Voightlander Lens

[ColColt]

I'm considering a Voightlander Nokton 35 f1.4 lens and wondered if they were worth it. Anyone have one of those?

 

[jimjm]

Hoo-boy, you're opening a can of worms with this question. You may get a lot of responses from folks who love this lens and from those who loathe it.

I have this lens and I love it. Great for all-around shooting and low light situations. It lives on my M2 and I find it incredibly versatile. Attached is a street scene grab shot from a while back.

It has a reputation for more distortion than other lenses like the Zeiss or Leitz offerings, and the few objective comparison reviews I've seen seem to bear this out. This has never been an issue for me, and if straight lines are critical, or I'm shooting architecture, I'm not going to use a 35mm RF. But for a 35mm/1.4 lens in Leica M mount, it has this going for it:

- reasonable cost
- small size and weight
- great ergonomics, IMHO
- great build quality, IME
- good sharpness
- modern contrast characteristics with the MC version, supposedly less contrasty with the SC version

Only downside for me is the 43mm filter size, and the dedicated hood is not cheap.

Get one and try it out - if it doesn't suit you, you should easily be able to sell it and try something else. For less money and smaller, the CV Color Skopar 35/2.5 has a good reputation, and the Zeiss 35/2.8 is also very good, but more money.

Good Luck!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I had it. It was alright. Not the signature I was after, in fact I found most VC lenses I tried too modern and sterile in their character but that's me. I prefer lower contrast in my lenses for my B&W work. At least for my Leicas. Worth it? Not to me, but to others it seems so. For you? That's for you to decide based on what you want from your lenses.

 

[ColColt]

I have the Zeiss 50 f2 and am more than pleased with it. I pitted it against the renown 50 f2 Summicron DR and it was close but the Zeiss won out being a touch more contrast as expected in a much newer lens. Sharpness wise, only a pixel peeker could tell any difference.

I may just go with the Zeiss 35 f2.8 as it got very good reviews.

 

[cuthbert]

I don't have the 35mm, but I have the Nokton 50mm f1.5 and to be honest I'm very pleased by the quality of the lens, I also wanted a Biogon but I'm seriously considering the 35/1.4.

 

[Brian Legge]

Its a great lens if you are okay with moderate distortion and a bit of a vintage look/glow when shooting around f1.4 Decent construction, very compact, etc. There is also an aftermarket vented hood if you prefer a smaller and cheaper option.

If you want a modern look - high resolution, low distortion, high flare resistance - I'd suggest any of the Zeiss 35mms. They're fantastic though a fair amount larger.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Its a great lens if you are okay with moderate distortion and a bit of a vintage look/glow when shooting around f1.4 Decent construction, very compact, etc. There is also an aftermarket vented hood if you prefer a smaller and cheaper option.

If you want a modern look - high resolution, low distortion, high flare resistance - I'd suggest any of the Zeiss 35mms. They're fantastic though a fair amount larger.

Interesting. I now have the 35/2 Zeiss Biogon and while I mostly agree with your assessment regarding high resolution, low distortion, high flare resistance I found the VC 35/1.4 to be more of a "modern" and almost digital or sterile look particularly stopped down vs the Biogon.

 

[gzinsel]

CV lenses are "good enough" for the "good enough crowd". if you want something special, or interesting don't buy the CV lenses. (simple) Now, don't get me wrong. I am part of the "good enough crowd", but you gotta understand somethin' here. CV lenses was not made, nor intended to REALLY compete with Leitz or Zeiss. on that "high" caliber just sayin, . . . . These lenses are really good, and there is nothing wrong with "good enough", for Goude's sakes . . ."your shooting film!!!
I suggest you buy one. More than likely you enjoy it . if not, you will get your money back/break even.

 

[Xmas]

CV lenses are "good enough" for the "good enough crowd". if you want something special, or interesting don't buy the CV lenses. (simple) Now, don't get me wrong. I am part of the "good enough crowd", but you gotta understand somethin' here. CV lenses was not made, nor intended to REALLY compete with Leitz or Zeiss. on that "high" caliber just sayin, . . . . These lenses are really good, and there is nothing wrong with "good enough", for Goude's sakes . . ."your shooting film!!!
I suggest you buy one. More than likely you enjoy it . if not, you will get your money back/break even.

I wasted a whole lot of PanF+ film and then sold the modern Leica M and ZM lenses keeping the CV lenses I liked for handling.
The ZM lenses had more physical problems eg needing relubing before selling... Zeiss designers did not understand how to specify a lens.
If you can live with /2.5 there is a M and two LTM lenses to consider, identical optics different handling.

Same factory...

 

[gone]

I fully agree w/ Richard. Stick to classic lenses, unless a more modern (boring, but sharp ( image is preferred. A DR is a fantastic lens. Every Zeiss 50 I have owned was far inferior to the Summicron versions because while they may have been sharp, the bokeh was really sub optimal. Overall IQ wasn't nearly as good either. If someone doesn't mind the weight, a DR can't be beat. if weight is an issue, get a collapsible Summicron.

Pixel peeker?

Those pics cuthbert posted are sure as heck sharp, and I like them very much, but they could have come from a Nikon SLR due to their modern look.

 

[ColColt]

Shortly after getting the DR lens, and it looked absolutely pristine, no fog, haze, etc., I decided to do a side by side comparison between it and the Zeiss 50 f2 Planar *T lens. Results were surprising. shot at the same aperture and slight sharpening to the same degree for both of them as not to give one an edge over the other. The Zeiss had a small edge in contrast but considering this DR lens was made in 1957 you be the judge. Tigger's face and chest were yellow and with a yellow filter on both lens it shows mostly lighter than it was since those filters lighten their own color...

Zeiss lens...

Rod0012Zeissa by David Fincher, on Flickr

DR lens...

Rod0011DRa by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

If the DR is the second one it looks more contrasty to me.

But a lens' character cannot usually be easily ascertained in one example but in use over time in different lighting, subjects, situations, different OFF elements and lighting, etc. There's something about the DR's personality that just makes me smile and nod my head and mumble "yes, now that's what I'm talking about..." under my breath more often than most other 50's lenses when I view the results.

 

[ColColt]

The DR is the second one(lens name above photo). It's a close call. Not bad for a 58 year old lens.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The DR is the second one(lens name above photo). It's a close call. Not bad for a 58 year old lens.

Yes, saw that DR in the title. Interesting, viewing now on my desktop iMac the first photo looks more contrasty. Viewing earlier with my iPhone through Tapatalk the second one looks more contrasty...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm like OP, don't mind to try another lens. I'm after 25mm range now. Guess which lens I could afford without selling all of my photogear?

Here is nothing wrong with modern, but not the latest made by Cosina RF lenses. Made under V and Z names. Very latest Cosina lenses in M mount are optimized for digital cameras, not for film anymore.

As of lens character talk. I was all into it and full of it. Leitz classic glass character I have seen on ... scans.
Started to do it right, in the darkroom and...

In 50mm I'm surprised how full of the lens character the prints from negs exposed via clean and aligned for M J8 and J3 are. Summicron 50 v1 prints... it looks close to MF on prints, but not so much of the character.
Summarit 50 1.5 gives the character on prints, but comparing to Jupiters and Crons it comes more from optics design flaws. And same applies to Summar and Summitar.
I wen't through Summar, Summitar, Summarit and collapsible Cron. And let them go. Old Leitz classic lenses, heavy brass and very soft glass to deal with aren't practical for me. They looks cool on Barnacks and classic M, but on black M4-2... It needs black lens

But I'm unable to afford more fresh Crons in any range.

On 35mm I'm keeping CV CS 35 2.5 PII. Cheap leans now in terms of used prices for M-mount. It took me couple of years to realize why some reputable Leica shooters are saying what lens is good.
Only after I started to print shots taken with f2.5-f8 it came.
I was intimidated by used CV 35 1.4 in CC version for BW prints. But wrong filter size and design flaws kept me with less complicated and much more slower 35 2.5.

Would I prefer canadian Cron instead of Cosina Skopar? To be honest, not mostly for prints, but more important for just to keep my M4-2 not so lonely Canadian.
I gave it goggled Summaron 35 3.5 this year, but it was refused by camera

So, if you are after classic film photography non-digital RF Cosina lenses will gives you fine prints and some character. If you are into scans analyzing it is different story which I have done and gone for now.

Cheers, Ko.

 

[cuthbert]

Those pics cuthbert posted are sure as heck sharp, and I like them very much, but they could have come from a Nikon SLR due to their modern look.

I think the bokeh of the Nokton is pretty good for an aspherical lens, I don't find it sterile at all:

This is not my best portrait, but it proves the lens can also be used for this:

 

[Xmas]

Subjective instead you need the ISO lens test and PanF+.
A Dcamera will give different results.

A CV 35mm /2.5 on test chart is not much behind any of the other modern 35mms at /5.6 so you are paying money for a non detectable difference. There are three of the CV /2.5 lenses to 'suit' your hand size.v

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I like it, it's tiny, it lives happily on my bessa. Doesn't get in the way and is great for snaps. I use it with out hood( didn't like it as it stuck out to much) and with a Uv filter. No real problems, I think others reported this lens having a bit of focus shift on different apertures but it hasn't affected my images so far.

 

[250swb]

CV lenses are "good enough" for the "good enough crowd". if you want something special, or interesting don't buy the CV lenses. (simple)

Well we've got the Cameraquest review of the 28mm Skopar, Sean Reid's review of the 75mm f/2.5 Heliar, and Steve Huff's review of the 50mm f/1.1 Nokton (to name a few) that go counter to the theory that CV lenses aren't special. I name those three because I have them and the nearest Leica equivalent in terms of 'quality' (with the exception of the Leica Noctilux which I sold). And it is true, the 75mm f/2.5 Heliar is really as good in every respect compared with the 75mm Summarit. My 28mm Skopar is sharper in the corners at like for like apertures compared with my 28mm Summicron, the Summicron only beating it for overall sharpness at small apertures. The f/1.1 Nokton has a different bokeh from the Noctilux, but no less pleasant.

In each case the lenses mentioned can be chosen based on rendering preference between CV, Zeiss, and Leica rather than an optical inferiority. So I really think we need to separate the perceived value of CV lenses from the price you pay for them. Buying cleverly is still needed within the Leica and Zeiss ranges, and perhaps you need to buy slightly more cleverly in the CV range, but it shouldn't be looked down on. That doesn't help the OP with buying a 35mm Nokton, and I only have the 40mm Nokton, but I think you can take it seriously if enough photographers using a particular CV lens are willing to say it is good.

Steve

 

[Xmas]

Well we've got the Cameraquest review of the 28mm Skopar, Sean Reid's review of the 75mm f/2.5 Heliar, and Steve Huff's review of the 50mm f/1.1 Nokton (to name a few) that go counter to the theory that CV lenses aren't special. I name those three because I have them and the nearest Leica equivalent in terms of 'quality' (with the exception of the Leica Noctilux which I sold). And it is true, the 75mm f/2.5 Heliar is really as good in every respect compared with the 75mm Summarit. My 28mm Skopar is sharper in the corners at like for like apertures compared with my 28mm Summicron, the Summicron only beating it for overall sharpness at small apertures. The f/1.1 Nokton has a different bokeh from the Noctilux, but no less pleasant.

In each case the lenses mentioned can be chosen based on rendering preference between CV, Zeiss, and Leica rather than an optical inferiority. So I really think we need to separate the perceived value of CV lenses from the price you pay for them. Buying cleverly is still needed within the Leica and Zeiss ranges, and perhaps you need to buy slightly more cleverly in the CV range, but it shouldn't be looked down on. That doesn't help the OP with buying a 35mm Nokton, and I only have the 40mm Nokton, but I think you can take it seriously if enough photographers using a particular CV lens are willing to say it is good.

Steve

I used a high low contrast test target PanF+ and heavy tripod.
There were detectable differences but in practice with ISO 400 at 5.6 none.
The ergonomics of a lens with your hand size way more critical...

If you take photos of furniture in a cemetry off a tripod maybe not but they need to be big prints...

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Judging a lens by sharpness alone is not what I'm ever after.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Judging a lens by sharpness alone is not what I'm ever after.

I'm finally not alone on this one!

 

[250swb]

Judging a lens by sharpness alone is not what I'm ever after.

And it's an equally good reason not to choose based on price or perceived manufacturer quality over actual quality. Sean Reid summed up with his comparison of the 75mm Heliar and 75mm Summarit that they were so equal it is down to fine differences in contrast more than any outright single advantage, other than price. But of course when one persons status symbol is matched by a workaday lens in another range the status symbol will always win out, well it has to, it cost more.


Steve

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

And it's an equally good reason not to choose based on price or perceived manufacturer quality over actual quality. Sean Reid summed up with his comparison of the 75mm Heliar and 75mm Summarit that they were so equal it is down to fine differences in contrast more than any outright single advantage, other than price. But of course when one persons status symbol is matched by a workaday lens in another range the status symbol will always win out, well it has to, it cost more.


Steve

Valid points. The VC 75/2.5 is one of my favorite lenses for my Leicas, I've had one for years. It's one of the few of the 4-5 VC lenses I've kept, the other being the 15mm.

 

[ColColt]

So, what's the bottom line. Would you opt for the CV 35 f1.4 or Zeiss 35 f2.8?