35mm f1.2 VM Nokton III - New Arrival

[BrianS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't see where light fall-off is shown for the Sony and for the M10.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-voigtlander-vm-35mm-1-2-iii/

 

Did I miss it? Offset microlens arrays have the purpose of accepting light coming in at steep angles, as produced by fast lenses and wide-angle lenses. The 35/1.2 is both. Leica sensors use thin stacks and offset microlens arrays. The Sony has a thick stack. His review is very useful for someone with a Sony camera.

Edited December 20, 2020 by BrianS

[Advertisement]

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

[astrostl]

You didn't miss it because it is practically irrelevant in context. With characteristics of particular note across bodies/sensors, they contrast the two. If you look at more M10 reviews (I stress more M10 reviews because this also happened to be an M10 review) around the internet, you will find many folks saying something to the effect of it vignetting hard wide open and getting a lot better but not perfect as you stop down - which is to say the same general conclusion as the A7 except with less specificity.

What you won't find is that a photo of a tulip will look like a tulip on an M10, and a pterodactyl in flight on an A7 because of alleged undemonstrated material differences in vignetting. It's also one of the easiest effects to digitally correct in any case between in-camera lens profiles, processor lens profiles, and/or processor adjustments.

Which yet again (I mean we have the A/B right here on one page) demonstrates rather than just asserts that controlled and considered A7-only reviews on M lenses are still extremely accurate at predicting optical performance on M bodies, with what differences that do exist being well-known and easy to mentally account.

Edited December 20, 2020 by astrostl

[BrianS]

I missed it because the reviewer did not bother to take the measurement. The measurement given of light as collected by the SOny sensor is very different from what would be measured on a Leica.

As an example. The review of the 7 Artisans 50mm F1.1 states "Vignetting wide open focused at infinity is really excessive. At f/1.1 it is a whopping 4.1 stops. Stopping down to f/1.4 reduces vignetting to 3 stops, at f/2 it is 2.5 stops and at f/2.8 still 2 stops."

Those numbers are valid for a Sony camera, but not for a Leica digital camera that is optimized for collecting light at angles produced by this lens, and by wide-angle lenses. 4.1 F-Stops is a factor of 17 reduction in light collected.

The light fall-off with an M Monochrom for the 7 artisans 50/1.1 lens used wide-open, at infinity is closer to 2.5 F-Stops at the corners. If you don't think that is important, buy a Sony. Center values ~190 when scaled from 0:255, corner value ~36. Factor of 5.3, about 2.5 F-Stops. Wide-Open, lens coding turned off.

 

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!

Edited December 20, 2020 by BrianS

[astrostl]

The question isn't whether or not one should "buy a Sony", it's whether or not an M lens properly reviewed on an A7 body tells a sufficient story about its performance (it does).

In adding a third goalpost here on vignetting, you're opening the fact that even M bodies have different edge characteristics - the M10-R, for example, has much less color cast in the corners. But if someone saw a VM 21/4 reviewed on an M10-P but had an M10-R, I wouldn't tell them that it might has well have been reviewed on a kazoo. I would tell them that the M10-R would rate to perform better in that regard, and that while an M10-R review would be ideal if that was a large consideration for them that the M10-P review would still be broadly useful and accurate regarding the lens' characteristics.

Vignetting also performs differently depending on how a lens is focused, so the same lens performed using the same parameters is most ideal for cross-comparison and what you're referencing on the M10-M may thus be particularly inaccurate. But it doesn't really matter as in any case vignetting can be approached in actual life like this: "it vignettes a ton wide open" or "it is practically free of vignetting by f/4". In broad generalities, because again it is one of the most easily-corrected properties through the use of profiles and adjustments.

If you're looking for a smoking gun on why an A7 can't tell an M lens story, vignetting really isn't it. Wide edge performance is the biggest one, and here's how that can be approached: "expect better edges at infinity on wide lenses on an M body." Broadly equal performance, possibly better performance on wide edges at infinity and/or mid-zone field curvature. Not entirely different performance.

[BrianS]

Someone reading the Review on the 50/1.1 might get the idea that the lens suffers from a 4.1 F-Stop drop off at the corners. That is not a problem with the lens, it is a problem with the Sony Sensor and stack. When reading reviews on lenses, that site is good for judging how a lens will work on a Sony. If the review wants to give an A/B comparison between the Sony and a Leica, they should do all of the tests on both cameras. The M Monochrom gathers 3x as much light at the edges according to my test, that is significant. OR- the review states that vignetting is at least 3 times worse for the 50/1.1 7Artisans lens than it actually is. That is not a test of the lens, but just a test of the lens adapted to a Sony.

I'm going to modify my code that processes DNG files from the M Monochrom to take averages of 5x5 squares along the diagonal of the image and write out the values so they can be plotted. Easy enough to do, might be an interesting addition to tests that I do on lenses.

[Keith (M)]

Getting back to the original purpose of the thread (i.e. the performance of version III of the Nokton 35mm f1.2), it has been an on-going delight to discover its attributes which combined with the light weight and small size (for a 35mm f1.2) have made it my 'go to' lens in that focal length.

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!

M10M 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Keith (M)

[epand56]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/19/2020 at 6:45 AM, konstiq said:

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!

Those are quite strange aperture blades... Totally different from those of my Summilux 35/1.4 Asph. lens

[konstiq]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb epand56:

Those are quite strange aperture blades... Totally different from those of my Summilux 35/1.4 Asph. lens

It gives you an unique and never seen before bokeh

[Rob L]

When the 40 1.2 came out in Sony E Mount it was said to have pretty severe focus shift, which was not a concern with focusing through an electronic viewfinder at taking aperture. My understanding is that all three 1.2 CV lenses are of a very similar design. Any comments around focus shift with this lens on Leica? Seems like most of these photos were taken wide open.

[Keith (M)]

24 minutes ago, Rob L said:

When the 40 1.2 came out in Sony E Mount it was said to have pretty severe focus shift, which was not a concern with focusing through an electronic viewfinder at taking aperture. My understanding is that all three 1.2 CV lenses are of a very similar design. Any comments around focus shift with this lens on Leica? Seems like most of these photos were taken wide open.

I had not noticed any but there again I had not specifically looked for it - until now. Below are a series I've just taken with the f1.2 III on M240 at f1.2, 1.4, 2, 2.8 & 4.  Focus via RF on the letter 'E' in 'Wildlife' at 0.7m.  I've cropped them by about 50% to remove extraneous background.  ISO's range from 1250 to 6400.  Dng's imported into LR and after cropping exported as 350k .jpg's.  A very quick and decidedly unscientific test but the results do not raise any concerns re focus-shift.

 

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!

[Herr Barnack]

From the review:

Quote

not good

• coma correction
• distortion
• fileld curvature when used on a Sony camera (bokeh at some distances suffers)
• vignetting

Based on the reviewer's own commentary, it sounds like the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 Aspherical III is no great shakes. 

It seems that the main reason for getting the lens would be to shoot at f/1.2 for the bokeh it produces.  However - placing your main subject dead center where the zone of sharpness is at f/1.2 produces a static, lifeless composition in the majority of situations.  Placing your main subject off center requires stopping down to probably f/4 to have good sharpness of the main subject, which defeats the purpose of the f/1.2 maximum aperture.

At $1049 USD, the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 may be a reasonably good performer in its $1000-1100 price category.  I would expect the slower $1141 USD Zeiss Biogon T* 35mm f/2 ZM to produce better overall image quality, even though the bokeh may be less than what the  Nokton 35mm f/1.2 offers.  So then it becomes a choice between maximum bokeh vs. overall image quality at maximum aperture - doesn't it?? 

I'm not a pixel peeper but I am interested in image quality. 

Maybe I'm missing something here...

Edited January 24, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[Keith (M)]

But on the other hand:-

I've had the ZM 35mm Biogon f2 for over ten years and whilst it is a very competent performer I prefer the character of the new Nokton.  

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!

[Rob L]

Thanks Keith! I had the 40 1.2 for Sony, so pretty familiar with other aspects.

[Herr Barnack]

5 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

But on the other hand:-

I've had the ZM 35mm Biogon f2 for over ten years and whilst it is a very competent performer I prefer the character of the new Nokton.  

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!

@Keith (M) You are shooting with the version 3 ( Nokton 35mm f/1.2 Aspherical III) - is that correct?

Are you shooting mainly at f/1.2 or do you stop down?

I find this lens interesting but am a little leery of dropping $1049 on one without having a chance to shoot with it at least a little before pulling the trigger.

[vanGeist]

vor 34 Minuten schrieb Herr Barnack:

@Keith (M) You are shooting with the version 3 ( Nokton 35mm f/1.2 Aspherical III) - is that correct?

Are you shooting mainly at f/1.2 or do you stop down?

I find this lens interesting but am a little leery of dropping $1049 on one without having a chance to shoot with it at least a little before pulling the trigger.

You may look into version II of the lens. I got a decent one with the hood for ~500 € and it's maybe the best ultra-fast lens I owned so far. Size and weight are okay for a 1.2 M lens and the image quality is actually very good. Yes, version III is smaller, lighter and with even better image quality, but the old one is one heck of a lens.

[Keith (M)]

11 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

@Keith (M) You are shooting with the version 3 ( Nokton 35mm f/1.2 Aspherical III) - is that correct?

Are you shooting mainly at f/1.2 or do you stop down?

I find this lens interesting but am a little leery of dropping $1049 on one without having a chance to shoot with it at least a little before pulling the trigger.

Depends very much on the subject and what I want to achieve, so naturally I have used apertures right across the range.  The lens performs as I had hoped and expected.  Very pleased with it in all aspects.

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!

[Keith (M)]

First outdoor use of this lens on M240.  The 35mm Nokton III f1.2 is proving to be a versatile lens.  First image at f1.2, second at f5.6.  For a 35mm f1.2 lens it is compact and lightweight.

 

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!

[BastianK]

Am 20.12.2020 um 13:55 schrieb BrianS:

Did I miss it? Offset microlens arrays have the purpose of accepting light coming in at steep angles, as produced by fast lenses and wide-angle lenses. The 35/1.2 is both. Leica sensors use thin stacks and offset microlens arrays. The Sony has a thick stack. His review is very useful for someone with a Sony camera.

Those magical offset microlenses have given me a maximum difference of 0.3 EV in the extreme corners when comparing using a given lens on the M10 to one of the Sony BSI sensors.
And this is having used plenty of M-mount lenses from different manufacturers on both cameras.

What makes a bigger difference: what "picture profile" are you shooting at, what does your raw development look like and so on.
So comparing your values to that of someone else's review makes little to no sense.

I don't include vignetting charts taken with both cameras because frankly: it makes no difference at all.
The question is if vignetting is 3 EV, 2 EV or 1 EV, not if it is 3.05 EV or 2.81 EV.

Edited March 2, 2021 by BastianK

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[colonel]

On 1/24/2021 at 5:30 PM, Keith (M) said:

But on the other hand:-

I've had the ZM 35mm Biogon f2 for over ten years and whilst it is a very competent performer I prefer the character of the new Nokton.  

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!

For me the contrast drop off of the biogen at f2 detracts from my usage at that aperture. The 35mm 1.2 voigtlanger has always had an ethereal feel. The version ii was terrific, especially for people. Thr version iii has reduced the weight and further sharpened up. I think it's a great lens only subservient to the wonderful summilux. The finest 35mn f1.4 for sharpness and flat field is still the zeiss. I am currently using the voightlandet 35mm f1.4 MC for its size weight and lovely colour. It's not quite as sharp as the above mentioned lenses, but the attributes mentioned make it a lovely light walkabout with the M10, and good enough that I don't feel I am missing anything. 

If you want to step down to f2 there is alot more choice but I guess not the right comparison for this lens.

It's the next 35mm on my list

[BrianS]

5 hours ago, BastianK said:

Those magical offset microlenses have given me a maximum difference of 0.3 EV in the extreme corners when comparing using a given lens on the M10 to one of the Sony BSI sensors.
And this is having used plenty of M-mount lenses from different manufacturers on both cameras.

What makes a bigger difference: what "picture profile" are you shooting at, what does your raw development look like and so on.
So comparing your values to that of someone else's review makes little to no sense.

I don't include vignetting charts taken with both cameras because frankly: it makes no difference at all.
The question is if vignetting is 3 EV, 2 EV or 1 EV, not if it is 3.05 EV or 2.81 EV.

I've made some measurements with my M9 and M Monochrom that indicate a 1 F-Stop difference in the far corners from what the Reeves site indicates for a particular lens, with lens coding turned off.

 

So maybe the CCD just does better than what you are using.