p.8 #1 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Steve Spencer wrote:
Isn't the 50 f/2 APO Lanthar's aperture blades perfectly round at just f/2, f/2.8, and f/16, and the 35 f/2 APO Lanthar's at just f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6, and f/16?
I think it depends on the mount. I remember the CV 50/2 APO E-mount having a circular aperture at f/2 and f/2.8 only. However, both the CV 35/2 APO and 50/2 APO-Lanthar M-mount versions have a circular aperture at f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6, and f/16.
I've mentioned f/4 and that was never the case with any mount version.
p.8 #2 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
nehemiahphoto wrote:
just to throw a bomb in the thread I think the ZM 50/1.5 is chronically underrated as only a character lens that suffers FS when you shoot wide-open. It has good flare resistance, is sharp enough (IMO) stopped down, sensational color and contrast, is small and cheap, and most importantly, has a lot of character done well The MFD is long and it does have other cons—it’s a lens you have to learn to shoot with. Not super low maintenance, but the results are just fantastic.
And, I shoot a 50/1 Noct, but shooting it as 1.4 (like a 50 Lux Pre-ASPH) I love images though they are obviously not as modern, both good and bad, as a 50 Lux ASPH or CV 50/1.2
The good thing for you here is, all the options are unusually good. And this is not my usual thinking from a group of 4 lenses!...Show more →
Your bomb reminded me that, like @RustyRus, I have always wanted to try the ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar. In fact, prompted by your post, I re-read some of Hamish Gill's articles on 35mmc and an excellent review by KJ Vogelius, and skimmed through the "C-sonnar!" thread on the Sony forum here.. That pushed me over the edge; I have just ordered one from MPB.
I also think you are absolutely right, that all of these options are uncommonly good. Perhaps that is why I am having so much trouble deciding on a fast(ish) 50mm to complement my CV f/2.0 APO and Summicron v5! I had just about narrowed it down to one of the Summilux Asphs (2004 or 2023) rather than the CV f/1.2 or a pre-Ash 'Lux, but have just not quite managed to pull the trigger on either -- in part, because, although I prefer the size and haptics of the 'Luxes (despite slight reservations about the increased diameter of the 2023 version), I have failed to rid myself of a nagging feeling that the CV f/1.2 would be perfect, for what I want.
So, thank you, I'll be more than happy to spend some time using the Sonnar. And it doesn't actually matter if I fail to decide between a Lux and the CV -- the APO, 'Cron and Sonnar will be more than adequate. I'll probably still be pondering it several years hence ....
p.8 #4 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Aside from the longer than usual minimum focusing distance (MFD), my main criticism of the 50/1.5 ZM is the significant focus shift when using the rangefinder. If the lens is calibrated for f/1.5, shooting at f/2 or f/2.8 will result in a noticeably out-of-focus image.
I find the lens character quite unique and very "Zeiss." It offers high contrast even wide open (indicating low spherical aberration), and the background rendering is distinctive, with some outlining and a painterly effect. At f/2, the rendering becomes smoother, which some may prefer. When shooting with a mirrorless camera or using the Visoflex, focus shift is no longer an issue, making the lens truly fantastic.
p.8 #5 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Fred Miranda wrote:
Aside from the longer than usual minimum focusing distance (MFD), my main criticism of the 50/1.5 ZM is the significant focus shift when using the rangefinder. If the lens is calibrated for f/1.5, shooting at f/2 or f/2.8 will result in a noticeably out-of-focus image.
I find the lens character quite unique and very "Zeiss." It offers high contrast even wide open (indicating low spherical aberration), and the background rendering is distinctive, with some outlining and a painterly effect. At f/2, the rendering becomes smoother, which some may prefer. When shooting with a mirrorless camera or using the Visoflex, focus shift is no longer an issue, making the lens truly fantastic....Show more →
I found getting mine at f2 was the best when shooting it on a m240 and Zeiss Ikon. At least at 24mp and film, a slight OOF shot wasn't over terrible. And the miss was very slight. My copy I had that was optimized for WO wasn't as versatile.
Interestingly, on a MILC, you evade the long MFD (with a focus helicoid) and FS. But, you do invite induced FC, which this lens definitely has on a stock Sony. With a modded sensor, life becomes easier with this lens in particular.
p.8 #6 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I found getting mine at f2 was the best when shooting it on a m240 and Zeiss Ikon. At least at 24mp and film, a slight OOF shot wasn't over terrible. And the miss was very slight. My copy I had that was optimized for WO wasn't as versatile.
Interestingly, on a MILC, you evade the long MFD (with a focus helicoid) and FS. But, you do invite induced FC, which this lens definitely has on a stock Sony. With a modded sensor, life becomes easier with this lens in particular.
I always find the color and contrast just epic.
Since you are shooting on a Sony, have you ever tried the Loxia 50/2? I find its contrast and colors similar to the Zeiss 50/1.5 at f/2. The Loxia is based on the Zeiss 50/2 ZM, which has better corrections compared to the Sonnar, but I find both lenses similar at f/2.
p.8 #7 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Fred Miranda wrote:
Aside from the longer than usual minimum focusing distance (MFD), my main criticism of the 50/1.5 ZM is the significant focus shift when using the rangefinder. If the lens is calibrated for f/1.5, shooting at f/2 or f/2.8 will result in a noticeably out-of-focus image.
I find the lens character quite unique and very "Zeiss." It offers high contrast even wide open (indicating low spherical aberration), and the background rendering is distinctive, with some outlining and a painterly effect. At f/2, the rendering becomes smoother, which some may prefer. When shooting with a mirrorless camera or using the Visoflex, focus shift is no longer an issue, making the lens truly fantastic....Show more →
Thanks, Fred. And absolutely, yes, focus shift is arguably the Sonnar's principal weakness. I'm sure that @nehemiahphoto is right to say that having it optimised at f/2.0 is probably for best (and, in any event, for use on my MP, I'm not overly concerned). I suppose the EVF is an option on the M11, although I generally prefer not to use it.
For sure, though, the "Zeissy" colours and contrast are two of the main reasons I bought it. I'll be interested to find out whether it's another lens that can be thought of as having a bit of a dual character (wide open and stopped down).
p.8 #8 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Fred Miranda wrote:
Since you are shooting on a Sony, have you ever tried the Loxia 50/2? I find its contrast and colors similar to the Zeiss 50/1.5 at f/2. The Loxia is based on the Zeiss 50/2 ZM, which has better corrections compared to the Sonnar, but I find both lenses similar at f/2.
No, never tried that one. I thought the colors from the Loxia 21 and 35 I owned were really lovely though too. Interesting they are similar at f2. Good to know!
p.8 #9 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
nehemiahphoto wrote:
No, never tried that one. I thought the colors from the Loxia 21 and 35 I owned were really lovely though too. Interesting they are similar at f2. Good to know!
It's worth a try if you like the 50mm FL, especially at the insane low prices now. I just bought a mint one for $375.
p.8 #10 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
@nehemiahphoto, you don't need to try the Loxia 50/2 Planar. If you like the output of the Contax G 45/2 Planar, Leica 50/2 Cron, or Zeiss 50/2 Planar, you'll also like the Loxia. (Same optical design)
Since you shoot Sony, the advantage is that it's optimized for the thicker Sony sensor and has electronic data transmission. The manual focus uses a real helicoid, and the aperture ring is mechanical, not electronic. It's also E-mount. ...so no adapting.
Here is an example showcasing the Contax 45/2 vs Loxia 50/2 vs Zeiss 50/2 ZM Planar optical designs:
p.8 #11 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
I had my eyes on 50mm APO but stumbled upon used f1.2 Nokton and decided to give it a try despite it’s a bit bigger and fatter lens.
Oh my, that’s a wild lens. Very pleasing focus fall-off, good pairing with rf (even at wide open!) and it isn’t that big for being too hard to handle. Great find, absolutely great.
I just quickly tested it at my garden but it already reminds me of Fujifilm GF 110mm which has very pleasing rendering but a ton of sharpness too at the same time.
I’ve started to think that the 50mm APO might be too sharp, and this Nokton gives more relaxed and calming results.
Yes indeed--I really loved the G45 as a small landscaper, minus the bokeh at times. Nowadays, I prefer to shoot non e-mount. I have a modded a7rII, stock a7c, Lumix S5iix and Zeiss Ikon for 35mm film, so I prefer to get lenses that can fit as many of those mounts as possible, which usually means m-mount. And I do love their small size! But, tbh, I shoot the ZM 50/1.5 80% of the time at f1.5 - 2, which is where the magic happens (or CA and FC and SA )
p.s. I got my hands on a Leica R 19/2.8, but it had some fungus internally so wasn't performing optimally. It's getting looked at for a possible repair...
Yes indeed--I really loved the G45 as a small landscaper, minus the bokeh at times. Nowadays, I prefer to shoot non e-mount. I have a modded a7rII, stock a7c, Lumix S5iix and Zeiss Ikon for 35mm film, so I prefer to get lenses that can fit as many of those mounts as possible, which usually means m-mount. And I do love their small size! But, tbh, I shoot the ZM 50/1.5 80% of the time at f1.5 - 2, which is where the magic happens (or CA and FC and SA )
p.s. I got my hands on a Leica R 19/2.8, but it had some fungus internally so wasn't performing optimally. It's getting looked at for a possible repair......Show more →
I'm considering sending my A7R II for a thin sensor modification. This camera was ahead of its time and, even today, aside from the lower resolution EVF, if modded, it would offer similar features and performance compared to an SL3 for photography. Have you experienced any issues with white balance?
p.8 #14 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
I'm wondering if it is worth sending my A7R (the original) in for a sensor mod to run my M lenses, for a backup and as an alternative platform. I got rid of most of them a number of years ago but seem to be heading back toward small lenses again and have acquired some Voigtlander Ultrons and a Summulux or two.
p.8 #15 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
michaelwatkins wrote:
I'm wondering if it is worth sending my A7R (the original) in for a sensor mod to run my M lenses, for a backup and as an alternative platform. I got rid of most of them a number of years ago but seem to be heading back toward small lenses again and have acquired some Voigtlander Ultrons and a Summulux or two.
You have to pay about the same price for the sensor modification what the A7R is worth it as used camera model currently. For a few hundred dollars more you can be getting a brand new Nikon Zf mirrorless camera which comes with a thinner sensor stack more suitable to be used with M lenses, too. I also have a Sony A7R but wouldn't vest money to have it modified at this point.
p.8 #16 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm considering sending my A7R II for a thin sensor modification. This camera was ahead of its time and, even today, aside from the lower resolution EVF, if modded, it would offer similar features and performance compared to an SL3 for photography. Have you experienced any issues with white balance?
Yeah—even though it has the smaller battery and lousy EVF, the IQ is there, it’s got IBIS and the size is way smaller than what Sony is offering outside the a7c line. With a CV 28/1.5 or 35 Lux Pre-ASPH it’s smaller than a Q I think.
I had my sensor done by NKIR in Hong Kong, not Kolari. I have used a Kolari UT mod several times from @sebboh and he’s used my a7rii mod. If I have another mod done, I would definitely go NKIR. The NKIR gives a sensor with thinner sensor glass and less color issues than the Kolari UT. The NKIR gives a minor magenta shift.
The only real issue I’ve come across when using the Kolari is it’s super yellow always. If you shoot RAW annoying but no biggie. In certain already yellow light, it can be beyond the WB’s correction ability. Then you have to apply an electronic ND across the frame. Sebboh will probably have insights for you further.
p.8 #17 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yeah—even though it has the smaller battery and lousy EVF, the IQ is there, it’s got IBIS and the size is way smaller than what Sony is offering outside the a7c line. With a CV 28/1.5 or 35 Lux Pre-ASPH it’s small than a Q I think.
I had my sensor done by NKIR in Hong Kong, not Kolari. I have used a Kolari UT mod several times from @sebboh@ and he’s used my a7rii mod. If I have another mod done, I would definitely go NKIR. The NKIR gives a sensor with thinner sensor glass and less color issues than the Kolari UT. The NKIR gives a minor magenta shift.
The only real issue I’ve come across when using the Kolari is it’s super yellow always. If you shoot RAW annoying but no biggie. In certain already yellow light, it can be beyond the WB’s correction ability. Then you have to apply an electronic ND across the frame. Sebboh will probably have insights for you further.
The A7R II comes from a time when the grip was small, which I much prefer. After its popularity, many shooters from other brands pressured Sony into making bigger grips, and they complied with every subsequent version.
Speaking of "yellow," I now remember I briefly tested a modded A7R III at one point, and the white balance was really messed up, especially towards the tungsten. Do you have a contact for NKIR? Do they still do modifications?
p.8 #18 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
retrofocus wrote:
You have to pay about the same price for the sensor modification what the A7R is worth it as used camera model currently. For a few hundred dollars more you can be getting a brand new Nikon Zf mirrorless camera which comes with a thinner sensor stack more suitable to be used with M lenses, too. I also have a Sony A7R but wouldn't vest money to have it modified at this point.
I wish that were true. You're probably referring to the Kolari article where they mention the Z-mount sensor is thin. That's just not the case.
p.8 #19 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Fred Miranda wrote:
I wish that were true. You're probably referring to the Kolari article where they mention the Z-mount sensor is thin. That's just not the case.
To my knowledge this Zf sensor beats existing sensor stack thickness from other brands - certainly from Canon and Sony. Not so sure regarding difference to Panasonic MLCs though. I am reading great reviews of Zf working with adapted M lenses! Maybe I missed it, but I am not aware that some M lenses exhibit here similar issues compared to thicker sensor stacks common with e. g. Sony sensors.
I think the ZM 50/1.5 is chronically underrated as only a character lens that suffers FS when you shoot wide-open. It has good flare resistance, is sharp enough (IMO) stopped down, sensational color and contrast, is small and cheap, and most importantly, has a lot of character done well 
The MFD is long and it does have other cons—it’s a lens you have to learn to shoot with. Not super low maintenance, but the results are just fantastic.
