Since I own the 50 APO, it would have been nice if the design of the 28 was consistent but I understand it’s a new design. I also have the 50 1.0 like mudlake and agree it’s a very nice design.
Jepser wrote:
This i good news for many, I think I'll stick to my Nokton28 & APO35 combo beacause they have diferent strengths and uses....
I have the same combo on Z mount for my Zf.
I will see what to do after reviews and hopefully hands on test. If 28mm APO on Z-mount would be available 1 month ago I would probably skip both 35 APO and 28 nocton 🤷♂️ (and save some $$$)
I also have 50mm f/1.4G and I do not find 50mm super useful for my style/needs. So 50mm APO is not an option even if IQ is even better.
But Voight 50mm 1.0 would be an interestng thing. Otherwise I love superior APO IQ and sharpnes.
Anyway sweet proeblem to have :-)
Nov 14, 2025 at 05:55 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
The VM version shows better corner performance and less astigmatism in the middle of the frame. Right?
I would say the VM version has slightly less astigmatism from the mid-field and slightly better corner performance and the E and Z versions have slightly better center performance, but the differences are so small that they are unlikely to be seen even at 100% magnification.
I expected them to be released 8-15 months later and that's so much quicker! Both designs look good to me but I like the newer one better.
Wish Nikon has a matching body for them - not the 910g Z8, not the 810g ZF (w/ a grip).
If Z7 ii can be obtained at a very low price during BF I may get one. (I use Sony but any pretty lens will look dull on A7RV).
'The VM version shows better corner performance and less astigmatism in the middle of the frame. Right?'
Right, of course. How intriguing. They did a similar thing with the 35/2 APO, as you probably recall, I made a thing of it. The difference for the 35/2 (released more or less concurrently) was that CV gave the Sony lens significantly better wide open performance (~5% on axis, the best measure), and they were much the same by f4. They might figure M users need better treatment of skin texture.
It's a mixed bag here - the E/Z gives you an extra five percent on axis at f2 (like the 35/2) and it very tidily aligns the sag/tan line pairs into the very corners, so you gain integrity with a little less micro-contrast. Do note the 40 lpmm sag lines stay high across the frame, for all line pairs! The VM lags at both 30 and 40 lpmm. So the E/Z is the hot one.
Sag is the more important orientation, I've always thought, and the modern glass has more or less banished the worst effects of astigmatism. It's high on many high end lenses, like the early Otuses. Once you get past image height (IH) of 15mm the rest does not need to attain parity. The wide edge (IH 18mm) is a better metric, IMO. The above is re f2.
The VM catches up on axis by f4, but its average of sag/tan data never matches the average of the E/Z lens. The other thing is the slightly lower spatial frequency of 30 lpmm (the 2nd or middle line pair) is also boosted in the E/Z lens at f4, but especially at f2.
Still, I think any real world differences will not be disappointing or even visible, being 'lost in the composition'. The VM might be a bit 'scruffy' in corners at f2. I like the look of the E/Z lens here, at infinity at least, and its main usage is landscapes, building scapes, parks, stonework, gardens.
The extra 0.15m MFD is more valuable than it sounds, also. And you get to use the EVF, very important to get the focal plane exactly where you want it, see how it looks before taking the shot.
Interesting. I have the 28mm 1.5 Nokton and I am happy with it but I also have the 50 APO which I like. I am a fan of sunstars and I think the Nokton is better for this but I like the look of the APO photos. My third lens is the 21 1.4 Nokton.
I have not had GAS in years but for some reason the 28 APO is causing it to creep in. I cannot justify two 28's but maybe I can justify the 35 APO to tame my GAS and not have to deal with selling a lens.
Well.
What a conundrum. I have the version 1 35APO which is a stellar lens but I've tended to gravitate to 28/50 pairings. I can't justify the spend on it for now and am not ready to swap the 35 out for the 28 as the 28 might be a bit lonely without also having the 50. And of course the 28/1.5 Nokton is a stellar lens in it's own right and probably more what I love in a 28mm FL.
I’m planning to buy a 28 Norton and now since the apo was announced I’m torn between the two. Please help me decide. I have a 40 1.2 and it’s great but for a 28mm not sure which one I want. Mostly photographing street with it. Thanks.
stevemya123 wrote:
I’m planning to buy a 28 Norton and now since the apo was announced I’m torn between the two. Please help me decide. I have a 40 1.2 and it’s great but for a 28mm not sure which one I want. Mostly photographing street with it. Thanks.
There's nothing anyone can say that means more than examples of how they render. I'll probably never buy another Nokton just because I've tried enough to know I dislike the optical formula. That doesn't mean it's the wrong lens for someone else looking for those qualities.
RoamingScott wrote:
There's nothing anyone can say that means more than examples of how they render. I'll probably never buy another Nokton just because I've tried enough to know I dislike the optical formula. That doesn't mean it's the wrong lens for someone else looking for those qualities.
Michel85 wrote:
Just out of curiousity, what is it that you dislike about the Nokton series?
At least the lenses I've tried: poor MFD/magnification, tons of LoCA and hazy blur wide open (1.2 and 1.4 lenses) that doesn't truly clean up until around f2.2-f2.8 depending on the lens, and messy/distracting bokeh especially when branches or leaves are in the bokeh.
The APOs rendering exhibits the polar opposite in terms of IQ, and the Ultrons/Color-Skopars are a fantastic in-between that provide excellent center sharpness even open with pleasing bokeh, even with vegetation. The APOs however can appear more "flat" if you don't know how to post process with some aplomb.
I will say, one asterisk seems to be using F or M mount Noktons on film cameras, there is a "smoothing out" of those things I really dislike when put on film. These days, though, I want lenses that work well across both mediums.
RoamingScott wrote:
At least the lenses I've tried: poor MFD/magnification, tons of LoCA and hazy blur wide open (1.2 and 1.4 lenses) that doesn't truly clean up until around f2.2-f2.8 depending on the lens, and messy/distracting bokeh especially when branches or leaves are in the bokeh.
The APOs rendering exhibits the polar opposite in terms of IQ, and the Ultrons/Color-Skopars are a fantastic in-between that provide excellent center sharpness even open with pleasing bokeh, even with vegetation. The APOs however can appear more "flat" if you don't know how to post process with some aplomb.
I will say, one asterisk seems to be using F or M mount Noktons on film cameras, there is a "smoothing out" of those things I really dislike when put on film. These days, though, I want lenses that work well across both mediums....Show more →
The 21 Nokton seems to be one of the only exceptions to this. There’s very little spherical aberration wide open on the 21, and it’s quite crisp from f/1.4 and has that same crisp pop stopped down that many of the APO Lanthars have.
Jman13 wrote:
The 21 Nokton seems to be one of the only exceptions to this. There’s very little spherical aberration wide open on the 21, and it’s quite crisp from f/1.4 and has that same crisp pop stopped down that many of the APO Lanthars have.
And of course it's the one that isn't available for the mount I shoot, how convenient
There seem to be two threads going now on this lens. I posted this over on the other one:
I wonder why they changed the design of the focus ring for the E-mount, but kept the "traditional" knurled design for the Z-mount?
It's going to be the "ugly duckling" amongst my other CV lenses
