amount of the pictures were shot with the Voigtländer 35 1.4 II MC (often used with a pro mist filter) and the newer ones are shot with the Voigtländer 35 1.2 III.

Cheers and hope my comparison helps  

  

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!

[Simone_DF]

10 hours ago, BrianS said:

With regard to Phillip Reeve: it appears he does most of his tests using a Sony A7 series camera. He does caveat some statements such as 'high field curvature on a Sony'. It also appears he tested the Voigtlander 35/1.4 in Sony mount, not M-Mount. With wide-angle lenses made for a Leica, hard to judge performance using images taken with a Sony A7 series sensor. Even if the Sony camera is modified for a thin stack, the offset microlens array used in Leica M series cameras gives an advantage with wide-angle lenses.

Voigtlander lenses in Sony mount are optimized for Sony (duh...), as far as I know it's not just an adapter glued to the bottom a la Sigma. Some lenses on Phillip Reeve are tested on both a Sony A7x and a Leica M10 and there are comparisons between the two. Only for a few recent lenses though.

[Keith (M)]

I've made extensive use of mine since it arrived (see post #1) and it continues to produce pleasing images (to me, anyway!)  whether they be general landscape-type or aimed at subject separation.  

M10M.

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!

Not at all bad on my A7III either.  

[cboy]

5 hours ago, konstiq said:

Sure  

Just a few words to my view on lenses:

If you want to check out more pictures, feel free to go to my instagram https://www.instagram.com/konstiq/

Cheers and hope my comparison helps  

 

Thankyou Konstiq for taking the time of sharing your experience and insights to those lenses. I heartedly agree its much to do about the look and character of the lens whatever it maybe from person to person

Interesting about the rangefinder limit of the 35mm 1.2

I hope eventually you will get a proper repair job. Nice of you to have seemingly good temperament at waiting for your gear. 😄

Wonderful photos in your instagram! It was a pleasure to look at them! 

All the best

[BrianS]

3 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Voigtlander lenses in Sony mount are optimized for Sony (duh...), as far as I know it's not just an adapter glued to the bottom a la Sigma. Some lenses on Phillip Reeve are tested on both a Sony A7x and a Leica M10 and there are comparisons between the two. Only for a few recent lenses though.

Agree that a Voigtlander lens for Sony mount is optimized for it. For a wide-angle lens, that would mean a stronger retro-focus design. A review for the Voigtlander 35/1.4 in Sony mount is irrelevant to the 35/1.4 in M-Mount. I went on to read his review of M-Mount lenses, and found the 35/1.7 Ultron review.

The 35/1.7 Ultron-M is a Leica mount lens, it is not optimized for a Sony camera. A lens review should be done with the camera that it is optimized for. Otherwise it's just a "How will this lens do on my Sony".

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-ultron-11-7-35-mm-review/

The review is done with a Sony camera So if you want to use your 35/1.7 Ultron M-Mount lens on a Sony, worth reading. I would look for someone doing a review on a Leica camera if you want to know how this lens will perform on a Leica. I have the 35/1.7 Ultron in LTM- same optical formula as the M-Mount version, the coatings are different. Very sharp once stopped down a bit.

 

Back on subject, If I did not have the v1 35/1.2 Nokton- I'd buy this new one immediately. The 35/1.7 Ultron in LTM is my "go to" lens for size in that focal length. I prefer the handling of the traditional focus ring over the "retro-styled" M-Mount version. 

Edited December 19, 2020 by BrianS

[astrostl]

20 hours ago, BrianS said:

With regard to Phillip Reeve: it appears he does most of his tests using a Sony A7 series camera. He does caveat some statements such as 'high field curvature on a Sony'. It also appears he tested the Voigtlander 35/1.4 in Sony mount, not M-Mount. With wide-angle lenses made for a Leica, hard to judge performance using images taken with a Sony A7 series sensor. Even if the Sony camera is modified for a thin stack, the offset microlens array used in Leica M series cameras gives an advantage with wide-angle lenses.

7 hours ago, BrianS said:

The review is done with a Sony camera So if you want to use your 35/1.7 Ultron M-Mount lens on a Sony, worth reading. I would look for someone doing a review on a Leica camera if you want to know how this lens will perform on a Leica.

Here is an exhaustive list of adapted M lens issues on A7 bodies: the A7 often has weaker edge performance on wider lenses (mitigated with rear filters), and sometimes has field curvature. That's basically it. So if you look at a given review and 1) it's a wide lens and 2) they note that it has edge weakness, you might presume that an M body will do moderately better. Similarly, if they note field curvature issues you might also presume that an M body might do moderately better.

These are entirely marginal issues in my buying-tons-of-lenses-heavily-based-on-their-reviews experience, and think the idea of A7 bodies misrepresenting the performance of M lenses is profoundly overblown. The evidence of this is even more clear in the time since BastianK started testing M lenses with both A7 bodies as well as an M10, such as the review of the very lens being discussed in this thread. The general performance and character of a lens is not betrayed when used on A7 bodies, and what differences do exist are trivial to mentally account (and go in the M's favor).

Edited December 19, 2020 by astrostl

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BrianS]

Voigtlander took the trouble to change the optical formula for the APO Lanthar 50/2 for the M-Mount version rather than just putting a cam on the Sony version. The sensor and its stack is part of the optical path. Wide-angle and super-speed optics designed for the Leica will behave differently on the Sony. It's better to judge the lens tested on the camera that you intend to use. I tend to buy a lot of lenses, really don't pay attention to the reviews.

Edited December 19, 2020 by BrianS

[astrostl]

8 minutes ago, BrianS said:

Voigtlander took the trouble to change the optical formula for the APO Lanthar 50/2 for the M-Mount version rather than just putting a cam on the Sony version. The sensor and its stack is part of the optical path. Wide-angle and super-speed optics designed for the Leica will behave differently on the Sony. It's better to judge the lens tested on the camera that you intend to use. I tend to buy a lot of lenses, really don't pay attention to the reviews.

What is your assertion on the specific ways that they will "behave differently" aside from edges and curvature?

We now have many A/B comparisons of the same lenses, shot in the same settings, using the same subjects, and the same analysis, on both the A7 and the M10. Along with tons of sample images to objectively and subjectively compare. The only things that really come up are edges and curvature, and in easily-factored ways. That's the evidence.

Formula changes for E to mitigate those exact evidence-documented issues makes sense for those exclusively on those bodies, and doesn't need to imply anything else.