genji wrote:
I’d choose the Noctilux over the Nokton without hesitation. As for what you should do, if your heart says “Noctilux” then I don’t believe it’s the “worse” of the two nor that you’d be making the “wrong” choice.
It’s definitely become a heart/mind thing. Thanks for the push
I find it interesting that most of the criticism about the CV 50/1 Nokton’s field curvature + optical vignetting affect on rendering is somehow forgiven for the Leica 50/1 even though it performs worse in this regard.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I find it interesting that most of the criticism about the CV 50/1 Nokton’s field curvature + optical vignetting affect on rendering is somehow forgiven for the Leica 50/1 even though it performs worse in this regard.
Same thing with how people railed on the old Nokton 50 1.1. It actually is a very sharp lens (well was at the time and I have no complaints on film); if it was a Leica people would have been raving about it!
I use it not for bokeh, but as an available light lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I find it interesting that most of the criticism about the CV 50/1 Nokton’s field curvature + optical vignetting affect on rendering is somehow forgiven for the Leica 50/1 even though it performs worse in this regard.
Fred, it’s because we’ve now ventured into the realm of religious belief, where forgiveness is paramount.
rscheffler wrote:
The VM doesn't change character much as it's stopped down. To my eyes the Nocti 50/1 is more of a 'dual character' lens wide open compared to stopped down a bit. This could offer some versatility. If you already have one or more modern 50s, then I'd lean towards keeping the Leica over the VM. If you need the best sharpness, contrast, etc. at f/1.0, then pick the VM.
Edward Teller wrote:
I’ve got the 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH already, so either the Nokton or the Noctilux is really going to be a niche lens, used mostly at 1.4 or below, used mostly those times when I just want to go out and look for things to shoot at f/1. At 5.6 it’s certainly nice, but those pictures could have been made by a lot of nice lenses, unlike the ones shot at f/1. There’s just something about the look I like, if I nail it, and I don’t know if it’s just because I’m older and grew up with film, or what. But, it’s definitely a niche lens, the way I use it. I’ve got a Pentacon Six with a 50/4 Flektogon, and an 80mm Biotar I like, so I’m a bit off.
When I bought the Noctilux, I might have been eventually able to swing an .095 version if I found a nice price on a used one, but I preferred the rendering of the f/1. Maybe that’s my answer right there. ...Show more →
There you go. IMO based on the recent examples here, the Noctilux 0.95 and the Nokton look like faster Lux ASPHs. The Noct f/1.0 has a distinct look wide open compared to the other two. I think it might even be better optimized off-axis at closer distances than the 0.95. Some of your comparison images show how similarly the Noctilux and Nokton can look in certain scenes. But in others, the Noctilux has a 'fingerprint' that IMO the newer lenses don't.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I find it interesting that most of the criticism about the CV 50/1 Nokton’s field curvature + optical vignetting affect on rendering is somehow forgiven for the Leica 50/1 even though it performs worse in this regard.
I've also forgiven the Nokton after seeing the quality of photos from it here. Sure, FC is a weakness, but care with composition can camouflage the deeper edge DoF effect.
The Leica lenses (to my eyes) appear to abstract more fully whereas the Nokton presents motifs more defined relative to distance from the lens, yielding more apparent image depth, context. It can be best seen in Edward's set against the Summilux (f1.4 and f2.8), but shows against the fast Leicas as well. Looks like a combination of planar performance, colour and contrast, but also design choice.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I find it interesting that most of the criticism about the CV 50/1 Nokton’s field curvature + optical vignetting affect on rendering is somehow forgiven for the Leica 50/1 even though it performs worse in this regard.
It called "expectation" I never put too much expectation for both Noctlux given they are out of my reach and I was never convinced for both performance.
I did buy Ttartisan 0.95 as it match or exceed my expectation, I am aware of its weakness and also strength and understand the user cases for me are mainly use its strength. Given the price, build and lens speed, I didn't complain and just use it.
For this one, I have higher expectation than what I saw here TBH. I especially surprised with such high vignette and FC given its so short and fat body design. Especially after saw what VC can do with their 50mm and 40mm f1.2, My hope was quite high on this one TBH. I expect it will beat both on rendering which it didn't.
The Pros of this lens doesn't click for me on the cases I will use this lens, the Cons do question the goal of getting it. If those pros highlight the usage of this lens for anyone, I think it is a bargain for a f1 glass.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I find it interesting that most of the criticism about the CV 50/1 Nokton’s field curvature + optical vignetting affect on rendering is somehow forgiven for the Leica 50/1 even though it performs worse in this regard.
Not by me, but I already knew before no one would even remotely consider these Noctilux lenses if it weren't for the Leica dot.
But I gave up discussing with the Leica collectors/fanboys a long long time ago.
zhangyue wrote:
It called "expectation" I never put too much expectation for both Noctlux given they are out of my reach and I was never convinced for both performance.
I did buy Ttartisan 0.95 as it match or exceed my expectation, I am aware of its weakness and also strength and understand the user cases for me are mainly use its strength. Given the price, build and lens speed, I didn't complain and just use it.
For this one, I have higher expectation than what I saw here TBH. I especially surprised with such high vignette and FC given its so short and fat body design. Especially after saw what VC can do with their 50mm and 40mm f1.2, My hope was quite high on this one TBH. I expect it will beat both on rendering which it didn't.
The Pros of this lens doesn't click for me on the cases I will use this lens, the Cons do question the goal of getting it. If those pros highlight the usage of this lens for anyone, I think it is a bargain for a f1 glass. ...Show more →
I find the TTA 50/0.95 an interesting design not to be dismissed. It has much lower field curvature which means more even rendering compared to other F/1 lenses. In some ways it behaves like the 50/1.2 Nokton with some SA at close distance and higher contrast and resolution after 2m. I've owned one for about 2 months but could not get used to carrying such big lens on the M.
The Voigtlander 50/1 is the first F/1 lens that I would consider due to its the size. The Noctilux 50/1 is not that big but its still front heavy.
TTArtisan 50/0.95 vs Nokton 50 f/1.2 (Both wide open)
The TTA has a little warmer cast but I can definitely see a difference in blur amount between the two wide open. Also field curvature and optical vignetting is just as well controlled compared to the Nokton, perhaps even better behaved.
It's only fair to compare the Voigtlander 50/1 Nokton to the TTArtisan 50/0.95, so I just ordered one and should have it next Wednesday.
I've tricked you guys, this review never ends.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's only fair to compare the Voigtlander 50/1 Nokton to the TTArtisan 50/0.95, so I just ordered one and should have it next Wednesday.
I've tricked you guys, this review never ends.
I shot the TTArtisan for pro work and while the rendering is beautiful from short to mid distance (and more distracting at longer distance), the lens seriously lacks sharpness, which becomes very evident with full body shots and is especially an issue for any working photographers who delivers printed products where every flaw is more easily seen.
In that regard the Nokton 50/1.2 VM is far ahead which makes it more applicable for a lot of paid work.
Btw the Mitakon 50/0.95 III for E-Mount had even smoother bokeh, way less vignetting and a slightly longer focal length than the TTArtisan (but also lacks sharpness). In case you wanna give it a try
Since the review never ends, and for fun, here's a quick answer to a question that no one has asked: "How do the Nokton 50/1, the Noctilux 50/1, and the Nikkor 58/1.2 Ai-s compare?"
Shot on a Nikon Z 7. From .DNG files. All at f/1.2
It's hard to tell here, but from the few I've done, the center sharpness/contrast of the Nikkor is as good as, if not possibly a smidge better than the Nokton, if judged only by the way focus peaking lights up. Not saying that's accurate, but I keep seeing it, and it doesn't surprise me at all. By f/4 the Nikkor Nocts are very sharp, but mostly in the center. So, maybe the Nikkor is similar to the Nokton 50/1.2, but with a busier background and faster falloff. So many choices, so little time.
Edward Teller wrote:
Since the review never ends, and for fun, here's a quick answer to a question that no one has asked: "How do the Nokton 50/1, the Noctilux 50/1, and the Nikkor 58/1.2 Ai-s compare?"
Shot on a Nikon Z 7. From .DNG files. All at f/1.2
It's hard to tell here, but from the few I've done, the center sharpness/contrast of the Nikkor is as good as, if not possibly a smidge better than the Nokton, if judged only by the way focus peaking lights up. Not saying that's accurate, but I keep seeing it, and it doesn't surprise me at all. By f/4 the Nikkor Nocts are very sharp, but mostly in the center. So, maybe the Nikkor is similar to the Nokton 50/1.2, but with a busier background and faster falloff. So many choices, so little time....Show more →
What I've learned from shooting with lenses under corrected for SA is that focus peaking is tricky because it gives you the version with higher contrast, not higher resolution. I prefer turning peaking off and look a the detail amount instead.
Fred Miranda wrote:
What I've learned from shooting with lenses under corrected for SA is that focus peaking is tricky because it gives you the version with higher contrast, not higher resolution. I prefer turning peaking off and look a the detail amount instead.
I know, it's why I said center sharpness/contrast. But, looking at some of them at 200%, there is not a whole lot of difference in the center detail between the Nokton and the Nikkor. It's well within the range of the error inherent in my ability to focus the camera. At least for the ones I've done, which I'm not thinking is definitive. But, the Nocts are quite sharp in center, if nowhere else, and they're impressive for old designs. Small and light too!
Edward Teller wrote:
I know, it's why I said center sharpness/contrast. But, looking at some of them at 200%, there is not a whole lot of difference in the center detail between the Nokton and the Nikkor. It's well within the range of the error inherent in my ability to focus the camera. At least for the ones I've done, which I'm not thinking is definitive. But, the Nocts are quite sharp in center, if nowhere else, and they're impressive for old designs. Small and light too!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Does the Nikkor keeps up even at 1m?
I haven't done that, had only done some random shots to satisfy my curiosity vis a vis rendering. I'm tired I guess I could. Had really just posted those for general interest in the difference in rendering, but now you have me curious, while I've still got the Nokton. Will see what I can do, while paying more attention to that aspect when I shoot a couple. (Those were probably at 2m or a bit less. Am guessing it won't keep up, given the construction, but we'll see.)
For those wondering how the Voigtlander 50/1 Nokton's FC shape changes from close distance to long distance on both Leica M10-R and Sony A7R IV, here is a comparison.
Notice how the field curvature flattens from close distance towards long distance on the Leica M10-R while it becomes more "Wavy" on the A7R IV's thicker sensor
