New Voigtlander 35mm f1.5 Type I and II announced

[ianforber]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, rramesh said:

Coding is really simple for a Voigtlander. Here is the Nokton 35 1.5 coded as a Summilux 35.

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!

I understand in theory but when I tried to do it I made a complete hash of it so reverted to the menu selection. For me that is ok as I only one non-Leica 6 bit coded lens

[Xavier]

Ok, for me it is great news really.
I did not have that much luck with my Zeiss lenses. I now see more and more clearly some Voigtlander lenses in my future.

[rramesh]

13 hours ago, ianforber said:

I understand in theory but when I tried to do it I made a complete hash of it so reverted to the menu selection. For me that is ok as I only one non-Leica 6 bit coded lens

A simple way to do it..
 

 

[haikos]

On 2/3/2023 at 1:36 AM, normie610 said:

Just received this lens, the MFD of 0.5cm is quite useful. And if we apply the 1.8x digital zoom, it can act like a semi-macro lens (with 18MP files). Here are some samples all at MFD, wide open & compared to Zeiss 35mm. 

Nokton 35mm 1.5:

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!

 

Zeiss 35mm Distagon:

 

And now with 1.8x digital zoom:

Nokton 35mm 1.5:

 

Zeiss 35mm Distagon:

 

To be fair, I think they should both be set to 0.7m. 
At first glance it looked like the zeiss had a wider field of view but then I realized they have different mfd.
Question: Was the white balance set to auto or fixed? Thanks! 

[blacksinner]

On 12/4/2022 at 10:44 PM, mheine said:

I snapped a few portraits today on a walk - all of them were shot on f1.5. I did my standard procedure in post but kept away from the sharpness slider and didn't fix either the vignette nor the distortion. I also didn't crop the images, so they are in full resolution. All of them were shot with the rangefinder and the close-ups are at 0.7m. 

I uploaded some here in my dropbox for better resolution: 
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/j5oofsq9dhmjldup2rm5e/h?dl=0&rlkey=pdog2db4udnrgme3zeenegrs5

 

 

Great photos, how do you edit those photos? very nice colour and grain. thank you

[mheine]

Am 15.3.2023 um 14:56 schrieb blacksinner:

Great photos, how do you edit those photos? very nice colour and grain. thank you

Hello, sorry - I am not very active anymore. 

Just simple Lightroom grading, playing with the curves (mostly s-curves) and some grain - nothing special to be honest. 

[Jan1985]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think about purchasing the lens. It seems to be a good alternative to the Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4 ZM and the Summilux. I want to use it for wedding reportage and portrait photography mostly. Or is the 35mm 1.2 better in that use case?

[rramesh]

3 hours ago, Jan1985 said:

I think about purchasing the lens. It seems to be a good alternative to the Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4 ZM and the Summilux. I want to use it for wedding reportage and portrait photography mostly. Or is the 35mm 1.2 better in that use case?

Both are good. The 35 1.5 has a tab ring and more suitable for zone focusing.

[hdmesa]

On 3/28/2023 at 2:29 PM, Jan1985 said:

I think about purchasing the lens. It seems to be a good alternative to the Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4 ZM and the Summilux. I want to use it for wedding reportage and portrait photography mostly. Or is the 35mm 1.2 better in that use case?

Only thing to be aware of with the 35 1.5 is wide open at portrait distances, sharpness can be lower in the midzone areas of the frame where compositionally the subject's face is often placed. If you shoot slightly stopped down (2.8-4), sharpness improves in the midzone.

My condolences for having to shoot weddings, but if I had to return to doing that, I would prefer the 35 1.2 III simply for the extra light and the rendering that lens can produce wide open. It really stands in a class by itself as far as 35mm M lenses go.

[Jan1985]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb hdmesa:

Only thing to be aware of with the 35 1.5 is wide open at portrait distances, sharpness can be lower in the midzone areas of the frame where compositionally the subject's face is often placed. If you shoot slightly stopped down (2.8-4), sharpness improves in the midzone.

My condolences for having to shoot weddings, but if I had to return to doing that, I would prefer the 35 1.2 III simply for the extra light and the rendering that lens can produce wide open. It really stands in a class by itself as far as 35mm M lenses go.

Thanks for your words. These are really helpful for me. That‘s my main consideration between the lens that seems to be more painterly wide open and the 1.5 for it‘s compactness and still a bit „character“. But for weddings you are right, there the 1.2 might be better.

[hdmesa]

.

Edited March 30, 2023 by hdmesa

[normie610]

On 3/10/2023 at 10:06 PM, haikos said:

To be fair, I think they should both be set to 0.7m. 
At first glance it looked like the zeiss had a wider field of view but then I realized they have different mfd.
Question: Was the white balance set to auto or fixed? Thanks! 

I was comparing the usefulness of having a closer MFD with the Nokton (I do close photography quite often). White balance was set to AWB.

[Nimar]

wrong thread. 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Nimar

[rramesh]

A video from Jimmy Cheng.

 

[rramesh]

And a comparison with Summilux FLE

 

[S Maclean]

On 10/15/2022 at 10:30 AM, yanidel said:

Yes, and I would assume that 95% of Leica M photographers take pictures in the 1m to infinity distance range.

 

 

by design...perhaps not choice.

[Ba Erv]

I finally broke down and bought the Type 1 version lens.  Initial tests shows it's slightly sharper and has a tiny bit more contrast in the center than my FLE wide open. If there's a mid zone dip I can't find it at my shooting distances.  Corners are better than the FLE.  Of course, bokeh is more pleasing too. Aperture and focusing are butter smooth and my copy has perfectly centered elements.  I didn't test color rendition between the two since I don't shoot color. The weight savings is another positive factor over the FLE. Overall it's definitely a winner.  My FLE is going to be looking for a new home.

[hdmesa]

18 minutes ago, Ba Erv said:

I finally broke down and bought the Type 1 version lens.  Initial tests shows it's slightly sharper and has a tiny bit more contrast in the center than my FLE wide open. If there's a mid zone dip I can't find it at my shooting distances.  Corners are better than the FLE.  Of course, bokeh is more pleasing too. Aperture and focusing are butter smooth and my copy has perfectly centered elements.  I didn't test color rendition between the two since I don't shoot color. The weight savings is another positive factor over the FLE. Overall it's definitely a winner.  My FLE is going to be looking for a new home.

It depends on what you consider midzone/midframe. My copy was a bit weak wide open between the center and corner on the diagonal, but it was pretty sharp wide open between the center and far edges on the horizontal plane. That weakness on the diagonal midframe was only at distances from around 1.5m to 3.5m. At 0.5 to 1m there isn't much weakness and beyond 4m it was less objectionable and/or made less difference to the composition and overall shot (how often to we shoot at far distances wide open anyway?).

It's a great lens, though, especially given its size and weight versus the FLE.

Edited April 29, 2023 by hdmesa

[Ba Erv]

14 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

It depends on what you consider midzone/midframe. My copy was a bit weak wide open between the center and corner on the diagonal, but it was pretty sharp wide open between the center and far edges on the horizontal plane. That weakness on the diagonal midframe was only at distances from around 1.5m to 3.5m. At 0.5 to 1m there isn't much weakness and beyond 4m it was less objectionable and/or made less difference to the composition and overall shot (how often to we shoot at far distances wide open anyway?).

It's a great lens, though, especially given its size and weight versus the FLE.

I'm generally shooting at 10' to infinity focus so I'm not seeing anything objectionable. I also usually stick to wider apertures so bokeh may be hiding the issue.   

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[normie610]

2 minutes ago, Ba Erv said:

I'm generally shooting at 10' to infinity focus so I'm not seeing anything objectionable. I also usually stick to wider apertures so bokeh may be hiding the issue.   

Same use case for me and I very rarely shoot wide open at infinity (perhaps never). But I can see a case where this could be more apparent, for example a group shot of people at wide open. But I really love this lens, there's this character that's hard to describe. I have no regrets not getting a third copy of FLE II (the two copies I had previously were terrible at focusing). In fact the new 50mm Lux close focus is far more attractive than FLE II and I'm waiting to get mine delivered.