Summilux 35mm vs. Nokton Classic 35/1.4 II

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, Ernstk said:

The full range of vision of the human eye (including peripheral vision) is regarded  as being equivalent to approximately a 22mm lens (on a 24x36 format camera). The part of our vision that we 'see' most with, the cone of visual attention, is around 55 degrees, which equates to a 43mm lens. 

Ernst

Additionally, our brain tends to discard irrelevant visual information to concentrate on the important part of the image, producing a  "zoom" effect, narrowing the effective angle of vision.

I would compare the integral (eye-brain) human visual system to a 24-90 zoom lens

[sergiomarried]

2 hours ago, gaheris said:

Not sure if this info is useful to anyone: according to my Japanese copy of Camera Magazine, issue 6 2008, the 35mm 1.4 VM I was a lens dedicated to an imperfect, but characterful lens popular in the 50s-60s — AKA the summilux pre a. Not a straight copy as the designers in Cosina wanted to strike a balance between character and usability (in the modern sense). The magazine even had a very brief comparison of the lux pre a, the VM I and the lux ASPH, and the VM I, on small magazine print, wasn't too much different from the ASPH, albeit ever so slightly less contrasty. 

You can tell they have a little homage to the design of the 35mm summilux. The version I has got that summilux aperture wings (but sadly modified away in version II).

The updated lenses (version ii) has reduced focus shift and maybe reduced barrel distortion. I have the SC II and the distortion does not bother me at all in normal shooting circumstances. colorwise the MC II is the one got changed — Cosina "corrected" it so it's more neutral and now the difference with the SC is more apparent. In comparison The SC is more yellow on film, and contains more shadow details and is the one I prefer (also the coating looks majestic). 

I have been looking for a good copy of Canadian Summilux pre a myself but unfortunately it's hard to find one with a reasonable price these days. The SC II gives me what I want, for now. 

 

Very interesting... I love my little V2 MC on previous M10 and with M10M now. Do you feel I’d appreciate significant differences with the SC version? 

[gaheris]

11 minutes ago, sergiomarried said:

Very interesting... I love my little V2 MC on previous M10 and with M10M now. Do you feel I’d appreciate significant differences with the SC version? 

I have not used the MC version myself, since I feel like the SC fits the original design philosophy of this lens a bit more. However I think this comparison of MCII and SCII will be interesting for you. It's in Traditional Chinese, but the comparison is easy to see. MC on the left, SC on right. 

http://chan.nds.hk/blog/?p=10541

Hope it helps!

[BradS]

3 hours ago, Ernstk said:

.....is around 55 degrees, which equates to a 43mm lens. 

Ernst

This is also incorrect but maybe a typo. The fov of a 43mm lens on 135 format is 45degrees not 55degrees. 
 

2atan(18/43) = 45.43

[Ernstk]

35 minutes ago, BradS said:

This is also incorrect but maybe a typo. The fov of a 43mm lens on 135 format is 45degrees not 55degrees. 
 

2atan(18/43) = 45.43

No, it's 55 degrees. Maybe you would feel more comfortable if you were posting on the Geometry For Beginners forum?

[BradS]

3 minutes ago, Ernstk said:

No, it's 55 degrees. Maybe you would feel more comfortable if you were posting on the Geometry For Beginners forum?

How is the math I showed incorrect? 

[Ernstk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, BradS said:

How is the math I showed incorrect? 

Do you mean maths?

[Mr.Prime]

39 minutes ago, BradS said:

How is the math I showed incorrect? 

Your math(s) is fine but the fov calculation is not a single number except for a circular image (where you use the radius to calculate your fov angle). For a rectangular image you have to define your fov as being calculated using the short side, long side or (most common) the diagonal.

edit: This also makes it harder to compare different formats. For example, standardizing on use of the diagonal dimension - my Rolleiflex 6x6 with 75mm lens is actually equivalent to a 35mm lens on 135 format if the resulting 135 format image is cropped to a square. However, if the 6x6 image were cropped to the same 3:2 aspect ratio of 135 film format then the 75mm lens is quite close to the fov of a 50mm ‘normal’ lens on 135.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Mr.Prime

[Ernstk]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

Your math(s) is fine but the fov calculation is not a single number except for a circular image (where you use the radius). For a rectangular image you have to define your fov as being calculated using the short side, long side or (most common) the diagonal.

Thank you. The diagonal field of view is just under 54 degrees. And looking back at BradS's post, he did seem to have a focus (no pun) on the diagonal with his sqrt(24^2 + 36^2) = 43.3 comment.

Ernst

[BradS]

17 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

Your math(s) is fine but the fov calculation is not a single number except for a circular image (where you use the radius to calculate your fov angle). For a rectangular image you have to define your fov as being calculated using the short side, long side or (most common) the diagonal.

edit: This also makes it harder to compare different formats. For example, standardizing on use of the diagonal dimension - my Rolleiflex 6x6 with 75mm lens is actually equivalent to a 35mm lens on 135 format if the resulting 135 format image is cropped to a square. However, if the 6x6 image were cropped to the same 3:2 aspect ratio of 135 film format then the 75mm lens is quite close to the fov of a 50mm ‘normal’ lens on 135.

Yes...I completely agree.

and, yes, I used the 36mm long side not only because this is the accepted convention but also because it is the only way that makes any sense in the context of comparison to human vision. 

[BradS]

54 minutes ago, Ernstk said:

Do you mean maths?

No. I mean math. Here in North America, we say math or mathematics - not maths - but I have traveled enough that I am aware of the existence of many regional dialects. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by BradS

[Ernstk]

1 minute ago, BradS said:

No. I mean math. Here in North America, we say math or mathematics - not maths - but have traveled enough that I am aware of the existence of many regional dialects. 

Ah, I'm sorry. I hadn't realised (realized) that American was the native language and that English was a regional dialect. I do apologise (apologize).

[Mr.Prime]

1 minute ago, BradS said:

No. I mean math. Here in North America, we say math or mathematics - not maths - but have traveled enough that I am aware of the existence of many regional dialects. 

I discovered the same when I moved to Canada, i.e. North America is at times a dialect of the ‘mother language’. Interestingly (to me at least) I read an article last year about a study showing that several instances of the use of English in the USA derrive from older versions of the language so that some differences we see today are because the language has evolved further in the UK and these USA usages are more authentic to the ‘original’. 

[Mr.Prime]

29 minutes ago, Ernstk said:

Ah, I'm sorry. I hadn't realised (realized) that American was the native language and that English was a regional dialect. I do apologise (apologize).

Indeed! reminds me of one of my old colleagues from the UK who has lived in California for 30 years now. He sounds as English as the day he left the motherland. Whenever a local comments on his great accent he responds “I’m speaking English, who has the accent?” 😂

Now, I’ve spent time in the Highlands too (on the mountains mostly) and remember that I encountered a few accents!

Edited February 2, 2021 by Mr.Prime
typo

[BradS]

27 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

I discovered the same when I moved to Canada, i.e. North America is at times a dialect of the ‘mother language’. Interestingly (to me at least) I read an article last year about a study showing that several instances of the use of English in the USA derrive from older versions of the language so that some differences we see today are because the language has evolved further in the UK and these USA usages are more authentic to the ‘original’. 

Interesting and quite surprising to me but I suspect the emphasis here must be placed upon “some differences “. Surely, in the broader sense, the language has evolved and morphed considerably here.  I am aware of at least five major regional dialects here in California alone for example.  I suspect the situation in England is, roughly speaking, similar. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by BradS

[Mr.Prime]

In all my travels I’ve encountered a few different versions. It seemed to me that in India it’s close to English English, in Singapore it was more American English. But some of the largest differences can be between cities within England, with challenges of understanding between a strong Glasgow vs Liverpool vs Exeter vs Birmingham vs north Wales etc. Things are always changing.

were we talking about lenses? 😀

Edited February 2, 2021 by Mr.Prime

[Ernstk]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

In all my travels I’ve encountered a few different versions. It seemed to me that in India it’s close to English English, in Singapore it was more American English. But some of the largest differences can be between cities within England, with challenges of understanding between a strong Glasgow vs Liverpool vs Exeter vs Birmingham vs north Wales etc.

Not sure if you're aware but Glasgow isn't in England. 

[BradS]

Mmmmm, North Wales....sigh. I’d love to visit again. Someday. The west coast of Ireland too. Someday.  

[Mr.Prime]

14 minutes ago, Ernstk said:

Not sure if you're aware but Glasgow isn't in England. 

very true!

I grew up in the UK, never once felt the presence of a border. Considered the Scottish mountains as much my home as the Welsh Beacons, the English Lakes etc. I never felt as an outsider anywhere and felt pride in the successes of everyone. Sadly, I doubt that all of the young folk growing up there today will experience the same.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Mr.Prime

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mr.Prime]

17 minutes ago, BradS said:

Mmmmm, North Wales....sigh. I’d love to visit again. Someday. The west coast of Ireland too. Someday.  

I’ve always loved the mountainous areas but never got a chance to visit Ireland when I was younger due to feeling unwelcome there, such was the feeling in the press at the time. Photographs of the area look ideal, maybe one day I will get the chance.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Mr.Prime