Jump to content

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


Ba Erv

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A video from Jimmy Cheng.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by hdmesa
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, normie610 said:

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.  

I've heard some negativity on the FLE II but it wasn't on my list anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/29/2023 at 9:37 PM, hdmesa said:

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.

That might be a good thing, as some asphericals are too sharp!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Voigtlander vintage Nokton 35mm f/1.5 @ f/1.5 + 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!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2023 at 3:00 PM, TheBestSLIsALeicaflex said:

That might be a good thing, as some asphericals are too sharp!!!

The 35 1.5 is plenty sharp. I haven’t got another 35mm to compare it with but I needed to soften out the skin on this portrait to avoid it distracting the viewer. Subject was in the centre at f1.5

 

 

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!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
18 hours ago, SonnarGauss said:

I just got the Nokton 1.5/35, and it is ludicrously sharp across the frame. Nobody needs this kind of sharpness to take actual photos for real-world applications.

For all practical purposes, lenses are solved. It's time to instead invest effort into learning how to take good photos 👍

It’s a modern lens design with multiple aspherical surfaces. So it’s sharp. Lately I have been using it with a 1/4 pro black mist filter. Sharp with a nice glow. 

Edited by rramesh
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...