sebboh wrote:
it was a cross branded survey i saw linked on one of the leica centric forums. it was a few years ago, but i thought it was an interesting result so it stuck in my mind. just looking at the users here, dpi, and rff seems to bear that out though. there seems to be a lot less people interested in "full lens coverage" shooting rangefinders, and more people that pick one or two focal lengths and focus on that than in the dslr or sony world.
Yep - I would agree with that as a generalization. I will have to try and dig up that survey - sounds interesting!
I've been reluctant to sell my Loxia 35 and 50 because of what I usually shoot, but the Nokton seems fine for that as well. These are from today, at f/2.2 and f/2.
Martin, if I had to compare the CV 40, it would be to the Planar 50 f:1.4. Weaknesses wide open, but not uninteresting, cleaning up as you stop down, but maintaining an interesting rendering rather than a clinical one. But it is a lower contrast lens than the Zeiss.
philber wrote:
Martin, if I had to compare the CV 40, it would be to the Planar 50 f:1.4. Weaknesses wide open, but not uninteresting, cleaning up as you stop down, but maintaining an interesting rendering rather than a clinical one. But it is a lower contrast lens than the Zeiss.
It's only weak near MFD wide open. At a few meters distance it's bitingly sharp even at f/1.2. I'd say it's more like the Sonnar 50/1.5 in character.
The only thing I don't like is the harsh transition zone at some distances, where most Zeiss lenses are better. And unfortunately it doesn't get better when stopping down; rather the opposite.
Edit: You can see traces of it in the first image above.
Edit 2: Or do you mean the modern 50/1.4 Planar for Sony? Haven't tried that one. I was referring to the old classic.
No, the classic. Martin, I have shots which I will show on Monday on DearSusan. Wide open, lights in the background really "expand" with glow, to being much larger than life, and then shrink back to reality as you stop down. That reminded me of our classic Zeiss.
The transition zone is sometimes a problem, I agree.
Flare is another problem and gets worse as you stop down, just as the bokeh... Maybe that's why Philippe finds the contrast lower than Zeiss level?
The glow at large openings... It's clearly there but think it is less than what we get from the classic double Gauss 50/1.4 lenses.
Field curvature is a very small problem in real life, except for those seeking maximum sharpness corner to corner. I do sometimes but at f/4 or f/5.6 the lens works good enough for me.
The focus throw could have been longer, the "aperture throw" could have been shorter. The list goes on...
You are right Philippe, every lens test (and user) should remember the good things with a lens when finding out about the problems. It's easy to get lost. I enjoyed using the lens today and got a couple of nice looking images. That's not bad.
philber wrote:
I feel that the lens is not being helped by a detailed study of its weaknesses which does not always put it in perspective wth its many virtues.
What? That never happens on the internet. It's 100% objectivity, 100% of the time.
I just tried a Nikon No.5 T closeup lens on the Nokton, and it does some magic. MFD is not much shorter, something like ~0.3 meters. But at the same magnification as without the closeup lens, sharpness is extremely much better. Probably because you're at a few meters according to the Noktons distance scale.
The No.5 T is only +1.5 diopters and made for the Nikkor 105/1.8 (62 mm filter thread), so it doesn't do very much on such a short focal length as 40 mm. But it's achromatic and allows you to use the lens from ~0.3 to 0.7 meters with lesser haze and still get the same bokeh quality.
Edit: Björn is right, it's achromatic, not apochromatic.
Makten wrote:
I just tried a Nikon No.5 T closeup lens on the Nokton, and it does some magic. MFD is not much shorter, something like ~0.3 meters. But at the same magnification as without the closeup lens, sharpness is extremely much better. Probably because you're at a few meters according to the Noktons distance scale.
The No.5 T is only +1.5 diopters and made for the Nikkor 105/1.8 (62 mm filter thread), so it doesn't do very much on such a short focal length as 40 mm. But it's apochromatic and allows you to use the lens from ~0.3 to 0.7 meters with lesser haze and still get the same bokeh quality. ...Show more →
Interesting. Maybe you just created manual floating elements...
The Nikon 5T is a doublet, afaik, which means it is corrected for two colours instead of three, so it's an achromat and not an apochromat. Besides only the sum of lens elements, i.e. the elements in the master lens + those in the 5T combined may be achromatic or apochromatic.
I just tried (very crudely, because I don't have the required step down) an achromatic 2 diopter lens on the front.
The result is that when the lens is set to infinity, it focusses at about half a metre.
And the central quality is much better than when the lens is focussed at the .6 metre setting with no filter!
Since I was blutacking the lens on, I won't post crops...but doing it carefully is on my todo list.
2 diopter is a bit too strong though to be useful; I think 1.5 like Makten's suggestion or even 1 diopter would be better.. If I can find an achromatic 1 diopter.
The only 2 element aprox. 1 diopter ever made, I think, is an old Minolta, available in a max size of 55mm so likely to cause vignetting.
SO it's either the Nikon 2 diopter or the Raynox 2 diopter for modestly close work...
@Makten, I think it's a very good catch you've done, by making a very fast lens work well close up with the Nikon 5T achromat. I should've added that in my previous post. This makes the Voigt 40/1.2 more desirable, when it can work for casual close up images.
Left is with +2 diopter Raynox 2 element front lens. Lens set to infinity
Right is at the same distance without front lens. lens set to .6m
Each best focus of three.
Raynox attached with blu-tac, so central part only. I'm waiting for the right step down to use with the Nokton!
No sharpening beyond import default (not even screen sharpening on export)
No difference in exposure either! The brightness you can see is from contrast: the histograms show a huge contrast difference.
Using a +1.5 would get you to .7
I wonder if using a decent but only 1 element front lens would be OK; would allow you to focus a bit further away around a metre which is common enviro portrait territory...
bjornthun wrote:
The left one is sharper, but why is the colour of the text different, i.e. not black in the left sample?
CA, probably focussed just a tiny bit behind the focal plane (this lens has a lot of it wide open) I think it is blurred out in the other. Looking again you get fringing with *tiniest* movement of the focussing rail I was using.
Here it is with a touch of defringeing... literally the smallest possible amount in LR
Also now at 1:1
Note this is at f1.2. The differences are just as great at f2; where the with diopter version goes from OK to very good.
Makten wrote:
I just tried a Nikon No.5 T closeup lens on the Nokton, and it does some magic. MFD is not much shorter, something like ~0.3 meters. But at the same magnification as without the closeup lens, sharpness is extremely much better. Probably because you're at a few meters according to the Noktons distance scale.
The No.5 T is only +1.5 diopters and made for the Nikkor 105/1.8 (62 mm filter thread), so it doesn't do very much on such a short focal length as 40 mm. But it's apochromatic and allows you to use the lens from ~0.3 to 0.7 meters with lesser haze and still get the same bokeh quality. ...Show more →
DavidBM wrote:
I wonder if using a decent but only 1 element front lens would be OK; would allow you to focus a bit further away around a metre which is common enviro portrait territory...
i'm betting that i like the less sharp, glowier naked lens better for environmental portraits, but i'll be interested to see.
Yep! I've just ordered a Nikon 5T since 0.7 metres is surpassingly more useful than 0.6 metres as a maximum focussing distance (which is what I get with the 2 dioptre Raynox)
I actually wonder how a 1 diopter single element lens would go at 1 metre? More good than harm?
Like: 'I was incorrect, thank you for enlightening me, I apologize for speaking in ignorance.'
You have to wonder what the lens design community think of users plonking filters on the products of their blood, sweat and tears, endless ray traces, program determinations, sensor thickness considerations - only to improve their optical performance, sometimes radically? lol.
These are from today, at f/2.2 and f/2. 
