EMH2025 wrote:
I like the VM 1.2 50 mm, it can work well enough in quite dark conditions. This was my morning "bear hunt" in Anchorage today, the black bears are fishing while it is really dark in predawn, and disappear quickly in the light when people are around. I can use the 1.2 at 6400 iso and this is hand held at 1/20th with a M11P, so still dark to capture an image. It would be great to have more light, but the bears do not cooperate. I had only a few minutes while the mother and cub fished in the near dark, then they moved on so low light photography is all I can do and the VM 1.2 50 is working well. ...Show more →
Shooting this with a 50mm while capturing two bears bathing was pretty bold!
For me, the f/1.2 Nokton I love most is the original 40mm. It was the first one released and offers a really unique look...lots of blur at f/1.2 while still being wider than a standard lens. I also think I love it because of its size, especially when using it on the Leica M. It's the smallest of the bunch.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Shooting this with a 50mm while capturing two bears bathing was pretty bold!
For me, the f/1.2 Nokton I love most is the original 40mm. It was the first one released and offers a really unique look...lots of blur at f/1.2 while still being wider than a standard lens. I also think I love it because of its size, especially when using it on the Leica M. It's the smallest of the bunch.
Thanks ! In general wildlife mostly will not bother you if you respect their space, for instance these bears would run from me, in marked contrast to human “mean” streets in cities. A bear will not mug you for your camera. Lately carrying a light leica (age) rather than big glass nikon has forced me to be quiet and stealthy and to plan my actions, the same type of skills a bow hunter needs.. A rangefinder is effective because I can see outside the image, just keep the patch centered it is much easier to follow motion. But I would like longer glass, I do shoot a 135 3.4 apo leica, what I would really like is a 90 nokton (1.5 or better) if Cosina is reading this it would be instant purchase for me.
Thanks, Fred, for these tests and lovely images! (Yes, even the mundane test shots are “lovely,” in their own way.)
It is really good to see, in the 40mm Nokton images, that Cosina has improved the “onion ring” situation. 40mm is a much-favored focal length, that I have in “pancake” lenses for both of my DLSR systems, but, not yet for the M mount, a system which maximizes the compactness. A pancake lens, on a big pro-level D4s or D5 camera body will, of course, stimulate interesting conversations.
Nick YR wrote:
Oh wow that onion ring pattern on LLL 1966 is much worse than i anticipated, very distracting
To be fair, this lens was originally designed for film, where the onion-ring patterns from aspherical elements are far less noticeable. But I agree....when I use the LLL 50/1.2 1966 on digital cameras, especially high-resolution ones, that imperfection definitely stands out. I'll admit, it bothers me too.
Malabito wrote:
Thanks! I guess i will continue to keep my ZM I don't take it out as much given the size, but when i do i am always amazed how easy its to use it and the results
I just received the VG 35mm f/1.2 IV and verified calibration with my M11M. I also have the ZM 35mm f/1.4 and VG APO Lanthar f/2.0. The ZM really provides the best of options in that as you stop it down, the differences between it and the APO are minimal. It will out perform the VG f/1.2 from wide open f/1.4., but you must be willing to mount it and carry it around. The ZM isn’t a large lens, except when comparing it to the other two. I’ve yet to do more than test calibration and lens centering on the IV. The size is quite impressive and it feels like a quality lens. I purchased it with an eye to using it on film ‘M’ cameras.
Now that these 35mm lenses have been out for awhile, I hope that others can report their use case. Perhaps a tangent given that the thread references 35/40/50mm VG.
bwcolor wrote:
The ZM isn’t a large lens, except when comparing it to the other two.
I think the 35mm f/1.4 ZM's only real flaw is its size. To me it feels too big for a 35mm on the M. The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO is a bit smaller but still on the large side. I hope Cosina can trim it down at some point. That said, if you don't mind the slower aperture, the ultra-compact CV 35mm f/3.5 is essentially APO as well.
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM vs Leica 35mm f/1.4 FLE
comparison in size to the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think the 35mm f/1.4 ZM's only real flaw is its size. To me it feels too big for a 35mm on the M. The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO is a bit smaller but still on the large side. I hope Cosina can trim it down at some point. That said, if you don't mind the slower aperture, the ultra-compact CV 35mm f/3.5 is essentially APO as well.
Great suggestion. Just received the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton iv. Not as perfect as the ZM, but much smaller Wanted for use with film ‘M’ bodies. The f/3.5 might be a great alternative to my f/2.0 APO Asp. Lanthar on my M11 Monochrom.
bwcolor wrote:
Great suggestion. Just received the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton iv. Not as perfect as the ZM, but much smaller Wanted for use with film ‘M’ bodies. The f/3.5 might be a great alternative to my f/2.0 APO Asp. Lanthar on my M11 Monochrom.
You'll be surprised at how compact the CV 35/3.5 Color-Skopar is, and in my tests I haven't noticed any axial CA. While f/3.5 lenses are naturally easier to control than f/2 lenses, this one performs well enough that I'd consider it APO.
Cosina released a CV 50mm f/3.5 APO, so I expected a 35mm f/3.5 APO to follow. Judging by the tiny 35/3.5's performance, though, it seems they realized there's no need...this lens is not only one of the smallest high-performing options available but also effectively APO in quality.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Shooting this with a 50mm while capturing two bears bathing was pretty bold!
For me, the f/1.2 Nokton I love most is the original 40mm. It was the first one released and offers a really unique look...lots of blur at f/1.2 while still being wider than a standard lens. I also think I love it because of its size, especially when using it on the Leica M. It's the smallest of the bunch.
Fred, apart from the little corrections you mentioned regarding specular highlights, are versions I and II not identical in rendering?
fededuran wrote:
Fred, apart from the little corrections you mentioned regarding specular highlights, are versions I and II not identical in rendering?
Yes, they are the same. There were no changes in the optical design, and even the aperture mechanisms remain identical. The update was mostly cosmetic, with the only real change being an improvement in the aspherical process for the 40/1.2.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, they are the same. There were no changes in the optical design, and even the aperture mechanisms remain identical. The update was mostly cosmetic, with the only real change being an improvement in the aspherical process for the 40/1.2.
Hi Fred, I'm on the fence between version 1 and 2 of the 40/1.2.
does the change in aspherical process for version 2 of the 40/1.2 result in sharper center/subject as compared to version 1?
or is the aspherical process only an issue regarding bokeh, flare and veiling?
Also have you heard anything about version 1 having more variations in samples versus version 2?
brick33308 wrote:
Hi Fred, I'm on the fence between version 1 and 2 of the 40/1.2.
does the change in aspherical process for version 2 of the 40/1.2 result in sharper center/subject as compared to version 1?
or is the aspherical process only an issue regarding bokeh, flare and veiling?
Also have you heard anything about version 1 having more variations in samples versus version 2?
I do think the Version II is built with better tolerances. It took me a while to find a Version I that was properly rangefinder aligned and well centered. With Version II, I own one and have tried another, and both were perfect. That's obviously anecdotal, but it's still worth noting. I focus using the rangefinder, so having a lens that's perfectly aligned at f/1.2 really matters to me.
I don't care much about the black versus chrome filter ring, that wasn't my reason for upgrading. The difference in the onion ring pattern is real though, if that's something that bothers you. It is noticeably cleaner now, even compared to the CV 35mm f/1.2 Nokton IV.
If you go with the older Version I with the chrome nose, make sure you have the option to return it if it's not up to spec.
thanks Fred. I think I'll go for version 2, but will have to buy it new as I can't find any used ones (other than from Japan on eBay which for me is a hard no).
I got my 40/1.2 version 2 today, ran it through all the various tests suggested by ChatGPT - all on a tripod, different distances, f stops, etc. ChatGPT evaluated all the images and said I've got a great copy. It's only technical observations of a "not perfect" nature were:
Very minor:
• There’s slight longitudinal CA in very high contrast edges (normal at 1.2)
• Slight edge softness off center (normal wide open)
Nothing abnormal.
Nothing concerning.
Here's a quick snap at f1.2 I took of my normally unwilling husband subject, although he usually relents when I tell him I'm testing a lens
a few more indoor shots with the Voigt 40/1.2. First is f3.4, second and third are f1.2. I'm waiting to get my B+W filter before taking it out on a regular shoot.
brick33308 wrote:
a few more indoor shots with the Voigt 40/1.2. First is f3.4, second and third are f1.2. I'm waiting to get my B+W filter before taking it out on a regular shoot.
Your first samples are basically torture tests for axial CA, and it doesn't look too bad at all (Although don't get too excited as this lens has some). I think the new f/1.2 Nokton line is beautiful aesthetically. The 40/1.2 is my favorite of the bunch, mainly because I already have so many 35mm and 50mm lenses that I really love..
I've been thinking about this, and it's possible Cosina reduced the focus shift this lens had in its earlier versions. I remember my older copies clearly, and when I went back and checked my focus shift tests from years ago, the issue was pretty obvious. That may explain why so many earlier M copies I tried felt optimized for f/2 rather than f/1.2.
With my new v2 copy, though, I don't see much focus shift at all, and the two copies I have tested were dead on, perfectly rangefinder-optimized wide open..
I have just bought, myself, the 35mm Nokton v4 - waiting for delivery. Probably a GAS-induced effect of the Noctilux release
I would really like to see a comparison of this 35mm Nokton against the 35 Lux pre-FLE. I had the pre-FLE for a few days, then I sent it back due to it having some oil on the aperture blades. But I do like the images it produced, they have "something" that I like (this is the very similar feel I have for the 50 Lux Classic re-release images).
