I finally received my Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 Aspherical III today ("SE" E-mount version) and started a rolling review.
I wanted to compare it to a few lenses and also to the VM version. I've had the Leica VM version for a few weeks but unfortunately it was not able to focus at infinity at the lens' hard stop. Currently it's been adjusted and as soon as I get it back, I will compare both E and M mount versions side by side. My initial impression was that VM version performed well on the Sony sensor, except for the mid-field area where the E-mount version seems stronger. I will know more later on.
Let's start with some infinity tests to see how the new Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 Aspherical III performs in regards to resolution, contrast, vignetting and color aberration. Just like the Voigtlander 40/1.2 and 50/1.2 Nokton lenses, the new CV 35mm f/1.2 III is not equipped with a floating system so it performs way better at infinity compared to closer distances. At distances closer than 1m, spherical aberration is very noticeable and images will have lower contrast, resolution and some haze.
Here is a summary with links to the tests and samples images:
Thanks for the test, Fred. I paid full price for the 40mm f1.2, I have not used it much. I guess at that focal length I am more a zoom guy. I think 35mm may suit me better as a walk around lens. Don’t want to lose $500 by selling the 40mm to get the 35mm right now. I have not taken more than 50 pictures with the 40, so if I sell it now it would have cost me $10/picture, very few of which are keepers
Fred, I know it's early, but I'm curious about your findings re performance differences between the VM and e-mount versions. A major camera store in Tokyo just posted their review the other day, and among other things they mentioned that the e-mount version showed less purple fringing than the VM version. Also, they argued that stopped down performance was on the same level as the APO Lanthar lenses. I would be interested to hear you thoughts on these points, when you've had more time to evaluate the lens.
I don't know what stopped down performance means compared to apo lanthar series. The strength of the lanthar series is their performance wide open, especially considering corner to corner sharpness, and CA.
My Nokton 50mm 1.2 E is considered by some to be one of the sharpest lens at 5.6 in center. But I don't think the corners come close to the APO 50. CA at 5.6 are also perfectly corrected whereas under 2.8, fringing can be seen...
On this infinity test Center looks perfect where corners look only good to very good. And as Fred said, at closer distance, it cannot be as good as lenses with floating element.
Chris_88 wrote:
Fred, I know it's early, but I'm curious about your findings re performance differences between the VM and e-mount versions. A major camera store in Tokyo just posted their review the other day, and among other things they mentioned that the e-mount version showed less purple fringing than the VM version. Also, they argued that stopped down performance was on the same level as the APO Lanthar lenses. I would be interested to hear you thoughts on these points, when you've had more time to evaluate the lens.
Yes, the E-mount version will show less lateral CA when editing its raw files in Lightroom. However, it's not because it's superior optically.
The reason is that Sony embeds CA correction to the RAW file and that does not happen with the VM lens adapted to Sony or used on a Leica body. Once the VM file is corrected for CA, files from both lenses would look pretty much the same in terms of color error. (There is some correction for purple fringing as well)
hesb wrote:
I don't know what stopped down performance means compared to apo lanthar series. The strength of the lanthar series is their performance wide open, especially considering corner to corner sharpness, and CA.
My Nokton 50mm 1.2 E is considered by some to be one of the sharpest lens at 5.6 in center. But I don't think the corners come close to the APO 50. CA at 5.6 are also perfectly corrected whereas under 2.8, fringing can be seen...
On this infinity test Center looks perfect where corners look only good to very good. And as Fred said, at closer distance, it cannot be as good as lenses with floating element....Show more →
I was merely transcribing what that review stated; no need to shoot the messenger. Their point was that the 35 1.2 was different from the APO Lanthars, in that it had a dual character: Usable sharpness with some old school glow wide open (unlike the APO Lanthars that are hard to fault from the wide open) and sharpness on the same level as the APO Lanthars stopped down to f5.6 or f8 at infinity. They also noted the lack of a floating element which obviously effects close up performance, just like it did with the 40 1.2.
This all sounds reasonable to me and I'm curious to see what Fred reports, seeing how there are probably no reviewers with better and more critical eyes around than him.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, the E-mount version will show less lateral CA when editing its raw files in Lightroom. However, it's not because it's superior optically.
The reason is that Sony embeds CA correction to the RAW file and that does not happen with the VM lens adapted to Sony or used on a Leica body. Once the VM file is corrected for CA, files from both lenses would look pretty much the same in terms of color error. (There is some correction for purple fringing as well)
Thanks, Fred. I had forgotten about the "software" part of the package. Looking forward to your comparisons with older 35mm MF glass to get an idea how this compares to the Loxia 35, etc.
The dual character you describe has been excatly what pushed me buying the nokton 50mm and not the apo. Even if I don't think the corners can reach the same level of sharpness, it is sharp enough for my a7r2, and color rendition, contrast, CA correction from f4 are really good. But at F2 it is definitely not on the same level
hesb wrote:
My message was not meant to shoot anybody, so my apologies if it's been received like this
No worries.
I didn't mind the Loxia 35's dual character, when I had that lens. However, I didn't find any joy in using the 40 1.2 (which is supposedly similar or slightly weaker than your 50 1.2), as I couldn't adjust to the 40mm FL. I have had the 50 APO for only a short time, but corona and the rainy season have prevented me taking any pictures as of late.
Is this lens inspiring anyone? I was very interested in it, although I think I would have preferred the standard Voigtlander housing, but I just don’t see much interest or activity. I’m bumping Fred’s mini review from 5 days prior?!
Who’s interested? Or is this just not the 35 to own in E mount?
Jun 15, 2020 at 09:36 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Justin Stone wrote:
Is this lens inspiring anyone? I was very interested in it, although I think I would have preferred the standard Voigtlander housing, but I just don’t see much interest or activity. I’m bumping Fred’s mini review from 5 days prior?!
Who’s interested? Or is this just not the 35 to own in E mount?
I am almost certainly going to get it before long. I almost never get anything right away, however.
