Voigtländer Nokton 35/1.2 III vs. Summilux 35 FLE

[giannis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, hydet said:

In terms of light gathering capability--not IQ--what is the difference between f/1.2 and 1.4?  1/3 of a stop?

Maybe even less. You're looking for the T-value of the lens (transmittance), which varies slightly from aperture and measures the true light gathering capacity of a lens. Usually - in conventional designs - this value is close to the f/number but the more "extreme" you go in design, the more it can diverge. As a very, very rough rule of thumb, given same technology and materials in lenses, a more complex, faster lens with more elements, will have its T-value diverge a bit more from its f/number, versus a simpler, slower lens with fewer elements. Pictorially, those differences are silly and irrelevant. (Plus there are bigger issues at play, like vignetting. A slightly brighter lens but which vignettes much more in the majority of the frame, is it really brighter in practice?  )

Where the actual T-value plays a role (aside from cinematography where shutter speed is fixed), is in "unconventional" lenses where T and f values vary considerably. Some examples are lenses with apodising elements (minolta and sony used to make some, it was called SF-something iirc, fuji makes a modern one for their X-cameras, a version of the 56mm f/1.2), or lenses like the Thambar, or soft focus lenses with similar "tricks" (like the Imagon with its pierced disks, or the more "modern" Fuji implementation the SF 180mm f/8 for the GX680, Mamiya also made one for the RB/RZ).

But most importantly, where t-value undoubtedly plays the biggest role, is telling people that are splitting hairs and obsess over the light gathering capacity of an f/1.2 vs f/1.4 lens, that their actual t-values differ less than 1/3rd of a stop, which is a tighter tolerance than the spec of their mechanical shuttered cameras when they left the factory, let alone 30-60 years later  

[rramesh]

4 hours ago, giannis said:

While I appreciate the link and the intention to offer something helpful, I have to say for posterity in case someone stumbles upon this thread looking for comparisons, that blog post is a horrible material for a comparison. The majority of the photos are extremely overcooked in post and they look like they're taken with phone and an instagram filter. While there are a couple more neutral ones, they suffer from misfocus which would give the wrong impression if someone was nitpicking details in order to compare two modern high performing lenses.

Maybe you could suggest a better comparison.

[Advertisement]

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

[Capuccino-Muffin]

Yes, I always wondered why T stops weren’t the standard in photography. Okay, a f2 lens still stays a f2 lens even if it has a 4x filter on it while it Could not be considered a T2 lens anymore, I guess...

For our purposes, f1.2 vs 1.4 definitely plays on the general look, where the rendering definitely shows the differences. I’m not sure that shutter speed is the main goal. At least not as important as in the film days where a photographer stuck with Kodachrome 64 desperately needed extra speed, where 1/8th vs 1/10th or 1/12th  played a role in getting a shot hopefuly less blurred.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Capuccino-Muffin

[Photon42]

I guess on film film you are looking at first for consistency in brightness when swapping out lenses, as I would think this is the first thing which gets noticed. In photography, there is more emphasis on dealing with limited light in reportage and the ability to separate planes, as there is only one shot. The T vs F stop indication preference makes sense to me.

[jaeger]

On 4/6/2022 at 5:38 AM, Capuccino-Muffin said:

Yes, I always wondered why T stops weren’t the standard in photography. Okay, a f2 lens still stays a f2 lens even if it has a 4x filter on it while it Could not be considered a T2 lens anymore, I guess...

For our purposes, f1.2 vs 1.4 definitely plays on the general look, where the rendering definitely shows the differences. I’m not sure that shutter speed is the main goal. At least not as important as in the film days where a photographer stuck with Kodachrome 64 desperately needed extra speed, where 1/8th vs 1/10th or 1/12th  played a role in getting a shot hopefuly less blurred.

I think it's marketing.  It's confusing and hard to regulate which they love.  They are selling bone-in steaks for the price of boneless steaks.  If we T stops were in place, there will be an instant downgrade for all lenses. 

[laowai_]

On 4/5/2022 at 7:52 AM, hydet said:

In terms of light gathering capability--not IQ--what is the difference between f/1.2 and 1.4?  1/3 of a stop?  (The difference between, say, ISO1600 and ISO2000?)  When it comes to aperture mathematics, I am sometimes in over my head.  

It’s just about 1/2 stop between f/1.2 and f/1.4

It actually is 0.4448, which is close enough to 0.5 to call it 1/2 stop. 

You are taking about an area, so you need to look at the geometric mean not the arithmetic mean.

The formula is:

Difference = 2*(log2(fnumber1) - log2(fnumber2))

Hope this helps.

 

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/5/2022 at 7:31 AM, Ko.Fe. said:

It is odd to compare lenses with different maximum apertures, especially on film, where high ISO is limited. 

If I would have this pile of money I would choose FLE as more practical (for my gear) solution. But I don't have this pile of money.

So, I traveled NA, Europe, Dark Side, Europe, NA with just a 35 2.5 Summarit-M on film M body. No serious limitations. IT just took heck a lot of time to develop and print under enlarger after it.

 

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!

  

And that's how it's done!

[roma]

FLE is expensive, but I just love that focusing tab. Once you use it for a couple of years, your finger will know exactly where it should be, even before you raise your camera up to your eye. That’s one huge value to me.
If that’s not important to you, maybe Norton will do. 

[Franky]

The 35mm FLE is extraordinary.
With normal photography better than the 1.4 Zeiss and also all Voigtlaender that I have/had.
But the APO 35 (from f2) is another, better world.

[stout_trapdoor9]

I have used both and I think that either will satisfy. The vIII is the most Leica-like lens that Voigtlander has produced in that it is small and compact compared to much of the other lenses. Most of my output with the Leica was in black and white - there are substantial artifacts in the type of photography that I prefer, which is cityscape at night type stuff. I don't think that the Leica is objectively "better" than the Voigtlander as I can afford either, but I do feel the rendering is different. In black and white I prefer the Leica - I don't like the sunstars from either which is a shame, both are mushy at all apertures and add nothing to a picture. Others have already waxed eloquently about the Leica focussing tab versus the Voigtlander lack of thereof, but I found both well-dampened to focus. The Voigtlander aperture ring is superior, the Leica was annoyingly easy to knock out of your preferred setting. In terms of design, I prefer the Leica and the square hood to the Voigtlander and its circular hood, but design is not a compelling reason for me to purchase a lens, only output. It has achieved "permanent status" on my Leica M11 for the last few weeks but I also want to test it out early morning with my Leica M10M. I believe wide open that the Leica *might* be sharper, but I'll leave that one to the pixel peepers as that isn't particularly important to me. The close focusing distance was the nail in the coffin that made me plump for the Voigtlander.

This outrageous technicolour sky cityscape was shot right after a thunderstorm. Leica M11 with Voigtlander Nokton vIII 35/1.2

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!

[jakontil]

Whichever suits ur budget, not breaking the bank and still left you with something to go on your next trip

Never handled the voigt 1.2 MIII, not my 35 mm size wise, but considering how much i loved the ultron, i see nothing against the 1.2 version

FLE is preferred for its size and image wise but this lens aint perfect either, there’s always a caveat, even a distagon 35mm 1.4 was more favorable at the time i had those lenses, but again, came down to the shooting situation due to its size

in the end, i settled with 35 f2 cron, though i miss the FLE

for my case, size is above IQ, which nowadays, you can almost pick up any lens and deliver above average quality criteria

im more a 50mm guy so may be i havent put enough efforts to the bigger 35mm lense to compensate

[S Maclean]

I had this same issue at hand.  I have a Cron 35 mm and wanted something softer and wider.  I have the lux 1.4 50mm and love it but really did not want to spend 6g on a lux 35 mm.  Although I am one of those guys that alwys wants the best...and yes, I am often affected by brand perception.

 

Before I moved to Leica one of my favorite lenses was the canon 50L 1.2. so I have been wanting to get a 1.2 for a while and was peaked at getting it on 35 mm becasue I am more naturally a 50 mm shooter so the idea of a shallow DOF on a 35 attracts me.  It is just not usual for me to see.

 

Anyway, therapy needs asside I just got the Nokton 35mm VIII. I am quite impressed.  I am not sure the jump from 1.2 to 1.4 is that relevant on image comparisons although the lens does get a little more contrasty and sharp at 1.4. But the softness is quite attractive.

The lens performs on the M11 beautifully.  

adding three images at 1.2 

Edit to add:  There is some focus shift when changing apertures....either that or I was sloppy on my test.  Also Definatelly need to use the LCD or EVF to focus closer than .7. But it does focus quite close to subject wich really creates an interesting perspective for a 35mm

Lastly LR only has profile for V2.  It does correct some but I need a lot more shooting to evaluate.

Both purple and green fringing where present on the Dog pictures in color version.  Not horrible but noticeable. The edge highlight was strong coming through the window so I need to see how ti performs under other conditions.

Overall, for $900. Great   Like really great.  At the same quality I am sure Leica would charge 9g for a good 1.2

 

Thank you to the members that commented here as you helped me along my decission making process.  Trying to pay it back with this mini review.

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 September 9, 2022 by S Maclean

[Dennis]

I'm lucky enough to use the 35 Summicron asph v1 and the CV 1.2 v3, which coexist well in my RF bag.
Between the two, the workhorse is, of course, the Cron for all situations. My most used lens. Of course, I pick the Voigtlander if I need a wider aperture, such as 1.4 (especially at 50cm MFD, fantastic). More extensive and heavier, yes, but just for a few occasions or when it deserves and is worth it. A well-balanced IQ, I would say a bit flat rendering (its uniqueness), which I like very much. A great performer.
But it's the kind of lens I use primarily at f1.2-1.4-2... For my f4 (sweet spot), I use the Cron, Biogon, or even Nokton 1.4 II MC... Because unfortunately, the 1.2 III is out of my league of ratio camera/lens size. In fact, I highly believe that one of the joys of using the M system, it's for the small welcome size.

I have another personal statement about M: I highly believe the RF system is more for use at narrow apertures than faster ones. The magic happens in the 28-50 (focal length) and in the f4-f8 aperture range. Ditto. 🙂 

[Ba Erv]

I have both these lenses and after testing and weighting the pros and cons I believe the VM 35mm f1.2 v3 is the better of the two (details omitted for brevity).

[Al Brown]

Does anybody have the same motive/scene shot with both 35 FLE and 35/1.2 III, a proper side-by-side comparison?

[Cobram]

Indeed an interesting comparison. But now we have a new kid in town - Nokton 1.5. Fred Miranda made a nice comparison to the later but the thread lacks everyday photos... the most important parameter to me. I used to own Zeiss Distagon and it was perfect in every respect just like reviewers said and measured. But at the end I sold it due to "soul-less" performance. 

I will carefuly watch posted "everyday", especially family photos posted by Nokton 1.5 users and than "judge" the lens. Technical perfection is not everything.😅

From what I seen so far both Noktons are:

- less sharp than FLE

- FLE colors are more organic, less pastel like

- out of focus area is smoother on Noktons

- min. focus distance of Nokton is 0.5m which broadens the area of application

Of course my answer is totally useless 😅 (no experience with mentioned lenses, just an admirer of FLE posted photos and want to cure my GAS with less expensive lens)

[devilbond]

I have the 35mm Nokton 1.2 III and it's fantastic.

It's heavy compared to lighter lenses, but at 330g it's not exactly "heavy" in its own right.  It's only 12g / 0.4oz heavier than the LFE, so effectively the same weight in real-world situations.  I could comfortably keep either around my neck all day.  Not as comfortably as the Zeiss 2.8 C-Biogon of course, but the lenses you're looking at are 1 to 3.5 stops more versatile (the Nokton and Biogon also give you f22), so depends on your use case.  

It's for the versatility that I went with the Voigtlander, not because it's a "wannabe" lens as some unsavoury human being called it earlier.  There's no "best" lens though.  Trial some and keep what speaks to you, return what you doesn't.  As soon as I embraced the return policy of some stores the anxiety of lens choice just disappeared.

Edited May 1, 2023 by devilbond