Somewhat expected as we've seen in the past but nonetheless interesting. Thank you for the comparison. Do they render similarly if you use the M-mount lens on a Leica body?
Fred, thanks for these comparisons. I held off getting the Nokton 1.0 hoping it would come out in E mount and hoping it would work better on my Sony than an adapted M mount. I have a Leica M8.2 but I thought at my age I would probably seldom successfully use f/1.0 on that, so I waited for an E. I am so glad I waited. These comparisons are very encouraging. I have been enjoying using this Nokton on my Sony! I have other good f/2 (and smaller) aperture lenses for the M8.2, so I am all set.
They look two different lens designs. Even the high tones are rougher, less creamy. And the detail is tetchy, damaging the ultra-smooth entry view into images that so attracted people to the M lens on release. Crop contents look like a roiling sea, a horror show filter.
The comparatively rough bokeh of the adapted VM shown here is the same as I've noticed between my native and VM copies of the CV 40/1.2. The midzone and corner dip I understand, but I don't understand why the center, absent of field curvature, also demonstrates rough bokeh. If the VM lenses are used on an Ultra Thin modded Sony, does the central bokeh smooth out to native performance -level as well as the outer frame?
nbaronzzi wrote:
The comparatively rough bokeh of the adapted VM shown here is the same as I've noticed between my native and VM copies of the CV 40/1.2. The midzone and corner dip I understand, but I don't understand why the center, absent of field curvature, also demonstrates rough bokeh. If the VM lenses are used on an Ultra Thin modded Sony, does the central bokeh smooth out to native performance -level as well as the outer frame?
I believe the more structured rendering in the M-mount version is a result of a slight tweak in optical design, rather than being related to field curvature, which predominantly affects the off-axis areas such as the mid-zone and corners.. Personally, I appreciate the characterful rendering on the M-mount, which, of course, shows on both Sony and Leica sensors around the center area. -- However, I acknowledge that a majority of shooters might prefer the smoother rendering from the E-mount version.
It's one of the differences I noticed while comparing the Voigtlander 50/1 to the 50/1.2 Nokton lenses. The latter yields smoother rendering and could be a better choice for those who favor this aesthetic.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe the more structured rendering in the M-mount version is a result of a slight tweak in optical design, rather than being related to field curvature, which predominantly affects the off-axis areas such as the mid-zone and corners.. Personally, I appreciate the characterful rendering on the M-mount, which, of course, shows on both Sony and Leica sensors around the center area. -- However, I acknowledge that a majority of shooters might prefer the smoother rendering from the E-mount version.
It's one of the differences I noticed while comparing the Voigtlander 50/1 to the 50/1.2 Nokton lenses. The latter yields smoother rendering and could be a better choice for those who favor this aesthetic....Show more →
Thanks for making and posting these comparison images.
While Cosina obviously did tweak the optics of the Sony version for the thicker sensor glass, I am surprised that the difference isn't larger than it is, considering the small difference in field curvature. To me, this test means I certainly won't buy a new Z version for my Ultra-Thin converted Nikon Z6. If a nice used sample appears locally at an attractive price, I may change my mind and go for it and sell the M mount version, though.
LarsHP wrote:
Thanks for making and posting these comparison images.
While Cosina obviously did tweak the optics of the Sony version for the thicker sensor glass, I am surprised that the difference isn't larger than it is, considering the small difference in field curvature. To me, this test means I certainly won't buy a new Z version for my Ultra-Thin converted Nikon Z6. If a nice used sample appears locally at an attractive price, I may change my mind and go for it and sell the M mount version, though.
You're welcome. I think the issue is more pronounced with wide-angle lenses. With a 50mm lens, there are discrepancies in the rendering, but they are not as noticeable.
Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.0 in FE mount has just arrived.It is quite beefy even compared with pretty large and heavy copy of my Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.2 FE.I hope to give it a go over next week-end.
Peire wrote:
Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.0 in FE mount has just arrived.It is quite beefy even compared with pretty large and heavy copy of my Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.2 FE.I hope to give it a go over next week-end.
Nice! I can't wait to see some of your images from this lens. You always take such beautiful pictures.
I'd also be interested to see some side-by-side comparisons with the 50/1 and your 50/1.2. I am really loving my 50/1.2 SE and would like to see if there are any real world differences with the 50/1.
mudlake wrote:
Nice! I can't wait to see some of your images from this lens. You always take such beautiful pictures.
I'd also be interested to see some side-by-side comparisons with the 50/1 and your 50/1.2. I am really loving my 50/1.2 SE and would like to see if there are any real world differences with the 50/1.
Thank you mudlake for your kind words.
Now I think intensely how and where to use my 50/1.0 with best results (one keeper picture is taken already ).I also did my brief custom tests on A7R4A and found it generally similar to 50/1.2 in overall rendition.Up untill f2 it shows dreamy,classic quality.Stopped down the lens sharpens up quickly,getting contrastier and presenting nice Voigtlander colours.Sure 50/1.0 shows more pronounced CA in bright daylight wide open compared to 50/1.2.Yet f1 is not f1,2,so no wonder.On the other hand 50/1,0's oof blurr seems smoother and nicer.
I like my 50/1.2 Classic too.Having limited time for photography I almost never do regular tests and side-by-side comparisons,but prefer to take real pictures instead and compare lenses on that basis.My gut feeling is both 50/1.2 and 50/1.0 will stay with me,as they are different enough to justify that.
I am waiting impatiently for Voigtlander Nokton 75/1.5 in Sony FE mount!
Peire wrote:
Thank you mudlake for your kind words.
Now I think intensely how and where to use my 50/1.0 with best results (one keeper picture is taken already ).I also did my brief custom tests on A7R4A and found it generally similar to 50/1.2 in overall rendition.Up untill f2 it shows dreamy,classic quality.Stopped down the lens sharpens up quickly,getting contrastier and presenting nice Voigtlander colours.Sure 50/1.0 shows more pronounced CA in bright daylight wide open compared to 50/1.2.Yet f1 is not f1,2,so no wonder.On the other hand 50/1,0's oof blurr seems smoother and nicer.
I like my 50/1.2 Classic too.Having limited time for photography I almost never do regular tests and side-by-side comparisons,but prefer to take real pictures instead and compare lenses on that basis.My gut feeling is both 50/1.2 and 50/1.0 will stay with me,as they are different enough to justify that.
I am waiting impatiently for Voigtlander Nokton 75/1.5 in Sony FE mount!
Looking forward to your images with the new lens. When you do get the 75/1.5 in Sony mount, I would be interested to see how it performs compared to your 50/1 in crop mode (which makes it a 75/1.5!). Not necessarily side-by-side comparisons, but just an overall impresson on how the 50 does in crop mode. Good times!
Peire wrote:
Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.0 in FE mount has just arrived.It is quite beefy even compared with pretty large and heavy copy of my Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.2 FE.I hope to give it a go over next week-end.
I was just wondering how do you find the handling of the lens when mounted on your camera: is there enough space for your fingers between the camera's grip and the lens barrel?
Looking at the lens' dimensions, I see it has same diameter as my Canon Dream lens (79mm) and the lens' narrow part (towards the mount) seems to be roughly the same length as the M-to-E adaptor (around +/- 1cm). And I am almost at the limit with my fingers in-between the camera's grip and the lens' barrel. Just wondering if Sony keeps increasing their cameras' grips.....
catacore wrote:
I was just wondering how do you find the handling of the lens when mounted on your camera: is there enough space for your fingers between the camera's grip and the lens barrel?
Looking at the lens' dimensions, I see it has same diameter as my Canon Dream lens (79mm) and the lens' narrow part (towards the mount) seems to be roughly the same length as the M-to-E adaptor (around +/- 1cm). And I am almost at the limit with my fingers in-between the camera's grip and the lens' barrel. Just wondering if Sony keeps increasing their cameras' grips.....
Yes.There is enough space for my middle sized hands.
