Many well deserved kiitos, Juha. Thanks for taking the time to share with those of us looking to grab one of these. If I understood correctly one of your earlier comments, you also own (or have used) the Nokton 40 f/1.2 (e). I realize you just got the 35 and so it's certainly too early to express a less than superficial opinion, but I am planning to buy one of these two lenses to fill a gap that I need to fill (for my upcoming daughters 18th birthday fest, which will be indoors, at night).
My Laowa 15 f/2 (which I love on my A7R2) is a bit too wide for this venue, and the lack of exif data would cause me to lose precious seconds when I'll often need to be quick.
I'm a lover of wides, and so my gut would lead me to the 35 (as would the size, which is gorgeous...) but the character of the photos I've seen from the 40 appears to be a bit more pronounced, and I note a slightly nicer bokeh on the 40 wide open. Granted, your days shots are the first we've all seen from the new 35, but if you could offer any comments that might help me make my pick, I'd be immensely grateful.
I added 77 low light photos to the same Album, they appear after the 100 daylight photos. They are also SOOC JPEGs with my A9. Really liking the output in low light, the lens is definitely growing on me
stevelloyd3 wrote:
Many well deserved kiitos, Juha. Thanks for taking the time to share with those of us looking to grab one of these. If I understood correctly one of your earlier comments, you also own (or have used) the Nokton 40 f/1.2 (e). I realize you just got the 35 and so it's certainly too early to express a less than superficial opinion, but I am planning to buy one of these two lenses to fill a gap that I need to fill (for my upcoming daughters 18th birthday fest, which will be indoors, at night).
My Laowa 15 f/2 (which I love on my A7R2) is a bit too wide for this venue, and the lack of exif data would cause me to lose precious seconds when I'll often need to be quick.
I'm a lover of wides, and so my gut would lead me to the 35 (as would the size, which is gorgeous...) but the character of the photos I've seen from the 40 appears to be a bit more pronounced, and I note a slightly nicer bokeh on the 40 wide open. Granted, your days shots are the first we've all seen from the new 35, but if you could offer any comments that might help me make my pick, I'd be immensely grateful....Show more →
Kiitos! Yes, I also have the E-mount Nokton 40/1.2. I have grown to like the 40/1.2 a lot and I've used it a lot. For indoor night birthday fest involving a lot of shots of people I think I would recommend the 40/1.2 over the 35/1.4 right now as I'm not sure how well the 35/1.4 would work in that situation, but I already found out today that the 35/1.4 Nokton can produce some great stuff in low light outdoors with city / shop lights. I do think the 40/1.2 might be a better portrait lens but I haven't shot any portraits with the 35/1.4 yet. I'm feeling the 35/1.4 will work great in certain outdoor situations, especially when there are nice city lights / shop lights etc. Still need to use the 35/1.4 a lot more before I can form a confident opinion about it, but I'm already sure it's a keeper.
dukenuken wrote:
Thank you for sharing Juha. Focus distance, background types and apertures you've selected are just perfect for me to see the character.
Seems to have a bit more sharpness than M version on Sony bodies from what I remember... but a test side by side would tell us the truth.
This lens is exactly what I was waiting for
Thanks! Do check out the new shots added in the album as well (at the end), I think the lens does really well in low light urban shooting with city lights / shop lights and even at widest apertures. Lots of nice character.
My bet and this is a guess on my part the 40 1.2 maybe easier to focus in lower light not because of the speed though but more because of the contrast. Juha when you get a chance can you try that just to see if I’m guessing good.
GMPhotography wrote:
My bet and this is a guess on my part the 40 1.2 maybe easier to focus in lower light not because of the speed though but more because of the contrast. Juha when you get a chance can you try that just to see if I’m guessing good.
They seem to be pretty similar in terms of focusing from my testing so far, they both peak really well wide open too but I haven't tested in low light that didn't have some sort of decent illumination yet (like city or shop lights). I will try to compare when I have a chance to shoot in low light situation where there are only some dim lights. Anyway, I did recommend 40/1.2 for such low light party environment so far since I have more confidence it will do very well in such environment from IQ perspective.
Juha, could you do one or two flowers at MFD that have foliage or other flowers in the background? I'd really like to see the bokeh in this situation. I'm hoping for "wonky" and not smooth. Thanks!
Juha Kannisto wrote:
They seem to be pretty similar in terms of focusing from my testing so far, they both peak really well wide open too but I haven't tested in low light that didn't have some sort of decent illumination yet (like city or shop lights). I will try to compare when I have a chance to shoot in low light situation where there are only some dim lights. Anyway, I did recommend 40/1.2 for such low light party environment so far since I have more confidence it will do very well in such environment from IQ perspective.
Sounds great. Thanks for the hard work. I’m not giving up my 40 for anything but more curious about this new entry into our world. Great shots too
Great night shots to help us judge !
It may just be my impression, but it seems that the 40 1.2 has a widely different rendering of star bursts on night lights, even at wider apertures, than the 35.
Either way, looks like a fantastic lens.
Thanks again, Juha, for taking the time to post these.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I added 77 low light photos to the same Album, they appear after the 100 daylight photos. They are also SOOC JPEGs with my A9. Really liking the output in low light, the lens is definitely growing on me
LBJ2 wrote:
Talk about a work-out! Kiitos for the many samples Juha. Time for me to start comparing with my Voigt 35M V2
Kiitoksia! I used to have the Voigt 35/1.2 v1 but I more or less stopped using it when I got the 35/1.7 Ultron M. The weight of the 35/1.2 with CV close-focus adapter was always a bit too much and I liked the sharpness of the Ultron. I did take some of my favorite photos with the 35/1.2 v1 back in the day though. I think the 40/1.2 is more similar to the 35/1.2 in drawing style but this 35/1.4 Classic is really nice and small and seems to have it's own special style.
stevelloyd3 wrote:
Great night shots to help us judge !
It may just be my impression, but it seems that the 40 1.2 has a widely different rendering of star bursts on night lights, even at wider apertures, than the 35.
Either way, looks like a fantastic lens.
Thanks again, Juha, for taking the time to post these.
Thanks! I don't think the star bursts are actually that different, and I saw some nice stars at f2.8 with the 35/1.4 too. On the 40/1.2 they become nice from f2.8 as well. I didn't focus on getting any demo shots of star bursts on the 35/1.4 yet but I got the impression that they are pretty similar with the 40/1.2.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I put 100 JPEGs here, straight out of camera (Sony A9). EXIF is available on those shots. Random samples taken this morning in Shinjuku and during lunch break at Shinagawa Seaside. The weather is a bit hazy but basically sunny. In many cases I took the "same shot" twice at different apertures, e.g. f1.4 and f2 or f5.6 and f8.
At f1.4 there is definitely some glow, probably more so than 40/1.2 has wide open. By f2 the results sharpen up noticeably. f8 might be optimum aperture for infinity shots but I find f5.6 to be working almost as well. Bokeh is a bit busier than with 40/1.2.
I had Camera Lens distortion and CA correction set to AUTO but vignetting correction off so some in-camera corrections may have been applied. There is quite much vignetting at f1.4. I also have all the RAW files so if somebody wants to see particular RAW file I can copy it somewhere....Show more →
Great samples Juha!
It looks like you enjoyed walking around the streets with it.
I love the colors and contrast. It's actually sharper than I thought towards the edges. OOF rendering can be a bit funky wide open and that may not appeal to everyone. Overall, it seems to be a special lens.
Thanks for the excellent samples of the lens performance Juha.
That certainly isn't like the old Leica Summilux, and I don't think it is any better than the M version CV made WRT bokeh. Quite nervous and shows overcorrection in the OOF highlights, and there is a strange effect in some of the OOF highlights that are out towards the corner where the overcorrection edges cross back over the center of the circle, forming a bit of a chord across the body of the OOF highlight. The old Leica would do something similar at f 1.4, but it wasn't a chord, it was a dot in the center of the bokeh ball. The summilux didn't show much nervousness in the OOF areas.
Looks like lots of coma as well when wide open, but that was somewhat expected. The old Leica had that as well, and was the reason the contrast dropped so much wide open.
Well, it is a character lens, just not sure if that is the kind of character that I want.
One thing about the old Leica is that much of the really strange character of the lens would be gone by f 2.8, so if you could handle using it stopped down two stops, it would really have nice, smooth bokeh. In my experience, almost as nice as the "Bokeh King" Summicron. By f8, it was pretty darn sharp across the field, so would satisfy for landscape shooting just fine.
I'll be paying attention for more shooting samples to get a better sense if this will be my replacement for the summilux that I really liked shooting with on the M9 camera. As much as I liked that lens, the experience shooting with that camera was so poor that it couldn't keep me using the Leica bodies.
Hey Juha,
I just noticed your 40 1.2 photos (on Google+) from a couple days ago. Some really nices ones with Tokyo architecture.
I've pretty much decided that I'll be buying the 40mm next week (when the Italian distributor gets more copies). I'll also be getting my new Xperia....
Nonetheless, looking very much forward to any more shots you take with the 35.
Parhain terveisin
mjm6 wrote:
Thanks for the excellent samples of the lens performance Juha.
That certainly isn't like the old Leica Summilux, and I don't think it is any better than the M version CV made WRT bokeh. Quite nervous and shows overcorrection in the OOF highlights, and there is a strange effect in some of the OOF highlights that are out towards the corner where the overcorrection edges cross back over the center of the circle, forming a bit of a chord across the body of the OOF highlight. The old Leica would do something similar at f 1.4, but it wasn't a chord, it was a dot in the center of the bokeh ball. The summilux didn't show much nervousness in the OOF areas.
Looks like lots of coma as well when wide open, but that was somewhat expected. The old Leica had that as well, and was the reason the contrast dropped so much wide open.
Well, it is a character lens, just not sure if that is the kind of character that I want.
One thing about the old Leica is that much of the really strange character of the lens would be gone by f 2.8, so if you could handle using it stopped down two stops, it would really have nice, smooth bokeh. In my experience, almost as nice as the "Bokeh King" Summicron. By f8, it was pretty darn sharp across the field, so would satisfy for landscape shooting just fine.
I'll be paying attention for more shooting samples to get a better sense if this will be my replacement for the summilux that I really liked shooting with on the M9 camera. As much as I liked that lens, the experience shooting with that camera was so poor that it couldn't keep me using the Leica bodies....Show more →
I've never shot with the Summilux 35 on a Leica camera but I really like the images from the CV 35/1.4 E-mount based on Juha's samples. Wide open is plenty sharp around the center area with a nice glow in the highlights. That glow remains even at f/2.8 towards the corners. Totally different look compared to the 40/1.2 and 65/2 lenses. Now it makes sense to me that Voigtlander released them together...as I don't think they compete with each other.
At f/4, I start to see sharp edges with high contrast throughout the field. It's probably its optimum aperture. I can't judge extreme edges from these images but my guess is that it would need smaller than f/5.6 for optimum results at infinity.
OOF is not smooth and very structured, just a different look from the other newly released CV lenses. Bokeh balls have a strong border ring and funky inner structures (not onion) wide open. It seems to have better axial color correction compared to the 40/1.2 from the samples I've seen so far.
I can see distinctive sunstars at f/2.8 just like the 40/1.2 and really like the color rendering. This lens is about the same size as the FE 35/2.8 while being 2 stops faster, having beautiful sunstar rendering and great contrast. I don't think it can compete with the ZA in terms of resolution across the field and coma control but if I had to choose one for size and compactness, I would probably lean towards the Voigt.
Someone once made the comment of the old M mount 35/1.4 that it was the perfect lens for the internet age, meaning downsized for 1600px sharpness was fine, with lots of character making for interesting, engaging shots. Not technically perfect, but very nice none the less. Struck me as pretty accurate, I think this new E mount builds on that...
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've never shot with the Summilux 35 on a Leica camera but I really like the images from the CV 35/1.4 E-mount based on Juha's samples. Wide open is plenty sharp around the center area with a nice glow in the highlights. That glow remains even at f/2.8 towards the corners. Totally different look compared to the 40/1.2 and 65/2 lenses. Now it makes sense to me that Voigtlander released them together...as I don't think they don't compete with each other.
At f/4, I start to see sharp edges with high contrast throughout the field. It's probably its optimum aperture. I can't judge extreme edges from these images but my guess is that it would need smaller than f/5.6 for optimum results at infinity.
OOF is not smooth and very structured, just a different look from the other newly released CV lenses. Bokeh balls have a strong border ring and funky inner structures (not onion) wide open. It seems to have better axial color correction compared to the 40/1.2 from the samples I've seen so far.
I can see distinctive sunstars at f/2.8 just like the 40/1.2 and really like the color rendering. This lens is about the same size as the FE 35/2.8 while being 2 stops faster, having beautiful sunstar rendering and great contrast. I don't think it can compete with the ZA in terms of resolution across the field and coma control but if I had to choose one for size and compactness, I would probably lean towards the Voigt....Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've never shot with the Summilux 35 on a Leica camera but I really like the images from the CV 35/1.4 E-mount based on Juha's samples. Wide open is plenty sharp around the center area with a nice glow in the highlights. That glow remains even at f/2.8 towards the corners. Totally different look compared to the 40/1.2 and 65/2 lenses. Now it makes sense to me that Voigtlander released them together...as I don't think they don't compete with each other.
At f/4, I start to see sharp edges with high contrast throughout the field. It's probably its optimum aperture. I can't judge extreme edges from these images but my guess is that it would need smaller than f/5.6 for optimum results at infinity.
OOF is not smooth and very structured, just a different look from the other newly released CV lenses. Bokeh balls have a strong border ring and funky inner structures (not onion) wide open. It seems to have better axial color correction compared to the 40/1.2 from the samples I've seen so far.
I can see distinctive sunstars at f/2.8 just like the 40/1.2 and really like the color rendering. This lens is about the same size as the FE 35/2.8 while being 2 stops faster, having beautiful sunstar rendering and great contrast. I don't think it can compete with the ZA in terms of resolution across the field and coma control but if I had to choose one for size and compactness, I would probably lean towards the Voigt....Show more →
I agree Fred. It does look good overall in these images, and if it smooths out at f2 or so, it may be a great option. It feels too nervous for my tastes in the shots I've seen wide open, and that is the largest disappointment. Sharpness in center would be great to improve upon compared to the old summilux, as that lens was quite soft until stopped down a bit. I bet it is sharper. If it also eliminates the field curvature that the old one had, then it is in great shape for many people probably.
