Fred Miranda wrote:
My favorite low light gallery Juha!
Thanks very much, Fred! I thought the lens did pretty well in low light scenery like this wide open. Nakano is always my go-to destination for low light shooting and it allows me to check out Fujiya Camera shop at the same time
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Thanks very much, Fred! I thought the lens did pretty well in low light scenery like this wide open. Nakano is always my go-to destination for low light shooting and it allows me to check out Fujiya Camera shop at the same time
Yes, I remember you told me it was a great street to shoot at night. Next time!
RustyBug wrote:
Except for his strong bias against Leica.
I just think that in Bastian's effort to be fair to all, and not hold a pre-bias toward Leica ... his pendulum has swung too far, and he hasn't realized that he has interjected an anti-Leica sentiment (i.e. not objective) into his objective efforts. This to the point that he makes snarky remarks regarding members who ask honest questions (from their desired perspectives) using the Lux as their baseline.
Just sayin' ... sometimes the pendulum swings past its target, and having Bastian complain about members who use the Lux as a baseline, seems to be inclusive of his personal bias....Show more →
I don't quite agree with the accusation of bias towards, Bastian.
There is however a strong and blind notion of superiority that Leica users have towards Leica lenses/products.
I absolutely love how some Leica lenses feel and look in the hand, but as an optically superior tool compared to the products we have today, Leica can often be on the tail end of the lot...
The amount of hype and enamour towards the Leica APO Summicron 50mm ASPH had me expect all kinds of image magic when I tried it. The copy I bought and promptly returned was nothing short of disappointing, and not much better than the existing Summicron. The Summilux 50mm ASPH I tried to buy three times. Every copy different to the next, and every time disappointing. Even the Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH made for a better lens outside of vignetting and a little more axial chromatic aberration.
But yes, I get the attraction to having a Leica lens. But my expectations are not class leading optical performance.
Will we ever see a E- or Z-mount version of the 28/1.5 Nokton? Or is it too difficult to tweak it for a thicker sensor stack and/or for sensors so close to the lens mount?
Oh please don't. Let's not go there. 😬🤣
All I want to see is some nice mid distance portraits.... Which have been just a handful number.
hmzimelka wrote:
I don't quite agree with the accusation of bias towards, Bastian.
There is however a strong and blind notion of superiority that Leica users have towards Leica lenses/products.
I absolutely love how some Leica lenses feel and look in the hand, but as an optically superior tool compared to the products we have today, Leica can often be on the tail end of the lot...
The amount of hype and enamour towards the Leica APO Summicron 50mm ASPH had me expect all kinds of image magic when I tried it. The copy I bought and promptly returned was nothing short of disappointing, and not much better than the existing Summicron. The Summilux 50mm ASPH I tried to buy three times. Every copy different to the next, and every time disappointing. Even the Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH made for a better lens outside of vignetting and a little more axial chromatic aberration.
But yes, I get the attraction to having a Leica lens. But my expectations are not class leading optical performance. ...Show more →
Ripolini wrote:
Will we ever see a E- or Z-mount version of the 28/1.5 Nokton? Or is it too difficult to tweak it for a thicker sensor stack and/or for sensors so close to the lens mount?
I have some doubts that Cosina did anything other for their "multi mount" lenses than slightly adjusting the element spacing to get the best performance compromise on the camera with the thicker sensor stack.
The only exception I am aware of is the 50mm 2.0 Apo-Lanthar, where the E and Z mount versions use more special glass than the VM version.
Doing such adjustments works well for some designs, but less so for others.
And I do think this approach might not be sufficient for fast wide angle lenses.
Especially, when those lenses already have some field curvature issues without the thicker filter stack.
Long story short: I do not expect Cosina to release E/RF/Z-mount versions of any of their fast wide angle lenses.
I rather expect a 28mm 2.0 Apo-Lanthar/Macro for those systems.
But the CP+ fair is soon, so better save this post to tell me how wrong I was, should I be
hmzimelka wrote:
I don't quite agree with the accusation of bias towards, Bastian.
There is however a strong and blind notion of superiority that Leica users have towards Leica lenses/products.
I absolutely love how some Leica lenses feel and look in the hand, but as an optically superior tool compared to the products we have today, Leica can often be on the tail end of the lot...
The amount of hype and enamour towards the Leica APO Summicron 50mm ASPH had me expect all kinds of image magic when I tried it. The copy I bought and promptly returned was nothing short of disappointing, and not much better than the existing Summicron. The Summilux 50mm ASPH I tried to buy three times. Every copy different to the next, and every time disappointing. Even the Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH made for a better lens outside of vignetting and a little more axial chromatic aberration.
But yes, I get the attraction to having a Leica lens. But my expectations are not class leading optical performance. ...Show more →
Yes, it's nothing short of ridiculous seeing accusations of (anti) fanobyism thrown towards Bastian, looks like projection to me . I think we all share that "head vs heart" dilemma when it comes to lenses, but there's nothing wrong with trying to find measurable aspects of lenses we love and ponder about that love if we can't find much...
BastianK wrote:
I have some doubts that Cosina did anything other for their "multi mount" lenses than slightly adjusting the element spacing to get the best performance compromise on the camera with the thicker sensor stack.
The only exception I am aware of is the 50mm 2.0 Apo-Lanthar, where the E and Z mount versions use more special glass than the VM version.
Doing such adjustments works well for some designs, but less so for others.
And I do think this approach might not be sufficient for fast wide angle lenses.
Especially, when those lenses already have some field curvature issues without the thicker filter stack.
Long story short: I do not expect Cosina to release E/RF/Z-mount versions of any of their fast wide angle lenses.
I rather expect a 28mm 2.0 Apo-Lanthar/Macro for those systems.
But the CP+ fair is soon, so better save this post to tell me how wrong I was, should I be ...Show more →
They did do 21/1.4 in E-mount earlier but it hasn't happened in other mirrorless mounts, perhaps because it didn't sell well enough in E. I think they were motivated to do more APO-Lanthars for mirrorless especially after 65/2, 50/2 and 35/2 sold very well in E-mount but their corresponding APO-Lanthars in Z-mount that were released as their first FF Z-mount lenses (50/2 and 35/2, while 65/2 was 4th) didn't seem to be quite as popular and instead 40/1.2 has been the clear best-seller in Z and now also in RF. In RF they don't seem to be putting out any APO-Lanthars so far. So I'm still thinking they might do 28/1.5 in mirrorless mounts but we'll have to wait and see what happens at CP+ in 2 weeks + 2 days I'm surely excited to see what they are cooking next even if it's something unexpected.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I think we're confusing "benchmark lens" with "reference lens". I like to use the Lux as a reference lens since a lot of M shooters are familiar with its performance, both positive and negative.
When I checked my dictionary, a benchmark means a known reference point, not "the best".
In that context, I do think we can regard the Summilux a benchmark lens, because it has been on the market for quite a while and there are already several reviews and user reports out there.
Since Fred Miranda made a test showing a change in field curvature from outward bending at short focus distance to inward bending at infinity focus, I wanted to see how my sample behaves. Bastian Kratzke also showed a test at 2 meter focus versus the Thypoch Simera 28mm f/1.4 where the Nokton appears to have strong outward bending field curvature compared to the Simera, which, notably, has clearly less optical vignetting. These tests prompted me into doing my own tests with my sample of the 28mm Nokton on my Kolari Ultra-Thin sensor glass modified Nikon Z6, which has (close to) the same sensor stack thickness as digital Leica M cameras.
In the below image, I don't see the outward bending field curvature at minimum (0.5 meter) distance wide open, using "find edges" in Photoshop, like Fred Mirandas sample shows. My test image looks pretty flat. If there is any field curvature, it's so weak that it's negligible.
The composite image below: In order to minimize the effect of optical vignetting, while checking for field curvature, I stopped the Nokton down to f/2.8 and shot an infinity scene at various focus distances from 5 to 0.7 meters. Again, I don't see any field curvature in that test.
In the third image, I found a stripe of asphalt on the icy road, and took an image wide open, focused at 2 meters. Still not much, if any, sign of outward bending field curvature.
My conclusion, at least as far as my sample on my camera goes, is that there is not much field curvature going on. I did see some inward bending field curvature when testing for infinity sharpness, but nothing dramatic, only at the edge of the long side.
In short, the decreasing blur towards the sides and corners I have seen in my wide open images, I attribute to largely, if not exclusively, optical vignetting.
BastianK wrote:
Long story short: I do not expect Cosina to release E/RF/Z-mount versions of any of their fast wide angle lenses.
I rather expect a 28mm 2.0 Apo-Lanthar/Macro for those systems.
So, it seems that despite the huge and much hyped Z-mount large mouth and short flange-to-sensor distance, it's not possible to guarantee speed and compactness in Nikkor Z wideangles at reasonable prices
Ripolini wrote:
So, it seems that despite the huge and much hyped Z-mount large mouth and short flange-to-sensor distance, it's not possible to guarantee speed and compactness in Nikkor Z wideangles at reasonable prices
Regarding the large Z mount diameter, it surely doesn't suggest smaller lenses.
After much testing and thinking, I have come to the conclusion that the reason why M mount lenses are smaller than in other systems, may not only be a design choice, but also be because the thinner sensor glass thickness appears to work better with steep angles of light. (This is not a fact, but my assumption.)
LarsHP wrote:
When I checked my dictionary, a benchmark means a known reference point, not "the best".
In that context, I do think we can regard the Summilux a benchmark lens, because it has been on the market for quite a while and there are already several reviews and user reports out there.
That’s fair, but I think that term causes confusion because of how it’s often understood to mean “the benchmark” instead of “a benchmark”.
Ripolini wrote:
So, it seems that despite the huge and much hyped Z-mount large mouth and short flange-to-sensor distance, it's not possible to guarantee speed and compactness in Nikkor Z wideangles at reasonable prices
If you look at the design of some of Canon's and Nikon's compact lenses I can assure you: you could not design them exactly like that for E-mount and definitely not for M-mount.
I am also not sure you could design a 135mm 1.8 with as little optical vignetting as the Nikon Plena has for E-mount.
The issue here is a different though:
The third party manufacturers need to design for the "worst" mount specifications.
Otherwise they are loosing out on a lot of potential customers.
They also have a strong interest of using the same parts for a lot of lenses.
For many M-mount users I also think there is a very specific size threshold of what is acceptable.
The VM 28mm 1.5 might meet those, whereas the Leica and the Thypoch won't.
BastianK wrote:
For many M-mount users I also think there is a very specific size threshold of what is acceptable.
The VM 28mm 1.5 might meet those, whereas the Leica and the Thypoch won't.
I had the 7A 28 1.4 but sold it because it was too big. That is also why I did not have any interest in the Leica 28 1.4, instead settling on the 28 f2 lenses which even for a film shooter were fast enough.
The CV 28 1.5 makes it interesting again for me because of the size.
This is also why I hardly ever use my ZM Distagon 35 1.4 - just too big for an M mount 35mm lens.
highdesertmesa wrote:
That’s fair, but I think that term causes confusion because of how it’s often understood to mean “the benchmark” instead of “a benchmark”.
Right, the term has often been used as "the best", while its original meaning is "point of reference".
One could argue that the benchmark for 28mm f/1.4 lenses in M mount is the Summilux-M, simply because it's the system maker's model, just like the Nikon, Canon, Sony etc. model for each lens type will be "the benchmark" for those.
The reason the Summilux 28 1.4 was/is the benchmark is because it was the original and only 28 1.4 lens in M mount for the longest time. (correct me if I am wrong).
So anything that came out after that would be compared to it.
LarsHP wrote:
Right, the term has often been used as "the best", while its original meaning is "point of reference".
One could argue that the benchmark for 28mm f/1.4 lenses in M mount is the Summilux-M, simply because it's the system maker's model, just like the Nikon, Canon, Sony etc. model for each lens type will be "the benchmark" for those.
Yes, that would be fair as well. But people will misunderstand and think "the benchmark" = "the best"
The whole benchmark/reference lens discussion is difficult because lenses with apertures wider than f/2 will always have compromises in one way or another.
. I think we all share that "head vs heart" dilemma when it comes to lenses, but there's nothing wrong with trying to find measurable aspects of lenses we love and ponder about that love if we can't find much...
