Makten wrote:
I love when people tell me what I can perceive or not.
, I was going to say the same thing. Let me re-phrase: you (Nifty) may not be able to tell the difference, please do not tell me what I can tell, that is just lazy journalism and assumption.
It is sometimes difficult to tell when you look at two specific images, but when you look at a coherent body of work with certain camera/lens combinations, it becomes more and more clear what the capability is.
Medium format cameras, both in the film days and also now, just have a much more relaxed way of rendering. I am not sure what it is about it, perhaps the larger lenses make it easier to make certain corrections, or maybe the higher resolutions allow the lens designer to relax the design parameters around sharpness and use the degrees of freedom in other corrections, I am not sure what the technical explanation is, but I have always loved the medium format rendering. This is also why in the absence of all other marketing pressures, I always drift in the direction of medium format. While you may be able to capture something similar with certain FF or smaller cameras and specific lenses, getting it consistently is just really hard. Btw, I also have the CV 50/1,2 Nokton and it is indeed very good.
I don't care for the rendering of the 50GM. It's boke is often a bit strained, or nervous, and the extreme corners of fast FF lenses often suffer from field curvature.
Oh I asked this before and didn’t get an answer. Also the guy who was the early responders spoke about the 85L. Besides there’s Metabones and Sigma MC-11 but if that’s an issue I can start posting pictures from my e-mount lenses. No problem whatsoever.
May 10, 2026 at 04:24 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
carstenw wrote:
... okay... and why are they here? This forum was created to show other camera systems than Nikon/Nikon, Sony/Sony and Canon/Canon.
Hi Carsten,
Almost nobody remembers that any more and this thread in particular has been all over the place and is currently cross posted to the Sony forum, which I don't think even existed when this thread started. So, IMO, it clearly could have Sony lenses on Sony cameras (and Joji has posted some of those as he shoots both Canon and Sony) as the thread is cross posted to the Sony forum, so why not Canon lenses on Canon cameras?
The whole alt distinction we used to make has pretty much fallen apart on this forum. For example, the alt lens monthly competition a couple years back agreed to no longer exclude Canon lenses on Canon cameras or Nikon lenses on Nikon cameras and open up the competition to anything shot on anything. In my view, this Leica and Alt forum has mostly become a Leica forum that welcomes people who like to adapt lenses and people who shoot manual focus lenses and people who shoot L mount AF lenses. A bit of a weird mix, but it sort of makes sense somehow.
carstenw wrote: , I was going to say the same thing. Let me re-phrase: you (Nifty) may not be able to tell the difference, please do not tell me what I can tell, that is just lazy journalism and assumption.
It is sometimes difficult to tell when you look at two specific images, but when you look at a coherent body of work with certain camera/lens combinations, it becomes more and more clear what the capability is.
Medium format cameras, both in the film days and also now, just have a much more relaxed way of rendering. I am not sure what it is about it, perhaps the larger lenses make it easier to make certain corrections, or maybe the higher resolutions allow the lens designer to relax the design parameters around sharpness and use the degrees of freedom in other corrections, I am not sure what the technical explanation is, but I have always loved the medium format rendering. This is also why in the absence of all other marketing pressures, I always drift in the direction of medium format. While you may be able to capture something similar with certain FF or smaller cameras and specific lenses, getting it consistently is just really hard. Btw, I also have the CV 50/1,2 Nokton and it is indeed very good.
I don't care for the rendering of the 50GM. It's boke is often a bit strained, or nervous, and the extreme corners of fast FF lenses often suffer from field curvature....Show more →
Well, it is what it is. With analog, I perceive the difference compared to 24x36 as huge. The fact that this isn't the case with digital must be due to something specific. It can't be my eyes, because if that were the case, they would fail me with analog as well. But we won't be able to resolve this definitively here, so everyone will simply stick to their own view. That’s no big deal.
I actually prefer the Nokton to the GM—at least for the kind of stuff I shoot—but the GM is simply incredibly comfortable to use in virtually *any* situation and under all circumstances. Incidentally, the somewhat jittery bokeh doesn't really bother me. I am neither a pixel peeper nor someone who gets lost in the minutiae of analyzing bokeh. I would only look into that sort of thing if I noticed that I didn't like a specific rendering and wanted to figure out why. However, if I like the images overall, that’s enough for me. I focus on the subject, not the bokeh.
jojib wrote:
Oh I asked this before and didn’t get an answer. Also the guy who was the early responders spoke about the 85L. Besides there’s Metabones and Sigma MC-11 but if that’s an issue I can start posting pictures from my e-mount lenses. No problem whatsoever.
At this point I am just wondering what is happening I didn't think you were invading outright. It seems that threads can live in more than one forum now?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Well, it is what it is. With analog, I perceive the difference compared to 24x36 as huge. The fact that this isn't the case with digital must be due to something specific. It can't be my eyes, because if that were the case, they would fail me with analog as well. But we won't be able to resolve this definitively here, so everyone will simply stick to their own view. That’s no big deal.
I am open to seeing other things, but generally I see a more relaxed rendering style with medium format, which is what attracts me to it. A very few FF lenses can also do that, and I think the CV 50 Nokt 1,2 is a good one.
I actually prefer the Nokton to the GM—at least for the kind of stuff I shoot—but the GM is simply incredibly comfortable to use in virtually *any* situation and under all circumstances. Incidentally, the somewhat jittery bokeh doesn't really bother me. I am neither a pixel peeper nor someone who gets lost in the minutiae of analyzing bokeh. I would only look into that sort of thing if I noticed that I didn't like a specific rendering and wanted to figure out why. However, if I like the images overall, that’s enough for me. I focus on the subject, not the bokeh....Show more →
The GM is typical for a certain kind of modern lens which does almost everything almost perfectly, but as with many of them, I find the boke a bit "tense", which I am not really fond of.
Do you by any chance have the CV 35 Nokt 1,2 version III or IV? I am considering buying this lens, but I am not sure if it is similar to the 50 or not. I would like to have a good 35 like this.
carstenw wrote:
At this point I am just wondering what is happening I didn't think you were invading outright. It seems that threads can live in more than one forum now?
To answer myself, it seems that threads with two little bubbles/circles to the left of the title, in the thread-list view, are cross-posted to at least one other forum. My apologies to jojib.
May 10, 2026 at 04:58 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
carstenw wrote:
At this point I am just wondering what is happening I didn't think you were invading outright. It seems that threads can live in more than one forum now?
Yes, they can. It has been that way for at least 5 years, I think. Sometimes it is helpful, and in my view often is, getting a greater diversity of views, but sometimes creates needless brand wars too. With regard to this Leica and alt forum, almost all threads that are not Leica centric are also cross posted to another forum, so the multiple forum posting of threads is common here.
carstenw wrote:
To answer myself, it seems that threads with two little bubbles/circles to the left of the title, in the thread-list view, are cross-posted to at least one other forum. My apologies to jojib.
I really like my 85/1.2LII. IMHO, it delivers a striking sense of depth that makes my subjects stand out---while also producing a soft, dreamy atmosphere when shot wide open at f/1.2 like the first image.
carstenw wrote:
Do you by any chance have the CV 35 Nokt 1,2 version III or IV? I am considering buying this lens, but I am not sure if it is similar to the 50 or not. I would like to have a good 35 like this.
As a matter of fact, I happen to own a 35mm f/1.2 SE for Sony—which, from what I understand, corresponds to Version III. Unfortunately, I can't tell you much more about it, as I only bought it because it happened to be listed in a forum at the time, and I had intended—at some point—to conduct a side-by-side comparison between a Planar 80mm f/2.8 on 6x6 analog film and the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 on a 24x24 digital sensor. However, that remains merely a good intention to this day. Otherwise, I generally prefer 50mm lenses, so this particular lens practically never gets used. I do have two photos to show you, though—one in color and one in black-and-white—though I doubt you’ll be able to glean any meaningful insights from them.
jojib wrote:
I really like my 85/1.2LII. IMHO, it delivers a striking sense of depth that makes my subjects stand out---while also producing a soft, dreamy atmosphere when shot wide open at f/1.2 like the first image.
I see old and new TO city halls!
I was never a fan of the 85L. It does what it does very well, but to me it completely separates foreground and background, which isn't my taste.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
As a matter of fact, I happen to own a 35mm f/1.2 SE for Sony—which, from what I understand, corresponds to Version III. Unfortunately, I can't tell you much more about it, as I only bought it because it happened to be listed in a forum at the time, and I had intended—at some point—to conduct a side-by-side comparison between a Planar 80mm f/2.8 on 6x6 analog film and the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 on a 24x24 digital sensor. However, that remains merely a good intention to this day. Otherwise, I generally prefer 50mm lenses, so this particular lens practically never gets used. I do have two photos to show you, though—one in color and one in black-and-white—though I doubt you’ll be able to glean any meaningful insights from them....Show more →
I do like the render in these two images, although as you say, the sample is probably too small. They do look similar in rendering to the 50/1.2, which is what I was hoping for. I will add it to my future-buy list. For now I need to recover the health on my bank account
I was never a fan of the 85L. It does what it does very well, but to me it completely separates foreground and background, which isn't my taste.
I understand. However, you don't have to shoot wide open with it. But then again, if you're not going to use f/1.2 there are cheaper 85s. I have the Batis 85/1.8 as well and I love its rendering too. However at f/1.8 it doesn't give me that 'dreamy' look that I could get with the L when shooting wide open. Sigma is coming up with the 85/1.2 so I might be interested in that for e-mount or maybe even the rumoured 65/1.0.
gammarART wrote:
So, I took three shots.
I’ll leave out what equipment I used for now. The processing should have removed any color differences, so it’s purely about the impression of plasticity, depth, or the legendary 3D pop – that “I can almost touch it” feeling, not just drowning everything in brutal blur ✨😁
What's obvious is that the three lenses are used at a different aperture, each probably wide open. My guess would be, they're all 35mm lenses (who has three or more wider lenses of the same focal length? - well maybe 28s).
The one on the right is the fastest, next the one on the left, while the one in the middle is quite a bit slower.
Since the differences are quite noticeable and in my opinion also important for the 3D impression, it's not possible to tell which lens is better. To me the spatial impression works best for the one in the middle, but I assume that's because the larger depth of field makes the whole bike sharp, while it isn't in the other two images. Also you can follow sharpness better on the ground, which helps too in my opinion. Lastly I think, due to the smaller aperture the micro contrast on the bike is a little better.
If you want to compare 3D pop in different lenses with this little depth of field, it should be the same.
Still I find this comparison very interesting.
My guess would be the one on the left is a f/1.4, on the right maybe an f/0.95 and the one in the middle is an f/2, maybe the Zeiss 2/35?
Good analysis. I would also add that the right lens is noticeably warmer, the middle one is more contrasty, and the framing is different in all three. The 3D look is stronger on the middle one, but for me the composition doesn't quite work. Perhaps because we are trying to fool the brain into thinking that it is looking at a real scene rather than a photo, and the very strong blur in the foreground and background distracts from that. Taken from 45º above it might work a bit better.
I would also refer to a previous comment I have made. It is sometimes not so easy to tell from a single photo, but when you have several photos, you can start getting a better understanding of the rendering of each lens, and then you can more easily see which renders more 3D-like.
, I was going to say the same thing. Let me re-phrase: you (Nifty) may not be able to tell the difference, please do not tell me what I can tell, that is just lazy journalism and assumption.
I didn't think you were invading outright. It seems that threads can live in more than one forum now? 
