hanay78 wrote:
And still they render slightly different...
While not an exact match, the signature appears quite similar once contrast, color, and vignetting are adjusted. I couldn't locate my earlier files, but I've prepared some side-by-side comparisons using these two lenses. The Voigtlander is less prone to flare compared to the Leica, which contributes to its lower contrast in some scenes. It's important to note that the Leica has a narrower field of view (~52.5mm) compared to the Voigtlander, which is a true 50mm focal length.
Also, there's a bit more background blur in the Leica scenes since it's a faster lens with a slighly longer FL and the images were captures on a tripod from the same exact distance and framing.
LEICA M10-RNoctilux-M 1:1/50 lens50mmf/4.01/2000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RVoigtlander 50mm f/1.1 Nokton lens50mmf/4.01/2000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RVoigtlander 50mm f/1.1 Nokton lens50mmf/4.01/4000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RNoctilux-M 1:1/50 lens50mmf/4.01/4000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RNoctilux-M 1:1/50 lens50mmf/4.01/4000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RVoigtlander 50mm f/1.1 Nokton lens50mmf/4.01/4000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RVoigtlander 50mm f/1.1 Nokton lens50mmf/4.01/4000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RNoctilux-M 1:1/50 lens50mmf/4.01/4000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RNoctilux-M 1:1/50 lens50mmf/4.01/4000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RVoigtlander 50mm f/1.1 Nokton lens50mmf/4.01/4000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RNoctilux-M 1:1/50 lens50mmf/4.01/3000s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RVoigtlander 50mm f/1.1 Nokton lens50mmf/4.01/3000s100 ISO0.0 EV
One more thing to note is that the Leica tends to have more issues with flare. I had several samples that I didn't share because the flare significantly spoiled the images.
Here is one showing minor flare for the Leica:
LEICA M10-RNoctilux-M 1:1/50 lens50mmf/1.01/1500s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M10-RVoigtlander 50mm f/1.1 Nokton lens50mmf/2.01/1500s100 ISO0.0 EV
Is there a dedicated Nokton 50/1.1 image thread? I was thinking of starting one.. this poor lens is too enjoyable to be relegated to a historical footnote, especially at it's current price point.
My copy of the Voigtlander VM 50/1 arrived late Friday from CameraQuest. They now have a Black Friday $100 off sale on the 50/1 VM & Z mount versions.
In between rain storms rolling over Western Washington I've been able to do some initial tests and take a few photos.
I've not seen many discussions about how the Voigtlander 50/1 does on the SL2. With my SL2 I've done my standardized mid-distance (70 ft) test photos. I also compared them with previous test shots I did with my Lumix S 50/1.8 L mount lens, the progenitor of the Leica SL 50/2 ASPH. I was pleasantly surprised at how well the Voigtlander 50/1 performed:
Viewing at 300% on my iMac 27" 5K monitor, the Voigtlander @ f/2, 2.8 , & 4 resolves marginally better than the Lumix within the central 1/3 zone. The Lumix has stronger resolution in the mid zone, but again the Voigtlander edges out the Lumix at the far edges.
BTW, BastianK's Voigtlander VM 50/1 report has the suggestion of using the Adobe Voigtlander 50/1.2 raw lens profile for the (still) unsupported 50/1. That's a great tip! That Voigtlander 50/1.2 Adobe profile does a very nice job in moderating the vignetting and mild pincushion distortion of the 50/1.
In my neighbor's yard across the street, it's one of those giant skeletons that are very popular on Facebook. The manual focus with the SL2 was very easy, I focused on Santa's mustache. I chose f/1.4 for a little more dof to better define the elf figure while still keeping it eerily oof.
SL2 & Voigtlander 50/1 @ f/1.4, 1/50 sec, -1.6EV. ACR, using the VM 50/1.2 Adobe lens profile.
Your style is so distinctive Helena, whether it’s a farm in a bright snowscape or boats in a shipyard at night! I was mindlessly scrolling through the pictures when I thought to myself “did Helena get the 50/1?”
HelenaN wrote:
Misty evening in the harbour (also posted in the Sony FE thread)
A7RII and CV 50mm/1 VM
BrandonSi wrote:
Is there a dedicated Nokton 50/1.1 image thread? I was thinking of starting one.. this poor lens is too enjoyable to be relegated to a historical footnote, especially at it's current price point.
I think he got a marginal copy of the lens or Voigtlander didn't fully optimize the design for the Canon sensor stack. At f/1 on the M11, it's extremely sharp in the center at close distance.
This reviewer epitomises the 'does this lens satisfy my criteria' approach and goes through a host of silly 'tests' that no serious user of this optic would ever consider as reasons to buy/not buy a pedigree 50/1. Shock horror: the vignette and bokeh balls. CZ/Leica have been doing this for literally many decades. Otuses and Leica M lenses are not weather-sealed either. Goodness me.
I doubt many potential users care much for chart photography as a means of determining if the lens is for them or not. They want to see what it can do in good hands, what the character of the lens actually is. They want to know about performance at varying distances, and about curvature, and colour and contrast, about how the bokeh varies with focus distance and motifs. LoCA on page text is not on their agenda. The review gives no background to the lens design, or its major competion - hint, it's not the cheap f0.95 lenses!
And the old dependable close-up chart gets a very good run here. After all, it's much easier than actual photography in the field. His images are fleeting, dark and ordinary. They fail to give an adequate representation of anything.
And it's only manual focus and not sealed. Stick to Canon's insipid and inoffensive 950 gram 50/1.2, mate. He puts the 50/1 below that rather plain commercial Canon lens with no evidence whatsoever, it's just 'trust me'. No image comparisons or even rationale.
But he may know his personal audience, right? It's not us. The passionate enthusiasts at FM do so much better than this thin gruel. This is the sad state of mainstream reviews, they are much more interested in specification testing than photography.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I think he got a marginal copy of the lens or Voigtlander didn't fully optimize the design for the Canon sensor stack. At f/1 on the M11, it's extremely sharp in the center at close distance.
I had a similar discussion with a German reviewer of the Canon version of the 50mm 1.0.
I begin to wonder if it has really been ported that badly.
philip_pj wrote:
This reviewer epitomises the 'does this lens satisfy my criteria' approach and goes through a host of silly 'tests' that no serious user of this optic would ever consider as reasons to buy/not buy a pedigree 50/1. Shock horror: the vignette and bokeh balls. CZ/Leica have been doing this for literally many decades. Otuses and Leica M lenses are not weather-sealed either. Goodness me.
I doubt many potential users care much for chart photography as a means of determining if the lens is for them or not. They want to see what it can do in good hands, what the character of the lens actually is. They want to know about performance at varying distances, and about curvature, and colour and contrast, about how the bokeh varies with focus distance and motifs. LoCA on page text is not on their agenda. The review gives no background to the lens design, or its major competion - hint, it's not the cheap f0.95 lenses!
And the old dependable close-up chart gets a very good run here. After all, it's much easier than actual photography in the field. His images are fleeting, dark and ordinary. They fail to give an adequate representation of anything.
And it's only manual focus and not sealed. Stick to Canon's insipid and inoffensive 950 gram 50/1.2, mate. He puts the 50/1 below that rather plain commercial Canon lens with no evidence whatsoever, it's just 'trust me'. No image comparisons or even rationale.
But he may know his personal audience, right? It's not us. The passionate enthusiasts at FM do so much better than this thin gruel. This is the sad state of mainstream reviews, they are much more interested in specification testing than photography. ...Show more →
I'm afraid you missed the point of his reviews. He tests every lens like this, in a systematic, repeatable way. This way you can see for yourself how each lens stacks up against each other. He focuses on measurable aspects of each lens, leaving the ethereal qualities to the viewer's taste.
I completely agree. I bought this canon RF version for my R5 recently and its the perfect lens for me. I had no hesitation buying it due to the simple fact that its the only manual focus native RF-mount lens on the market that is well built (not plastic), feels well balanced, and can utilize canon’s focus guide and eye tracking.
Being able to use face and eye tracking with a MF lens is insanely helpful. Also the size, build quality, and how enjoyable it is to use it is worth every penny to me. Sure the Canon 50 1.2 might be sharper wide open, but its a massive lens that is quite heavy, and I don’t need/want autofocus 80% of the time. I’ll stop down to f2 and take the more enjoyable lens 100% of the time.
philip_pj wrote:
This reviewer epitomises the 'does this lens satisfy my criteria' approach and goes through a host of silly 'tests' that no serious user of this optic would ever consider as reasons to buy/not buy a pedigree 50/1. Shock horror: the vignette and bokeh balls. CZ/Leica have been doing this for literally many decades. Otuses and Leica M lenses are not weather-sealed either. Goodness me.
I doubt many potential users care much for chart photography as a means of determining if the lens is for them or not. They want to see what it can do in good hands, what the character of the lens actually is. They want to know about performance at varying distances, and about curvature, and colour and contrast, about how the bokeh varies with focus distance and motifs. LoCA on page text is not on their agenda. The review gives no background to the lens design, or its major competion - hint, it's not the cheap f0.95 lenses!
And the old dependable close-up chart gets a very good run here. After all, it's much easier than actual photography in the field. His images are fleeting, dark and ordinary. They fail to give an adequate representation of anything.
And it's only manual focus and not sealed. Stick to Canon's insipid and inoffensive 950 gram 50/1.2, mate. He puts the 50/1 below that rather plain commercial Canon lens with no evidence whatsoever, it's just 'trust me'. No image comparisons or even rationale.
But he may know his personal audience, right? It's not us. The passionate enthusiasts at FM do so much better than this thin gruel. This is the sad state of mainstream reviews, they are much more interested in specification testing than photography. ...Show more →
BastianK wrote:
I had a similar discussion with a German reviewer of the Canon version of the 50mm 1.0.
I begin to wonder if it has really been ported that badly.
I wonder how many of the f/1 sharpness complaints are related to performance closer than 0.9m, which is the close focus limit of the M version. And I don’t know enough about lens design to know: does a much shorter MFD lead to compromises at longer distances at f/1? 0.45 MFD is quite close for an f/1 lens, and I wonder if allowing the floating element group to move that far had to affect the rest of the optical design – otherwise why not allow the M version to focus to 0.7m?
