sean_reid Posted January 22, 2008 Share #21 Posted January 22, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah, I figured that there would be a difference on some order of magnitude. There must be, right? <G> I mean one of them is so much more expensive than the other. Best, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Hi sean_reid, Take a look here CV Nokton 35 f/1.2 vs Noctilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wlaidlaw Posted January 22, 2008 Share #22 Posted January 22, 2008 Sean, My Nokton was a bit out in focus and I did have it adjusted and ran focus tests after I got it back, doing as you suggest, focus bracketing but I still found it a tad soft both in the centre and especially at the edges. Maybe I got a similar one to EP, who also found his one very soft. I have now got today, a 2006 vintage chrome 35 Lux ASPH and boy is it a good one. Spot on focus at 1.4 and very little aperture shift, as can be seen in the test chart images I posted today my thread on the 35 Lux in the Customer Forum. Both the Nokton and Biogon 35's are going for sale, as the Lux effectively replaces both. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted January 23, 2008 Share #23 Posted January 23, 2008 i have both and now that the nokton is fixed ( it fell to pieces for no reason), it is quite nice. It's faster focusing than the noctilux and has a closer near focus. It doesn't have the dreamy, swirly bokeh of the noctilux (which I love and others hate) but it's pretty sweet. Mine is very sharp and I haven't had much flare issues at all. I lost the lens hood and still don't have much problem at all. Thinking about selling the noctilux since its so ridiculously overpriced. The nokton is much lighter or at least it seems to be. I like the lower contrast-most of the time. I just posted a series of 12 shots with the cv in the landscape and travel section titled "NOLA revisited". It produces plenty of keepers-at least to my eye....B Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 23, 2008 Share #24 Posted January 23, 2008 Sean, My Nokton was a bit out in focus and I did have it adjusted and ran focus tests after I got it back, doing as you suggest, focus bracketing but I still found it a tad soft both in the centre and especially at the edges. Maybe I got a similar one to EP, who also found his one very soft. I have now got today, a 2006 vintage chrome 35 Lux ASPH and boy is it a good one. Spot on focus at 1.4 and very little aperture shift, as can be seen in the test chart images I posted today my thread on the 35 Lux in the Customer Forum. Both the Nokton and Biogon 35's are going for sale, as the Lux effectively replaces both. Wilson Hi Wilson, The 35 Lux is my favorite 35 and it really could replace both lenses. If you have a good copy that shows little focus shift, that's wonderful. Never sell it. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashwinrao1 Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share #25 Posted January 23, 2008 Thanks to everyone for their replies. What a great introduction to this wonderful forum and community! I appreciate all of the feedback and am impressed by the varied opinion regarding both the Nokton and Noctilux. Plus, I am truly honored to be getting feedback from the likes of many of you. It's a pleasure. Some more thoughts from me: I purchased a Nokton specifically for low light work but had heard it compared on occasion to the Noctilux, but understand that the 2 lenses have their inherent differences and in many ways, trying to compare them is comparing apples to oranges. But both apples and oranges are fruit, so....my desire to compare the two continued. I was also curious about the comparison of the Nokton and Noctilux, in that the Nokton could be considered to behave comparably on an M8 as would a Noctilux on a film camera, when looking at focal length alone. Both are "similar" in heft, and are specialty lenses in an M system, which values size as well as function and performance. I was also attempting to draw a comparison because both lenses are considered low light champs, yet vary widely in price point. I do snicker at the thought of what a "leica-branded" Nokton 35 would cost on the open market....Interestingly, if marketing is to be believed, there have been only 300 Nokton chrome's produced, and luckily I have one. I have no idea how many noctliuxes have been manufactured (or summiluxes/summicrons, for that matter)....so maybe one day, the Noktons will be lusted for similarly. I was also curious about user experience with the Noctilux due to users' lust of this lens (is it warranted or not? seems that opinion on this matter varies) and whether its price point is reasonable in this digital era, where photoshop can "accomplish" results that may have not been achievable in prior eras with lesser camera gear. I am quite happy with my Nokton so far. It seems sharp enough for my uses & skillset, when focus is achieved (always a challenge in the aforementioned low light shooting environments). I am enjoying its bokeh, though I suspect that its quality is different than that of the Noctilux. Hopefully, someday soon, I'll be able to get my hands on a Nocti and draw my own conclusions. Subjective, this photography is, despite all of the MTF data! As for the CV 35 f/1.4, it seems similar in construct (by pics) to the Nokton 40 classic, which I own. I feel that the Nokton 40 and Nokton 35 f/1.2 draw images differently (once again, subjective, particularly in highlight rendering in OOF areas. I will be curious how the 35 f/1.4 behaves in such respects.... As for the Noct-Nikkor, you all have given me another lens to "consider" (i.e lust for). Thanks again to everyone. I'll be continuing to pay attention to this and all other threads. It's great to join the gang! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted January 23, 2008 Share #26 Posted January 23, 2008 I agree with a lot that Ashwin says, the Nokton and Noctilux are apples and oranges. Knowing I was going to have to lose the Noctilux due to my physical inability to use it (very arthritic and damaged left hand) I ordered the Nokton, after trying one in a shop to make sure I could physically handle it. The shorter focal length, I felt would also be a bonus. I take a lot of evening shots at events around where I live for the summer in Provence. The Nokton was tested on arrival and proved to be accurate for focus with amazingly little aperture shift in comparison to the Noctilux. It was also much easier and quicker to focus. However the photos I took with it in low light, while technically OK, were to my eyes, just dull in comparison to the Noctilux. I guess I like oranges. The Noctilux's particular look is supposed to be due to the special way it produces spherical aberration, not normally a desirable characteristic in a lens but in this case it works. When I sent my Nokton to have its focus adjusted, when the infinity had drifted a bit, the technician said that the method of securing the focus mechanism to the rangefinder cam sleeve was a bit fragile in comparison to the very robust Leica method and he was not wholly surprised it had gone out of adjustment. He advised to be very gentle when coming to the stops at the ends of the focusing range. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 23, 2008 Share #27 Posted January 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) While the CV lenses are better made than many current SLR lenses, I do think a portion of the higher price one pays for Leica lenses is related to build quality. So, I'm not surprised at your technician's comment. But that said, I have several CV lenses that have been in heavy professional use, for a few years now, that have held up well. In general, though, Leica probably still is the gold standard for lens build quality (despite the stories we sometimes hear of isolated examples falling apart). Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonWeston Posted January 23, 2008 Share #28 Posted January 23, 2008 Wilson - maybe I am coming late to this discussion, but is there a reason you did not try or go with a 50mm 'Lux instead of the Nokton? Did you try to see if this would alleviate the handling or focusing issues with the Noct? Just curious... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted January 23, 2008 Share #29 Posted January 23, 2008 Wilson - maybe I am coming late to this discussion, but is there a reason you did not try or go with a 50mm 'Lux instead of the Nokton? Did you try to see if this would alleviate the handling or focusing issues with the Noct? Just curious... Don, I did exactly that and swapped my Noctilux with a forum member for a new coded chrome 50 ASPH Lux + a 50 ASPH Cron and other items.I find the Lux 100% perfect for all my 50mm requirements, so I sold the 50 Elmar I had bought to complement the Nocti plus the swap 50 ASPH Cron and bought a 75 Summarit instead. I am now therefore, covered at all focal lengths 16mm to 135mm. WATE, 35 ASPH Lux, 50 ASPH Lux, 75 Summarit, 90/2.8 Elmarit and 135/4 Tele-Elmar. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lesliefeng Posted March 12, 2008 Share #30 Posted March 12, 2008 Low contrast is not a big deal, try different film or processing timing. If you are a film camera player, you'd better know how to cook your film. No matter C, E or BW, there is a way to control your contrast, saturation and tone. Enjoy~ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 12, 2008 Share #31 Posted March 12, 2008 I'm the odd man out, as always. My vote goes to the 35 MILLIMETER Summilux ASPH! It has a very useful angle of acceptance, more useful in fact than a 50mm on a film camera. Below, at full aperture: The old man from the Age of Standard Lenses 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/43306-cv-nokton-35-f12-vs-noctilux/?do=findComment&comment=507977'>More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted March 12, 2008 Share #32 Posted March 12, 2008 >> Lars Was this photo taken with a 35 mm SUMMILUX ASPH. on the M8 ? The angle of view in your photograph looks more than the one of a 50mm- lens to me. So I do not understand why a comparison between a 35 mm VC lens and a 50 mm LEICA lens is the question here. Of course you can compare everything - both are fine fruits obviously, but each in it´s own mm- range. Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 12, 2008 Share #33 Posted March 12, 2008 The Exif data says that it's a 35mm shot at 1/750th @ ISO 320. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted March 12, 2008 Share #34 Posted March 12, 2008 Thx, Steve, but doesn´t it deliver a fov of a 50 mm lens, cropwise I mean ? That´s probably the main-reason why people like to compare the SUMMILUX 35 mm on the M8 to the NOCTILUX. Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 12, 2008 Share #35 Posted March 12, 2008 I'm the odd man out, as always. My vote goes to the 35 MILLIMETER Summilux ASPH!It has a very useful angle of acceptance, more useful in fact than a 50mm on a film camera. Below, at full aperture: The old man from the Age of Standard Lenses Thats exactly my opinion. on a cropped sensor 35mm seems more usefull (for me at least) for an available light lens than 50. So for me the 35/1.4asph (or maybe also the 35/1.2 CV) has the function what a Noctilux could do on film. Now I also like to use fast 50mm for portrait/people stuff in low light and here I gave up on the Noctilux (sold) because I just could not manage to focus it consistently (Mine went to Solms twice, second time with my M8). For those images I use the 50/1.4asph or the 50/1.5 Sonnar. I admit though that the Noctilux has a special character, but the 35/1.4asph too. Cheers, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted March 25, 2010 Share #36 Posted March 25, 2010 I really really wanted to get the 35/1.2 Nokton. However, the UVIR filters (52mm) are not available by Leica, and I couldn't find one here for the love of God. I thought of ordering one online, but then it would take awhile to get here... so I bought the 35mm Cron instead... Love the cron though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted March 26, 2010 Share #37 Posted March 26, 2010 B+W makes 486 UV/IR filters that fit the Nokton. They can be ordered online from several retailers - at least in the US and Europe. But the Cron is far from being a 2nd-choice lens:p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted March 31, 2010 Share #38 Posted March 31, 2010 Why choose between these two lenses? You can get a lot more versatility for so much less money than the Nocti - unless you just have to have its bokeh. I don't like contrasty (read 'Leica ASPH' & 'Zeiss') lenses very much, so I use a pre-aspherical 35 Summicron most of the time, & the Nokton 1.2 when I anticipate low light. This is a good combination if you want prints with max highlight & shadow detail. For a 50 I use a pre-aspherical Summilux, which is IMO the 'perfect' 50. I can carry it, see most of the frame, & focus it; & the gentle bokeh doesn't call attention to itself. These features save me from Nocti-lust. (I tried to replace the two 35s with a single pre-asph Summilux, but I found that the Nokton, the 35 Summicron, & also a 40 Summicron were all noticeably sharper than the middle-aged Lux at f2. The 35 was a disappointment in comparison to my pre-a 50 Lux. I liked the 'glow' of the 35 but couldn't accept its unreliability due to flare. The flare doesn't look as bad in BW but can really mess up color. So I've kept the Nokton & Summicron.) In $$ terms, 35 pre-a Cron + 35 1.2 Nokton + 50 pre-a Lux currrently cost about 40% the price of a Nocti, & (for me) suit every need in the middle focal lengths. But you might like a shorter focal length too for M8. So far, one important 'feature' of the 35 1.2 Nokton hasn't been mentioned – its chromatic aberration at large apertures. You can see some of this in Sean's test. In this respect it's no doubt a better lens for BW than for color. I use it mostly for color & then work on the CA in Photoshop. Kirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 31, 2010 Share #39 Posted March 31, 2010 I really really wanted to get the 35/1.2 Nokton. However, the UVIR filters (52mm) are not available by Leica, and I couldn't find one here for the love of God. I thought of ordering one online, but then it would take awhile to get here... so I bought the 35mm Cron instead... Love the cron though... Leica filters are certainly not the best filters available... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSU Posted April 3, 2010 Share #40 Posted April 3, 2010 I had a Noctilux in 2001 - 2003 which was used only with film. I was so inconsistent with exact focus wide open even with my M6 0.85 that I acquired a M3 which was used only with the Noctilux. With film the Noctilux filled a need in my lens lineup providing me very useful lens speed beyond my 50 Summicron, I had no other 50mm for my Leicas at the time. When my job moved me away from film and totally to digital (this in mid-2003) I sold about half my Leica kit keeping a M4 and both M6's (0.72 & 0.85) along with my 21/3.4, 35/2.0 v4 and 90/2.8 TE. Fast forward six years and now that I have the M8.2 I find myself using it for most of my shooting. I considered another Noctilux but with the crop factor I understood that it would not fit into my preferred FoV's. The prevailing market for the Noctilux also prompted me to consider other options. I now have a pair of modern F-1.2 lenses. The CV 35/1.2 Nokton is exceptional for me. I typically prefer my old tried and true 35 Summicron v4 if only for its svelte size, but I will go with the CV 35/1.2 and keep the ISO as low as possible on the M8.2 rather than continue with the 35/2.0 at elevated ISO's. With the crop factor the 35mm focal length is familiar to me, seeing much as I do with the 50mm lens and a FF format. I mentioned having a pair of F-1.2 lenses. The CV 35/1.2 is one and the other is the Hexanon 60/1.2. If the CV 35/1.2 is very good, and it is at least very good, the Hexanon 60/1.2 is exceptional. Together these lenses cost me much less than a Noctilux and while F-1.2 isn't F-1.0, I feel I am better served having two different looks with super speed lenses for my M8.2's. I use the 1.25X viewfinder magnifier with the 35/1.2 and the 1.4X viewfinder magnifier with the 60/1.2 and seldom is focussing a guesstimate, that is, if I see it in focus with either lens then I will see it in focus when I edit my take. I consider both of these lenses part of the permanent collection, unlike the Noctilux I once owned. They also are exceptional as available darkness lenses with my M6's. Also, I use and prefer the B&W UV/IR Cut filters, though I do some filters from Leica Camera as a result of registering my M8.2's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.