I also had some problems with the 1.2/35. It was very sharp in the center, but outside of the center very soft. Since I've seen many great images shot with this lens, I probably also got a lemon.
I returned the lens (and bought a Summilux 50 instead).
Thank you millsart, found them. The few test shots I took with the 1.2 look like your test shots of the 1.4 and worse. Have to do some more testing and if the results stay like this, I'll send the lens to VL for a check.
millsart wrote:
Thats surprising your not getting along well with the 35mm f1.2. I've owned both it and the 50 Nokton and as good as the 50 was, the 35mm was even better. Very very smooth to focus, and just insanely sharp edge to edge.
Sadly it seems all the new VC lenses are sort of crap though. New 35mm f1.4 for example. Just doesn't hold a candle to the older ones like the 50 Nokton, 28mm f3.5 etc, all of which they discontinued for some reason.
The older 35mm f1.7 Ultron (also discontinued) is another one that was great.
Old 28mm f1.9 was totally better than the new 28mm f2.0 Ultron as well.
The 12 and 15mm's are about the only current VC lenses that actually seem a step in the right direction...Show more →
I've been using the Voigtlander 15 and 75 f/1.8 on the M9. I agree the 15 is a pretty nice bargain for what it can do (despite the edge color shift, whic is now reduced with the new firmware). The 75 is decent too. It's not a super sharp micro-contrasty lens, rather more a portrait lens. I've posted some images on the Leica thread, some of which are here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/920070/273#9742245
I was quite keen on getting the 35 f/1.2 but then it was discontinued... so we'll see if the new version is as good.
I'm also curious about the 40 f/1.4 for it's 'interesting' bokeh (kind of harsh with bright rings). Has anyone here tried it on a NEX, or Leica?
FWIW, my source at S0ny says the NEX 7 and 9 are near. Not sure when they will be announced.
Guys, I am now ready, after a brief encounter with one, to buy a 90mm lens for my NEX. I can get either a Leica f:2.0, old and large, for 450€, a newer Leica f:2.8 for around 550-600€, or a Contax G 90 for 250€ (I already have the adapters). Any advice?
Are you talking about R lenses, Philippe? Why not try the old Elmar 90/4 or Elmarit 90/2.8, both M. You can get them for much less than the prices you mentioned and they are both very nice lenses.
Philippe, did you see my ebay link above? I personally paid 160 Euro for my 90/2.8 in excellent external condition with the original hood but tiny micro-bubbles in the front element that don't affect iQ.
ok, problem solved. I just checked my other M mount lenses and found that with non of them I could focus beyond mid distances. No wonder that the Nokton 35/1.2 could not focus beyond 5 meters, because that was what I shot only to test it. All shots where totally blurry.
So this was clearly an adapter issue. Whilst on the PC to bite the bullet and order an expensive Voigtlaender adapter, I did hold on for a moment and inspected the mid-priced adapter that I had. All 5 screws on the M side of the adapter where loose. After tightening them all is fine with the Nokton as far as I can tell after 3 or 4 test shots
Morfeus wrote:
ok, problem solved. I just checked my other M mount lenses and found that with non of them I could focus beyond mid distances. No wonder that the Nokton 35/1.2 could not focus beyond 5 meters, because that was what I shot only to test it. All shots where totally blurry.
So this was clearly an adapter issue. Whilst on the PC to bite the bullet and order an expensive Voigtlaender adapter, I did hold on for a moment and inspected the mid-priced adapter that I had. All 5 screws on the M side of the adapter where loose. After tightening them all is fine with the Nokton as far as I can tell after 3 or 4 test shots ...Show more →
If you still want a Voigtländer or Novoflex adapter, write me a pm. I just sold my NEX and still have both adapters.
sebboh wrote:
congrats on the new lens, hope it really is in good shape. it is a very special lens and that price sounds better than most of what i've seen them going for.
sorry to hear about the ACL, skiing accident, motorbiking, or other?
Thread continues to entertain and inspire.
I put my foot down in the wrong spot on my motorbike-- fluke really. Arrgh just as I was gearing up for some serious backcountry work.
The Pen arrived and I could not be happier with it----perfect except for slight ding in filter ring--but the threads seem fine. Glass is perfect, except for the usual dust specs.
me, taken by my PT: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6004/5921188200_2a9cda6ae5_z.jpg
revenge: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6010/5921187930_880e955a52_b.jpg
compared with Canon 50/1.2 and Nokton 50/1.1. Excuse the terrible shot: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6005/5921187534_dc9989d9c3_z.jpg
at 255 grams, it is the lightest ultrafast lens there is as far as I can tell, and seems to fill the frame without issue on APS-C. The Canon is 322g, fatter and shorter. Build is very similar though.
I do wonder how many 42/1.2s were acutally made. The early Pen brochures do not mention it, but then it appears in 1966 and seems to have been available from then till the OM took over. I suspect only about 3000 were produced--but this could be wildly wrong. The original Pen with fixed lenses sold like hotcakes, but the TTL faced a serious issue:
"Unfortunately, Kodak refused to support the half-size concept because the film mounts would cost twice as much. A “no” from Kodak meant that we couldn't sell our cameras in America. However, Agfa agreed to produce the mounts, and we enjoyed excellent sales in Germany and the Netherlands."
Yoshihisa Maitani
In addtion, Oly had ALL the important 1/2 frame patents, so there was no "boom" with other manufacturers also making similar products. http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6125/5920623463_c09138ce50_b.jpg http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6144/5920623911_25ee1ba6eb_b.jpg
I think all shots from the pen are wide open.
I'm stuck with my VG10, nex-5 still on second warranty visit. grrrrrr.
Can't put more than 5lbs of weight on left leg till end of month--- jeez. You don't realise how helpless life with crutches is untill immersed. My last injury was 1991--right ACL skiing.
The good news is no staff infection and the joint looks very good for the long haul.
Morfeus brings up what has slowly dawned on me: the CV 50/1.5 is spectacular. I think I will sell some of my other 50s and get one.
I do find the CV 50/1.1 is an incredible lens. I still can't decide if I should trade it for the 35/1.2, which I suspect is more practical in low light, since you can drop the shutter quite a bit. But the 1.1 has fantastic rendering when stopped down a bit.
Re 90s: the tele-elmarit 90/2.8 is very small, light and quite sharp. At infinity it is sharper than the CV 75/2.5, but from mid distance they are close. The canon LTM 100/3.5 is lighter, cheaper, and perhaps shaprer than either--provided you get a good copy. These are easy to try and turn around if you pay a fair price up front. I've heard the Contax 90 is fantastic, but the focus via adapter ring is an issue.
well enough blabbing from me. Love to see all these great shots
I would love to try the 50/1.1 one day, but the 1.5 is just so phantastic and I am really happy with it. If one comes along you should really consider in getting it.
Here is another image from that lens, nothing special, just to show how sharp and detailed it renders:
I think I may have already mentioned it before, but you can get Voigtlander lenses in Nikon S rangefinder mount at cameraquest for very good prices, including the 50/1.5. They are optically identical to their M versions, and, IMO, a little better looking. They had a deal running last fall, and I got the 50/1.5, 50/2.5 and 85/3.5 all for $499. They are more expensive now, but still quite a steal IMO.
The only bummer about the Nikon RF mount is that I can't use these lenses with the new M adapter I've got coming that has a helicoid to slightly extend the barrel for close focusing.
