Voigtlander 35/40mm f1.4 SC or MC??

[Wwin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I want to buy a Voigtlander 35mm/40mm 1.4 lens butt I’m doubting if i would pick up the SC or the MC version…..

I hope someone can show me some pictures (sids by side) how the contrast and flare would be from both versions??
 

love to hear from you! 

 
 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[demourne]

Hi Wwin,

there are many images on the Voigtländer website. See here: https://www.voigtlaender.de/objektive/vm/35-mm-f-14-nokton/
regards,

Peter

[Ko.Fe.]

Where are 35  1.4 Nokton I, which is notorious for nasty focus shifts and OK 40 1.4.

I went after long waiting for Nokton 35 1.4 II, which just has retro rendering WO and rest is OK.

SC gives very insignificant,  not really noticeable difference from regular MC. 

[pippy]

As can be seen in the link posted by demourne Voigtlander themselves claim that the SC has more of a 'Classic' rendering in terms of colour-rendering whereas the MC renders in a more 'Neutral' fashion. FWIW I have read (on the www so it Must Be True 😸) that the SC is more prone to flare under certain circumstances.

Whether any of that could possibly be noticed by anyone when viewing a stand-alone image is very much open to debate.

I'm not sure that any member here has bought both versions of the same lens so seeing side-by-side 'Torture-Test' comparison shots posted here might be a bit of a long shot. My guess would be that most buyers here will have weighed-up the 'Wisdom of the Web' and chosen the version which they considered might be best positioned to offer them the rendering they prefer.

Philip.

[Tessar.]

I've had the MC and SC versions of the 35mm Nokton V2 and to be honest I found the MC a bit too much in terms of rendering of colours and contrast, the SC was plenty punchy enough for me, without being over the top.  This was on my MP typ 240.  They're not massivily different though tbh.  I haven't tried the 40mm version.

[Wwin]

1 hour ago, Tessar. said:

I've had the MC and SC versions of the 35mm Nokton V2 and to be honest I found the MC a bit too much in terms of rendering of colours and contrast, the SC was plenty punchy enough for me, without being over the top.  This was on my MP typ 240.  They're not massivily different though tbh.  I haven't tried the 40mm version.

Thanks for your reply!! 

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have no experience with either Nokton 40/1.4 v2. I did not like the 40/1.4 v1 (SC or MC i don't recall) which had too much focus shift for my taste. Same for my 35 SC v1, one of the rare lenses i regretted buying for this reason and its flare. Haven't compared the two 35 v2 for long enough to conclude but i found a bit less contast in the SC v2 with a lesser tendency to block shadows without suffering from flare as much as v1, so i went for the SC v2, also because it matches well the Nokton 75/1.5. Only con of the Nokton 35/1.4 SC v2, to me, is distortion where it cannot compete with my Summilux 35/1.4 v2. Distortion is not difficult to correct in post, though, so i don't use much the Summilux anymore, otherwise than for its famous glow at f/1.4. FWIW.

[pippy]

8 hours ago, Tessar. said:

I've had the MC and SC versions of the 35mm Nokton V2 and to be honest I found the MC a bit too much in terms of rendering of colours and contrast, the SC was plenty punchy enough for me, without being over the top.  This was on my MP typ 240.  They're not massivily different though tbh.  I haven't tried the 40mm version.

Rendering is a complex matter. The SC and MC lenses from what I've seen (and as yourself and lct mention) don't really render that very differently in 'The Real World'.

Just for fun here is a link to an image (posted elsewhere so apologies for duplication) snapped just a couple of days ago with a 40mm f1.4 MC version. Neither 'Contrast' nor 'Colour' seem to me to be rendered in a way which could be described as being over the top but, of course, everyone has different likes and dislikes;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/417374-project-36552…/page/5/#comment-5758000

Philip.

Edited February 18 by pippy

[jja]

The differences are subtle, as far as I can see in sample photos (I don't own either lens):

https://chan.nds.hk/blog/?p=10541#google_vignette

I recall that descriptions from Voigtlander stated that the SC was the preferred lens for B&W film.  I don't know if they are still making this claim.

[hansvons]

On 2/18/2025 at 6:59 AM, Wwin said:

I’m doubting if i would pick up the SC or the MC version…..

The 35mm and 40mm Noktons f/1.4 are somewhat reissues of double Gauss designs that are today considered to be antique, vintage, or just old. They come with quirks that many consider to be character and are loved for their glow, mushiness etc. This does have a place, and thus such lenses are so successful in the market that a whole reissue industry emerged. That said, I owned both the 35mm single coated (SC) and multi coated (MC) and kept the SC version. Here’s why:
 

17 hours ago, Tessar. said:

I've had the MC and SC versions of the 35mm Nokton V2 and to be honest I found the MC a bit too much in terms of rendering of colours and contrast, the SC was plenty punchy enough for me, without being over the top.  This was on my MP typ 240.  They're not massivily different though tbh.  I haven't tried the 40mm version.

Plus, I might add, the SC version feels truer to the originals of the 60s like the V1 Summilux. It does flare more, is flatter in contrast and glows like hell at f/1.4.

[pippy]

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

The 35mm and 40mm Noktons f/1.4 are somewhat reissues of double Gauss designs that are today considered to be antique, vintage, or just old...

...I might add, the SC version feels truer to the originals of the 60s like the V1 Summilux. It does flare more, is flatter in contrast and glows like hell at f/1.4.

It's no secret that the 35 and 40 Noktons employ (almost) the same optical design as the v1 / v2 35 Summilux so there should be no surprise to discover that they render in a very similar fashion. On thing which did surprise me, however, was how the images looked when I started using the 40 Nokton wide-open just after I bought the M-D Typ-262.

With my M9-P I would manually select the code of the old Summilux for the Nokton. As there is not the possibility to input such info with the M-D, however, the camera can apply no in-built correction for aberrations. When the Nokton (and, it follows, my v2 Summilux) is shot at f1.4 the inherent vignetting is far more pronounced than had been expected considering the results which I had been achieving with the lenses when they were 'coded'. 

It was a surprise but in a good way and yes; at f1.4 it does glow like crazy!

Back to the SC / MC differences; as I always use filters - even if just for protection - part of my rationale was that putting a mulit-coated UVa filter on an SC lens would, in effect, make the SC an MC and as I would never use the lens 'naked' there was nothing really to be gained in the 'vintage' sense from choosing an SC version.

A slightly different story where colour-rendering is concerned. Almost everything I shoot will end up as monochrome images so, to a large expent, colour-tone is an irrelevance but for those which will be kept as RGB I decided that it would be preferrable (for me) to start with a more colour-neutral file rather than one which tries to repicate the look of any particular film-emulsion.

  If I get some free time I might do some studio tests with the Summilux and Nokton to see just how similar - or different - they might render.

I might even remove their filters......😸......

Philip.

Edited February 19 by pippy

[lct]

FWIW my Nokton 35/1.4 SC v2 has some glow at f/1.4 but much less so than my Summilux 35/1.4 v2. Reason why i kept the latter together with its lesser distortion. 

[Tessar.]

50 minutes ago, lct said:

FWIW my Nokton 35/1.4 SC v2 has some glow at f/1.4 but much less so than my Summilux 35/1.4 v2. Reason why i kept the latter together with its lesser distortion. 

I agree with this, I had a V2 Summilux pre-ASPH and it was much more "vintage" in its presentation than the Nokton. 

I also found the Nokton to be pretty flare resistant in both MC and SC variants.  I don't use filters though (except UVIR on my M8), so maybe the added filter glass is inducing a bit of flare?

I'd love to try the 40mm Nokton but the framelines issue puts me off.

Edited February 19 by Tessar.

[Tessar.]

13 hours ago, pippy said:

Rendering is a complex matter. The SC and MC lenses from what I've seen (and as yourself and lct mention) don't really render that very differently in 'The Real World'.

Just for fun here is a link to an image (posted elsewhere so apologies for duplication) snapped just a couple of days ago with a 40mm f1.4 MC version. Neither 'Contrast' nor 'Colour' seem to me to be rendered in a way which could be described as being over the top but, of course, everyone has different likes and dislikes;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/417374-project-36552…/page/5/#comment-5758000

Philip.

Very true, and your pic from the 40mm is definitely not over the top.  It could be the difference between the 40mm and the 35mm v2?  For me the MC v2 was big and bold, the SC v2 less so, but still pretty vibrant, which I preferred.  The 40mm is maybe a bit more neutral?

 

[pippy]

4 hours ago, lct said:

FWIW my Nokton 35/1.4 SC v2 has some glow at f/1.4 but much less so than my Summilux 35/1.4 v2. Reason why i kept the latter together with its lesser distortion. 

The inherent barrel distortion of the 35 Nokton was (as I've mentioned previously) the main reason I opted for the 40 as this lens has none worth mentioning.

As far as 'Glow' is concerned? I'll come back to that in a moment!

3 hours ago, Tessar. said:

Very true, and your pic from the 40mm is definitely not over the top.  It could be the difference between the 40mm and the 35mm v2?  For me the MC v2 was big and bold, the SC v2 less so, but still pretty vibrant, which I preferred.  The 40mm is maybe a bit more neutral?...

Unfortunately I can't comment on the 35mm as I've never owned one so have no personal experience with the lens.

My memory of just how 'bad' focus-shift was where the 40 Nokton is concerned was very hazy (pun) so I've just spent an hour or so carrying out focus tests on that lens as well as seven others all in the 35mm to 50mm range. The results were very interesting (for those who like this sort of thing!) and had a few surprises in store.

The first surprise was the extent of the 'Glow' inherent in the Summilux from f1.4 down to f2.8; FAR greater than I had expected and MILES more pronounced than seen with the Nokton. By f4.0 things had returned to what might be termed 'normal'.

The second big surprise was the performance of my 1953 50mm f1.5 Summarit (M). Quite 'Glowy' wide-open but very sharp by f2.8 and bitingly crisp below that mark. Astonishingly good performance; especially considering its particular optical design is nigh-on 100 years old(**)!

I won't go into all the details the tests showed-up but - as its germane to the thread - I will post some of the results obtained with the 40mm Nokton. Four tight crops of a test chart. The camera was set to 1m(*) and these shots are the results. Starting from top row left / right then bottom row L / R  at f1.4; f2.0; f2.8 and f4.0.

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!

On basis of these results there is nothing which would give me a moments worry when shooting at any of these apertures.

Hopefully this might have been of some interest.

Philip.

* The reason the distance was set to 1m rather than 0.7m was due to a few of the lenses having an MFD of 1m and I wished to keep things as standardised as possible.

** The Summarit was essentially (see italicised bit slightly below) a re-named post-WWII Xenon. That lens had first been released by Leitz in 1936 but the optics used a 1930 design by Horace William Lee who was an optics designer for Taylor, Taylor and Hobson. Leitz had licensed the use of the TTH design for their Xenon in order to be able to compete against the recently-made 50mm f1.5 Sonnar from Zeiss.

(To be completely pedantic there were actually 103 examples of the Summarit made before the outbreak of hostilities but the vast majority of the 74,000 lenses made dated to post-1949.)

EDIT : Just for the sake of info here's the full-frame set-up to give an idea of the crop area;

Edited February 19 by pippy

[Derbyshire Man]

If there's one thing that kills a lens for me it's focus shift. I got rid of my CV 35 for that reason but am able to tolerate my OG Summilux 35mm 1.4 which covers the focus shift much better. Similarly my summicron C 40mm f2 is well behaved in that regard.

As for the actual answer to multicoated vs single I'd go for multi personally having tried both on admittedly separate occasions.

[hansvons]

2 hours ago, Derbyshire Man said:

If there's one thing that kills a lens for me it's focus shift. I got rid of my CV 35 for that reason but am able to tolerate my OG Summilux 35mm 1.4 which covers the focus shift much better.

Agreed. However, CV fixed that with V2, which I own and can only say good things about—if you want that particular look. 

[Derbyshire Man]

For some odd reason that I cannot explain the 35mk2 didn't do it for me like the Summi 35 pre-asph. I think it was as the bloom/glow is quite gentle and looks almost like a defect, whereas on the lux 35 there is so much it can only possibly be a feature. Or something like that!

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[costa43]

I owned the 40mm Nokton f1.4 back when I first starting shooting Leica cameras. It was and still is a really good lens, I had the MC version. There wa some focus shift with my copy but not too significant, also a little barrel distortion but again, not too bad. I sold it when I bought the 35mm Summilux pre asph v2.  

For a few hundred euro, it’s one of the best bang for your buck lenses out there. I went for the MC at the time as from the images and the research I saw, there was hardly anything in it. I figured the MC would be the more usable lens as an all rounder. Doubt you can go wrong with either though. A good lens but the itch for the Summilux is real after some time owning it!

Edited February 19 by costa43

[timo01]

the „SC“ is my all time fav lens!!! I really enjoy the flares. 

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!