Voigtlander 50mm f/1 VM

[M Street Photographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have it and i am happy at my M10 R

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!

[Product Details]

More about Voigtlander 50 mm F1.0 Nokton Aspherical

Available at Amazon and B&H Photo Video

[stout_trapdoor9]

For anyone interested in a review of this lens, I've put my thoughts down on electronic paper here after a couple of months use:

https://darkisthenightforall.wordpress.com/2022/08/27/voigtlander-50-1-nokton/

[Daniel kk]

Lantern Show in the traditional Chinese Mid-Autumn Festival

Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1 Asph with M10

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!

[Sandokan]

I used mine today with the subjects being cows at a watering tank. Oh boy, do you need to be accurate in your focusing! At normal size they all look sharp and in focus. Even when I used an electronic viewfinder and focus peaking told me the eye was in focus, it wasnt sharp. When you get the cow's eye in focus, it is sharply in focus and when you miss you can clearly see it at 100%. I need to practice and practice some more. 

[M Street Photographer]

@Sandokan,Yes, unfortunately the curse of narrow dof. Open at 1.0 I can't focus reliably without the Visoflex. And if it's also an M10 R or M11, you can clearly see the misfocus on the monitor. The focus peaking is too imprecise for me.
But sometimes there are also micro shakes, you have to look closely.

Edited October 2, 2022 by M Street Photographer

[eyeheartny]

2 hours ago, Sandokan said:

At normal size they all look sharp and in focus.
—-

when you miss you can clearly see it at 100%. 

So it’s only a major problem when you’re pixel peeping? Is that what you’re actually saying? 

[M Street Photographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of course, that can sometimes play a role. But with a portrait, if you focus on the eye, but the focus is on the tip of the nose, viewers are irritated even without pixel peeping, you first have the feeling that something is wrong with the shot. And then you look for mistakes, be it photographic or technical.

[Sandokan]

6 hours ago, eyeheartny said:

So it’s only a major problem when you’re pixel peeping? Is that what you’re actually saying? 

As much for me to see what they look like on the forum. All at f2

First three are where I missed focus on the eye (but in the whole image it looks OK), but in the second set of 3 you can see the lashes. 

In the EVF, the peaking told me all were focused on the eye. I will try other techniques  -maybe bracketing is an alternative. 

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!

 

 

 

[LarsHP]

(post withdrawn)

Edited October 3, 2022 by LarsHP

[M Street Photographer]

As I have already noted, the peaking is too imprecise for me, especially in the close-up range. Even at f 2 it doesn't always seem to fit.
Could it be that there is a focus shift?
Voigtländer doesn't tend to do that normally, mine is fine too.
Focus shift was discussed in detail in another thread (not by Voigtländer). There the effect occurred when focusing from a close previous distance. If you always focus from the infinity position of the lens towards the close-up range, there was no focus shift.

[Sandokan]

8 hours ago, M Street Photographer said:

As I have already noted, the peaking is too imprecise for me, especially in the close-up range. Even at f 2 it doesn't always seem to fit.
Could it be that there is a focus shift?
Voigtländer doesn't tend to do that normally, mine is fine too.
Focus shift was discussed in detail in another thread (not by Voigtländer). There the effect occurred when focusing from a close previous distance. If you always focus from the infinity position of the lens towards the close-up range, there was no focus shift.

I have tested with camera on a tripod and focusing with EVF and optical RF ... I did not see any focus shift, but I think I can only tell by pixel peeping after taking the photos. Another thing to try.

I think the way you describe focus shift it sounds more like lens calibration of focus movement where moving away from infinity has a different focus to moving towards infinity. I learned from Jono S a long time ago to always focus moving away from infinity to give a consistency that you can then correct for. 

[Adam Bonn]

AFAIK... focus shift is when you focus on something close wide open, then stop down a bit (say 2 stops) and the focus moves behind the subject, even though the camera and subject were static

IMHO it would be bad news on a tripod, but in a live (eg street etc) environment your/subject movement, field curvature and the inherent error margin of using a very fast lens wide open would probably negate it and I suspect it wouldn't adversely affect the number of shots in focus. (ie loads of reason to miss focus a bit, not just focus shift)

I mean all of that generically, not about the VM 50/1

[Jared]

There is no appreciable focus shift on the Voigtlander Nokton f/1. I checked my copy very carefully. There is just a touch of reverse field curvature, though. Not much, but it’s there. We are used to lenses where the “plane” of focus is actually more of a “sphere” of focus where the most distant point is at the center, and the corners are actually sharpest on objects just a bit closer. We’ll, the Nokton has a backwards spheres—where the point of focus at the center of the field is just a tiny bit Closer than the point of focus in the corners.

Aside from that, truly exceptional performance. I’d take mine any day over a 0.95 Noctilux just because of the reduced color fringing and smaller size and weight. It’s perfectly usable at f/1, and competitive with my 50 APO across the field at f/2. Wish it didn’t obscure the viewfinder quite so much, but that’s probably inevitable with a 50mm this fast.

[LarsHP]

"Just a touch of reverse field curvature". That's not the way I would describe it. Fred Miranda calls it pronounced outwards field curvature, which fits my point of view better. In fact, the field curvature is so strong that I have dropped the idea of getting the lens, even though I have been drooling over getting it for all the other thing it has going for it.

Here's a few of Fred Miranda's shots showing the FC: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/3#15853457

His side-by-side comparisons with the Nokton f/1.2 shows that in many scenarios, the f/1.2 will have more background blur than the f/1 lens in the sides of the image: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/0#rend

Here is FC compared to the two Noctilux lenses: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/6#15856522

Edited October 4, 2022 by LarsHP

[Jared]

13 hours ago, LarsHP said:

"Just a touch of reverse field curvature". That's not the way I would describe it. Fred Miranda calls it pronounced outwards field curvature, which fits my point of view better. In fact, the field curvature is so strong that I have dropped the idea of getting the lens, even though I have been drooling over getting it for all the other thing it has going for it.

Here's a few of Fred Miranda's shots showing the FC: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/3#15853457

His side-by-side comparisons with the Nokton f/1.2 shows that in many scenarios, the f/1.2 will have more background blur than the f/1 lens in the sides of the image: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/0#rend

Here is FC compared to the two Noctilux lenses: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/6#15856522

Yes, I have seen his results. They don’t match mine. My sample shows much, much less than his examples illustrate. I don’t know why, whether there is some sample variation, whether it’s because I typically shoot at a different subject distance, or what the cause is. But when I shoot at about two meters and use the “find edges” function in Photoshop to look at the plane of focus, I get almost a perfectly straight line where his test using the same method shows a definite backwards arc. I’m not debating his results—his was a thorough test—but I can’t get mine to behave like his. On my lens, in my photographs, the effect is much more subtle than the examples he posted. It’s still there, but I’m not trying to downplay the issue when I say “just a touch.” That really is my experience. 

[LarsHP]

5 hours ago, Jared said:

Yes, I have seen his results. They don’t match mine. My sample shows much, much less than his examples illustrate. I don’t know why, whether there is some sample variation, whether it’s because I typically shoot at a different subject distance, or what the cause is. But when I shoot at about two meters and use the “find edges” function in Photoshop to look at the plane of focus, I get almost a perfectly straight line where his test using the same method shows a definite backwards arc. I’m not debating his results—his was a thorough test—but I can’t get mine to behave like his. On my lens, in my photographs, the effect is much more subtle than the examples he posted. It’s still there, but I’m not trying to downplay the issue when I say “just a touch.” That really is my experience. 

That's fascinating. I expect you may be right that there is some sample variation at play here, then.

A background story that supports this: When I had the 28mm Summicron-M Asph II, I sent it to Wetzlar for optical adjustment, because I felt the general sharpness wide open wasn't living up to the standard I expected from the MTF charts. When I got it back, the field curvature when stopped down to f/4, where it looked the worst, was huge (inward curving). So, I had to send it to Wetzlar again. When I got the lens back, the odd field curvature behavior was gone.

In other words, even the same lens barrel and lens elements may create field curvature, if the lens isn't put together perfectly.

[Jared]

2 hours ago, LarsHP said:

That's fascinating. I expect you may be right that there is some sample variation at play here, then.

A background story that supports this: When I had the 28mm Summicron-M Asph II, I sent it to Wetzlar for optical adjustment, because I felt the general sharpness wide open wasn't living up to the standard I expected from the MTF charts. When I got it back, the field curvature when stopped down to f/4, where it looked the worst, was huge (inward curving). So, I had to send it to Wetzlar again. When I got the lens back, the odd field curvature behavior was gone.

In other words, even the same lens barrel and lens elements may create field curvature, if the lens isn't put together perfectly.

Fred’s sample generally seemed to perform very well, on balance beating out the Leica f/0.95 and f/1 Noctiluxes. I’m used to some sample variation due to element decentering, but that usually affects corner performance more than anything. I can’t explain the difference between my results and his. He mentioned that curvature was worst at 2-4m and his testing was at 4m. Mine was at 2m. Who knows. Interestingly, the two Leica’s had worse reverse field curvature.

I’m sure one can make a strong argument for the CV f/1.2 being the best compromise. Smaller, lighter, minimal viewfinder blockage, and solid performance with less vignetting. Even it has imperfections, though, as its performance is not as good at close range. I don’t own that lens, so can’t compare. I do own the f/1.2 Noctilux reissue which I love, but it is hardly a lens that will satisfy everyone due to its poor performance even slightly off axis when wide open. I find it fun and find the rendering really cool. Others find the bokeh far too busy, presumably due to the heavy astigmatism off axis when wide open. To each their own.

On balance, the best 50mm I have ever owned is the Summicron APO, but it just won’t give you the subject isolation of the ultra fast lenses. The current gen 50mm Summilux is also superb. Sigh. Pick your poison—they all have compromises.

In summary, the Voigtlander f/1 is really good, probably better than the pricier Leica Noctilux lenses, and much less expensive. That doesn’t mean an f/1 lens will be the best for all situations. I like mine and use it quite a bit. Recommended. 

[LarsHP]

I have the Nokton f/1.2 myself, so when I saw Fred Miranda's comparisons, including the quite strong outward field curvature in his sample and others' (posted in this forum that looked similar), I dropped the idea of getting the Nokton f/1. However, your experience seems to suggest that some samples may behave more sensibly, which may make me reconsider at some point. The center separation in the Nokton f/1 is spectacular, and it's every bit as sharp as I would wish for, wide open. The issue, then, is getting a "good" sample. Since there are no local shops having this lens, I would have to buy it on an online store from abroad. Those two factors keep me on the fence.

Edited October 5, 2022 by LarsHP

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[robb]

Well I love mine.  I don’t seem to have that issue.

Robb

[Jared]

I have no way to tell you what the likelihood is that you'll see the performance I am used to vs. what Fred Miranda saw. If it helps, though, here are three images I jus took on my front "yard"--I live in a city, so not much grass to play with... All three images were taken within a few seconds of each other. All three images were taken with focus set to 2m based on the scale on the lens. The three lenses were the 50 APO, the Nokton f/1, and the Noctilux f/1.2 Asphere Reissue. All three were shot at their widest apertures. You can see:

• 50 APO: Amazing sharpness and contrast, but with limited ability to control depth of field since it's f/2; almost no field curvature
• Nokton f/1: Much narrower depth of field, strong vignetting, and the reverse field curvature I described as "slight", but still retaining very good resolution and contrast
• Noctilux f/1.2: Much less contrast, narrow depth of field, strong vignetting, crazy bokeh, only sharp in the center of the frame, with mustache shaped field curvature

The Photoshop "Find Edges" filter shows the rough shape of the field curvature by identifying parts of the frame that have high contrast edges. Yes, the Voigtlander is inverted, but not in a way that I find noticeable in real-world images.

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!

Don't know how helpful this is since it doesn't resolve any discrepancies between my experiences and Fred Miranda's, but it will hopefully illustrate why I was describing the reverse field curvature as "slight". No profiles applied on any of the images. Adobe Color. No exposure adjustment. All at ISO 64. All hand held (which is why the APO and Noctilux are pointed just a touch lower than the Nokton).

Edited October 5, 2022 by Jared
Typo and a bit more info to add