p.14 #1 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
Some samples from very limited shooting in bad light. Processed normally for me--interested in what real world photos look like. The only thing I left off is LoCal correction (there is a fair bit WO in high contrast). Not really seeing or feeling as much SA as I recall with the 35/40/50 1.2's. Very high central sharpness and contrast--really like the colors on the newer CV glass. These are all on stock Sony.
Sunstars start at f2 and are decently defined.
Flare resistance is excellent--better than some other modern CV's. You can induce minor ghost if you really push.
Ergonomically great--one of those lenses where things just pop into focus in the EVF--very easy to manual focus.
You can make the bokeh look a bit nervous and ugly, even centrally (sensor stack indepedant) if you try. Mostly pleasant though.
Not a character lens--very balanced feel to the files. Very little magic, though I do like them. Just a solid transparent feel when processing. Very much the an all-arounder successor to the 35/1.7 in my opinion. While not perfect, my initial thought it that I am impressed and will easily prefer this lens over the ZM 35/1.5 and 35 Lux's, esp. given size and price.
p.14 #2 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
I have a wild question
Do you guys think they will make E version of this lens in near future?
Nov 27, 2022 at 07:21 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.14 #3 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
phinix wrote:
I have a wild question
Do you guys think they will make E version of this lens in near future?
I doubt it as they haven't made the 28 f/2 II, or 50 f/1.5 II, or 75 f/1.5, or 90 f/2.8 APO in E mount. In fact, they haven't made an E mount lens in a good long while. I might be wrong, but I don't think there will be an E mount version of this lens.
p.14 #6 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
The bokeh stress test pretty much showing the downside of adapting compact M lenses on mirrorless body. I have a feeling this should be THE lens of the year for M mount, where the performance on digital M will be excellent. Time to plan my spending ahead, been wanting a 35 brighter than f2 with similar size as the 35cron asph.
PS: A YouTube reviewed the 35/2 ultron II and side by side against the 35lux fle, the lux, for whatever weird reason, is offering higher color saturation than the ultron. I'm a sucker for color richness, we will see...
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Some samples from very limited shooting in bad light. Processed normally for me--interested in what real world photos look like. The only thing I left off is LoCal correction (there is a fair bit WO in high contrast). Not really seeing or feeling as much SA as I recall with the 35/40/50 1.2's. Very high central sharpness and contrast--really like the colors on the newer CV glass. These are all on stock Sony.
Sunstars start at f2 and are decently defined.
Flare resistance is excellent--better than some other modern CV's. You can induce minor ghost if you really push.
Ergonomically great--one of those lenses where things just pop into focus in the EVF--very easy to manual focus.
You can make the bokeh look a bit nervous and ugly, even centrally (sensor stack indepedant) if you try. Mostly pleasant though.
Not a character lens--very balanced feel to the files. Very little magic, though I do like them. Just a solid transparent feel when processing. Very much the an all-arounder successor to the 35/1.7 in my opinion. While not perfect, my initial thought it that I am impressed and will easily prefer this lens over the ZM 35/1.5 and 35 Lux's, esp. given size and price....Show more →
p.14 #7 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Some samples from very limited shooting in bad light. Processed normally for me--interested in what real world photos look like. The only thing I left off is LoCal correction (there is a fair bit WO in high contrast). Not really seeing or feeling as much SA as I recall with the 35/40/50 1.2's. Very high central sharpness and contrast--really like the colors on the newer CV glass. These are all on stock Sony.
Sunstars start at f2 and are decently defined.
Flare resistance is excellent--better than some other modern CV's. You can induce minor ghost if you really push.
Ergonomically great--one of those lenses where things just pop into focus in the EVF--very easy to manual focus.
You can make the bokeh look a bit nervous and ugly, even centrally (sensor stack indepedant) if you try. Mostly pleasant though.
Not a character lens--very balanced feel to the files. Very little magic, though I do like them. Just a solid transparent feel when processing. Very much the an all-arounder successor to the 35/1.7 in my opinion. While not perfect, my initial thought it that I am impressed and will easily prefer this lens over the ZM 35/1.5 and 35 Lux's, esp. given size and price....Show more →
Nice pics! Perhaps I missed it, but what camera did you use? And did you add vignette in PP?
p.14 #8 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
Some more thoughts from my testing today on M10-R:
There is a bit of purple glow at f1.5, similar to the 35/1.2. In normal situations this shows up as a subtle loss of microcontrast, but in harsh lighting can show up as frank purple fringing. Magenta/green longitudinal CA is also somewhat strong. Overall worse control of chromatic aberrations than the summilux FLE but I’m still very happy with how the image looks at f1.5.
p.14 #9 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
jeffersoncasey wrote:
The bokeh stress test pretty much showing the downside of adapting compact M lenses on mirrorless body. I have a feeling this should be THE lens of the year for M mount, where the performance on digital M will be excellent. Time to plan my spending ahead, been wanting a 35 brighter than f2 with similar size as the 35cron asph.
PS: A YouTube reviewed the 35/2 ultron II and side by side against the 35lux fle, the lux, for whatever weird reason, is offering higher color saturation than the ultron. I'm a sucker for color richness, we will see...
I think the bokeh is inherent to the lens design, not the sensor stack. It’s the central area if the frame that looks bad too, nor just the outer 1/3. I have a modded sensor I’ll toss the lens on tomorrow, and the central bokeh will still look busy at mid to longer distances, like the 35/1.2 even on Leica M. It should still be the lens of the year
I am in the same boat—have been wanting a modern but faster than f2 but still small m 35mm too. This is it for me! I also prefer Leica colors and contrast, but the new CV’s are good enough for me.
p.14 #11 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Some samples from very limited shooting in bad light. Processed normally for me--interested in what real world photos look like. The only thing I left off is LoCal correction (there is a fair bit WO in high contrast). Not really seeing or feeling as much SA as I recall with the 35/40/50 1.2's. Very high central sharpness and contrast--really like the colors on the newer CV glass. These are all on stock Sony.
Sunstars start at f2 and are decently defined.
Flare resistance is excellent--better than some other modern CV's. You can induce minor ghost if you really push.
Ergonomically great--one of those lenses where things just pop into focus in the EVF--very easy to manual focus.
You can make the bokeh look a bit nervous and ugly, even centrally (sensor stack indepedant) if you try. Mostly pleasant though.
Not a character lens--very balanced feel to the files. Very little magic, though I do like them. Just a solid transparent feel when processing. Very much the an all-arounder successor to the 35/1.7 in my opinion. While not perfect, my initial thought it that I am impressed and will easily prefer this lens over the ZM 35/1.5 and 35 Lux's, esp. given size and price....Show more →
Thanks for sharing.
From what I see here though, I gladly stick to the 35mm 1.7.
p.14 #13 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
I'm super excited about the lens! It would be amazing if the lucky ones who have it already could post more "real life" shots, especially (if possible) portrait stuff.
Not sure if I will replace my Nokton 35mm f1.4 with that lens.
p.14 #15 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
It's helpful to see some sample shots not taken in hard light for a change. The rendering qualities I've seen so far is what I expected. I'd add a +1 to the ltm wishlist...
p.14 #16 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Are you not liking the bokeh specifically?
In some of your longer distance samples I expect the lens to perform a little better on a UT/Leica camera.
All the latest fast yet compact VM lenses (2/28 and 1.5/50) have a lot of bokeh "fall off" on any camera though, which also adds to the swirl.
All of this wasn't unexpected. I am also not sure the 35mm 1.7 would be really that noticeably different in this regard.
Now what caught me by surprise:
Super strong longitudinal CA. Yes, it is a tough scene in picture 7, but picture 10 looks far from great either. That outlining is several pixels wide.
The Coma visible in picture 7 in the bottom part is also really strong. The 35mm 1.7 + 5m PCX on a stock camera is doing much better here.
This is actually something I admired about the 35mm 1.7, as it meant it can actually be used for something like this,
without the borders and corners attracting a lot of attention due to light points forming obstrusive shapes
(and long before we had lenses like 1.4/24 GM, 1.4/35 GM and 1.2/35 Sigma):
p.14 #17 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
BastianK wrote:
In some of your longer distance samples I expect the lens to perform a little better on a UT/Leica camera.
All the latest fast yet compact VM lenses (2/28 and 1.5/50) have a lot of bokeh "fall off" on any camera though, which also adds to the swirl.
All of this wasn't unexpected. I am also not sure the 35mm 1.7 would be really that noticeably different in this regard.
Now what caught me by surprise:
Super strong longitudinal CA. Yes, it is a tough scene in picture 7, but picture 10 looks far from great either. That outlining is several pixels wide.
The Coma visible in picture 7 in the bottom part is also really strong. The 35mm 1.7 + 5m PCX on a stock camera is doing much better here.
This is actually something I admired about the 35mm 1.7, as it meant it can actually be used for something like this,
without the borders and corners attracting a lot of attention due to light points forming obstrusive shapes
(and long before we had lenses like 1.4/24 GM, 1.4/35 GM and 1.2/35 Sigma):
On LoCal: It’s just with acceptable limits to me for it being considered a decently corrected optic. Images #7 and #10 are absolute worse case scenario, and with the defringe tool in LR at 7 for both purple and green, it’s completely fixed. A weakness but manageable IMO in real world shooting. Given the similarity in the optical formula to the 35 1.2, I was not expecting good LoCal control. I think as you said, most of us are not surprised given Voight lander seems to favor lots of optical vignetting, so bokeh is what it is. The other 35/40/50 1.2 I could get busier bokeh at longer distance, esp in the corners.
The coma thing I am interested in and have a question for you as you will probably know better. I also noticed a type of blooming/oddity with OOF lights. But, when I did a more traditional coma test with stars, stars looked pretty good WO from corner to center on a modded sensor. If I get clearer skies tonight, I will shoot again but I feel like for astrophotography this one is usable (vignetting aside) like the 28/2ii. But if stars are fairly pinpoint, but out of focus lights are “bloomed,” is that coma or a different type of aberration? Or is it a specific type of coma (if there are types)? In photo #7, the loss of detail/clarity I assumed to be a little bit more of veiling issue.
p.14 #18 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
Interesting about the blooming. Looks like Cosina figured out a way to include a built-in cine-style diffusion filter. I wonder if it's just some manifestation of SA since it's also apparent in the center of the image, though to a lesser degree. At the periphery the blooming shifts to the side away from center. The streetlight photo though seems to show definite flare at the light source, also the houselight at the right side. So maybe it's a combination of a number of things, including flare? Just that typical point light source flare doesn't look like that. It kind of reminds me of halation flare you'd see in film images.
Not sure how to answer the coma question. In Juha's photos I noticed weird background rendering in wide open images that seems asymmetrical... I have the impression the lens is quite astigmatic wide open and off center at certain distances.
I agree that from all the samples I've seen so far here, farther distance bokeh isn't looking so hot. Some of the peripheral stuff might be due to the compromise of shooting on a stock Sony sensor. But there is simply some weird stuff going on that draws my eye. Sometimes I kind of like it, other times, not so much.
Without having a copy here to try, my gut feeling so far is that if bokeh will be a concern, it'll be a lens suited to nearer distance wide open use where one can have more control over camera to subject to background distance ratios. Stopped down it shows really good across-frame sharpness (still TBD how much faster the lens achieves this on a Leica or UT modded sensor than on stock Sony), so definitely suitable for more technical work where consistent across-frame sharpness is desirable.
Right now I agree with Bastian that the 35/1.7 is probably better in regard to farther distance background rendering. With the 35/1.5 I think the appeal is it's a bit faster so that when stopping down a bit, it will still offer a relatively wide aperture for reasonable subject separation while hopefully calming down bokeh somewhat. Additionally, the much nicer ergonomics, smaller size and really sharp stopped down a bit. In other words, a versatile all-rounder with lots of strengths and a few weaknesses to keep in mind. What lens in this price point, let alone more expensive ones, doesn't have some weaknesses?
p.14 #19 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
I think the blooming aroung those christmas tree lights is mostly SA.
With the triangle like defocused light points in the corners I think it is mostly Coma,
but astigmatism can play a role here, too. These two aberrations are generally hard to separate.
But in your picture with the scale on the left it sure looks like there is a noticable amount of astigmatism, too.
Especially on lenses with high vignetting I always found city lights to be a much bigger problem
in regards to Coma than stars though.
These lenses with 3-4 EV vignetting in the corners, stars in the corners are so dark, the coma doesn't really become that obvious.
p.14 #20 · Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
BastianK wrote:
I think the blooming aroung those christmas tree lights is mostly SA.
With the triangle like defocused light points in the corners I think it is mostly Coma,
but astigmatism can play a role here, too. These two aberrations are generally hard to separate.
But in your picture with the scale on the left it sure looks like there is a noticable amount of astigmatism, too.
Especially on lenses with high vignetting I always found city lights to be a much bigger problem
in regards to Coma than stars though.
These lenses with 3-4 EV vignetting in the corners, stars in the corners are so dark, the coma doesn't really become that obvious....Show more →
It's definitely SA. If we get the 35/1.2 III and stop it down to f/1.5, we'd have a very similar look. I think the glow is pretty in the sample images though.
I wonder if it's just some manifestation of SA since it's also apparent in the center of the image, though to a lesser degree. At the periphery the blooming shifts to the side away from center. The streetlight photo though seems to show definite flare at the light source, also the houselight at the right side. So maybe it's a combination of a number of things, including flare? Just that typical point light source flare doesn't look like that. It kind of reminds me of halation flare you'd see in film images.