**************************************************************************************
Leica Summilux 35mm F1.4 ASPH FLE
Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.4 MC
Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.4 SC
Canon 35mm F1.5 LTM (not quite F/1.4 but close enough!)
All shots taken with a Zeiss Ikon in manual mode on a tripod with a cable release. The B&W film is Efke 50 and the colour film is Ektar 100. All film was scanned with a Coolscan 5000. Post processing on each image is identical except for bumping up the brightness of the wide open Canon 35/1.5 shots a bit to match the other wide open shots.
Pixel peepers can click on any photo to see a larger version. Sharpness differences are more obvious in the larger versions.
On my scales the Summilux weighed in at 319 grams, the Noktons at 199 grams, and the Canon with LTM-M adapter at 198 grams. These weights are sans front and rear lens caps, filters, and hoods.
**************************************************************************************
Series one - flare resistance comparison
From memory the focus point is the rightmost lantern in the row of four lanterns. I forget the distance. Look at the street lights and other lights for differences.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/1.4
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/1.5
And now stopped down two stops to f/2.8.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/2.8
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/2.8
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/2.8
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/2.8
Here's some crops of the larger uploaded images (which are about 30% of the original scan size):
@ wide open
@ f/2.8
@ wide open
@ f/2.8
Leica Summilux 35mm F1.4 ASPH FLE
Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.4 MC
Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.4 SC
Canon 35mm F1.5 LTM (not quite F/1.4 but close enough!)
All shots taken with a Zeiss Ikon in manual mode on a tripod with a cable release. The B&W film is Efke 50 and the colour film is Ektar 100. All film was scanned with a Coolscan 5000. Post processing on each image is identical except for bumping up the brightness of the wide open Canon 35/1.5 shots a bit to match the other wide open shots.
Pixel peepers can click on any photo to see a larger version. Sharpness differences are more obvious in the larger versions.
On my scales the Summilux weighed in at 319 grams, the Noktons at 199 grams, and the Canon with LTM-M adapter at 198 grams. These weights are sans front and rear lens caps, filters, and hoods.
**************************************************************************************
Series one - flare resistance comparison
From memory the focus point is the rightmost lantern in the row of four lanterns. I forget the distance. Look at the street lights and other lights for differences.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/1.4
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/1.5
And now stopped down two stops to f/2.8.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/2.8
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/2.8
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/2.8
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/2.8
Here's some crops of the larger uploaded images (which are about 30% of the original scan size):
@ wide open
@ f/2.8
@ wide open
@ f/2.8
fireblade
Vincenzo.
Summilux shines
Series two - coma/back light comparison
The focus point is the roll of Kodak Ektar 100 on the hook. The distance from the camera to the Kodak Ektar 100 roll is the Canon 35/1.5's minimum focus distance of about 1 meter. Look at the edge of the wooden "ema" board in the top left corner and the leaves etc. lit by back lighting for differences.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/1.4
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/1.5
And now stopped down two stops to f/2.8.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/2.8
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/2.8
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/2.8
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/2.8
Some crops of the ema board shots:
@ wide open
@ f/2.8
@ wide open
@ f/2.8
The focus point is the roll of Kodak Ektar 100 on the hook. The distance from the camera to the Kodak Ektar 100 roll is the Canon 35/1.5's minimum focus distance of about 1 meter. Look at the edge of the wooden "ema" board in the top left corner and the leaves etc. lit by back lighting for differences.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/1.4
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/1.5
And now stopped down two stops to f/2.8.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/2.8
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/2.8
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/2.8
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/2.8
Some crops of the ema board shots:
@ wide open
@ f/2.8
@ wide open
@ f/2.8
Series three - bokeh and colour rendering comparison
The focus points are the center-most flower and the piece of paper on the scooter's brake light. The distance from the camera to each focus point is the Canon 35/1.5's minimum focus distance of about 1 meter.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/1.4
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/1.5
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/1.4
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/1.5
Top left side crops of the flower shots:
Center crops of the flower shots (the focus target is the flower in the lower center part of the crop):
Top center crops of scooter shots:
The focus points are the center-most flower and the piece of paper on the scooter's brake light. The distance from the camera to each focus point is the Canon 35/1.5's minimum focus distance of about 1 meter.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/1.4
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/1.5
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 MC @ F/1.4
Nokton 35/1.4 SC @ F/1.4
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ F/1.5
Top left side crops of the flower shots:
Center crops of the flower shots (the focus target is the flower in the lower center part of the crop):
Top center crops of scooter shots:
f16sunshine
Moderator
Wow
Unless you cropped to make same framing ( I doubt it).
It's amazing to me how close in actual field of view these lenses are based especially on the last image.
At first the Lux looks a bit longer when looking at the tail light and it's size in comparison to the other two. But... when I look at the edges it's nearly the same field.
The Summilux has the best performance in terms of acutance. Otherwise forget it! They all could make a superb image!
Cheers and Kudos for the comaparison
Unless you cropped to make same framing ( I doubt it).
It's amazing to me how close in actual field of view these lenses are based especially on the last image.
At first the Lux looks a bit longer when looking at the tail light and it's size in comparison to the other two. But... when I look at the edges it's nearly the same field.
The Summilux has the best performance in terms of acutance. Otherwise forget it! They all could make a superb image!
Cheers and Kudos for the comaparison
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The FLE handles the bright contrast in the street light a bit better (the "bars" on the glove are more distinct) - but otherwise the difference is not that great - particularly as you could easily buy both Nokton's and the Canon and have money left over for film etc for what the FLE costs!
I like my SC 35f1.4 Noktons - and I have not been swayed by the SummiluX FLE (tried it a couple of years ago when it came out).
I like my SC 35f1.4 Noktons - and I have not been swayed by the SummiluX FLE (tried it a couple of years ago when it came out).
Nope, no cropping
When pixel peeking I found the Noktons to be ever so slightly longer than the Summilux and the Canon to be ever so slightly wider than the Summilux.
The biggest surprise for me was how close the MC and SC Noktons are. I expected to see more of a difference in terms of colour (colour film) and tone (B&W film). Its there, but its very subtle. The MC is also very slightly more flare resistant.
bennyng
Benny Ng
Wow! Great stuff!
I was half expecting the Canon 35mm f/1.5 LTM to be significantly "Classical" but looks like it hold it's own well, even at f/1.5!
Time to reconsider keeping my lux to thin out the inventory a bit.
Cheers,
I was half expecting the Canon 35mm f/1.5 LTM to be significantly "Classical" but looks like it hold it's own well, even at f/1.5!
Time to reconsider keeping my lux to thin out the inventory a bit.
Cheers,
bonatto
looking out
Thanks for doing this Jon, great "in the field" comparison worth loads more than brick wall shots!
The street scene is indeed where the differences are most stark, but only at f1.4. At 2.8 they level out (however, on a digital body, I believe you'd still see the Nokton's sharpness fallout towards the outer circle. At least with my copy, this is evident well into 5.6.
The differences at f1.4 may be one of the justifiers for paying nearly 10x more for the FLE, that kind of clean cut performance is really un-matched by other offerings.
That being said, if you like the glow the Nokton offers wide open, it may just be the best buy out there for available light shooters. When buying, a more recent serial number will probably ensure you're steering clear from the early model complaints (focus shift, excessive flare, build quality).
I too am surprised at the differences between the MC and SC, I thought they would be greater, perhaps they will manifest themselves differently with different films.
Only one missing in the shootout is the Pre-asph Lux, but you can't have everything, can you
This is great!
The street scene is indeed where the differences are most stark, but only at f1.4. At 2.8 they level out (however, on a digital body, I believe you'd still see the Nokton's sharpness fallout towards the outer circle. At least with my copy, this is evident well into 5.6.
The differences at f1.4 may be one of the justifiers for paying nearly 10x more for the FLE, that kind of clean cut performance is really un-matched by other offerings.
That being said, if you like the glow the Nokton offers wide open, it may just be the best buy out there for available light shooters. When buying, a more recent serial number will probably ensure you're steering clear from the early model complaints (focus shift, excessive flare, build quality).
I too am surprised at the differences between the MC and SC, I thought they would be greater, perhaps they will manifest themselves differently with different films.
Only one missing in the shootout is the Pre-asph Lux, but you can't have everything, can you
This is great!
Your Canon 35/1.5 is a keeper Benny! If it focused down to 0.70m it would be just about perfect
ChrisLivsey
Mentor
This a very well executed series, many thanks for the effort. I rarely can emulate the accuracy of the note keeping Good scene choice as well.
I think the coating and edge performance is interesting.
Examining the first series @1.4 the writing which is almost centre frame LH edge, is clearly sharper and higher contrast in the Leica with the Canon "worst" the slight difference in the Noktons I think shows the coating affecting contrast.
Strangely in the Ema board top left hand corner the writing is much clearer in the Canon with the Leica coming in last! Just look at the board bottom LHS the Canon shines. The MC/SC subtle difference is also clear there.
In the colour series the "pop" is directly related, to my eye, with the coatings but I suspect a nudge on a slider would "fix" that. Best seen in the flower head lower left centre.
It would be interesting to post a shot of the lenses lined up, the size and ergonomic feel would probably sway the choice as much as these differences. Not to mention the cost.
Good scene choice as well.I think the coating and edge performance is interesting.
Examining the first series @1.4 the writing which is almost centre frame LH edge, is clearly sharper and higher contrast in the Leica with the Canon "worst" the slight difference in the Noktons I think shows the coating affecting contrast.
Strangely in the Ema board top left hand corner the writing is much clearer in the Canon with the Leica coming in last! Just look at the board bottom LHS the Canon shines. The MC/SC subtle difference is also clear there.
In the colour series the "pop" is directly related, to my eye, with the coatings but I suspect a nudge on a slider would "fix" that. Best seen in the flower head lower left centre.
It would be interesting to post a shot of the lenses lined up, the size and ergonomic feel would probably sway the choice as much as these differences.
Not to mention the cost.
Jerevan
Recycled User
I wonder if the ability to compute and design to much higher tolerances makes the coating (single vs multi) a very subtle affair. It would be interesting to see an uncoated optic with recent technology (it will never happen, I guess) to see how much it would differ, compared to a coated optic.
In general, to my eyes, the differences are small between the lenses. But A3+ and digital might give another result.
The difference between the SC and MC Noktons, was less than I thought.
In general, to my eyes, the differences are small between the lenses. But A3+ and digital might give another result.
The difference between the SC and MC Noktons, was less than I thought.
Thanks for doing this Jon, great "in the field" comparison worth loads more than brick wall shots!
The street scene is indeed where the differences are most stark, but only at f1.4. At 2.8 they level out (however, on a digital body, I believe you'd still see the Nokton's sharpness fallout towards the outer circle. At least with my copy, this is evident well into 5.6.
The differences at f1.4 may be one of the justifiers for paying nearly 10x more for the FLE, that kind of clean cut performance is really un-matched by other offerings.
That being said, if you like the glow the Nokton offers wide open, it may just be the best buy out there for available light shooters. When buying, a more recent serial number will probably ensure you're steering clear from the early model complaints (focus shift, excessive flare, build quality).
I too am surprised at the differences between the MC and SC, I thought they would be greater, perhaps they will manifest themselves differently with different films.
Only one missing in the shootout is the Pre-asph Lux, but you can't have everything, can you
This is great!
Thanks Fred. I did actually think about including a pre ASPH Summilux, but instead just went with what was readily available. That, and juggling four lenses in a shootout is about the maximum I can handle!
Although probably not as obvious as with digital, the sharpness differences are there with film too (obviously more noticeable when looking at the bigger files). No surprises that the Summilux came out on top. Its sharp across the field even at F1.4. I noticed that the Noktons are sharp in the center and get softer further away from the center even when stopped down, but I think they are designed this way as part of the "Classic" designation. All lenses are certainly sharp enough for most purposes.
This a very well executed series, many thanks for the effort. I rarely can emulate the accuracy of the note keeping
I think the coating and edge performance is interesting.
Examining the first series @1.4 the writing which is almost centre frame LH edge, is clearly sharper and higher contrast in the Leica with the Canon "worst" the slight difference in the Noktons I think shows the coating affecting contrast.
Strangely in the Ema board top left hand corner the writing is much clearer in the Canon with the Leica coming in last! Just look at the board bottom LHS the Canon shines. The MC/SC subtle difference is also clear there.
In the colour series the "pop" is directly related, to my eye, with the coatings but I suspect a nudge on a slider would "fix" that. Best seen in the flower head lower left centre.
It would be interesting to post a shot of the lenses lined up, the size and ergonomic feel would probably sway the choice as much as these differences.
I recorded the shooting details on my iPhone as I would surely forget otherwise
Regarding the ema board in the top left corner of the second series, with the more in focus characters rendered by the other lenses compared to the Summilux, I think we're seeing field curvature (and slight front focusing in the case of the Canon lens) at work. The Summilux's focus plane is quite flat out to the corners (better correction) compared to the other lenses, and the ema board appears more out of focus because its further in front of that focus plane than with the other lenses.
Good idea to post a size comparison of the lenses! I'll do that when I get a chance
Merlijn53
Established
Doesn't the scanning process influence the results?
I mean "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link", so if scanning is the weakest link, the best lens may have a disadvantage.
Frank
I mean "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link", so if scanning is the weakest link, the best lens may have a disadvantage.
Frank
For sure. With my hybrid film/digital process, the best I can do is keep variables to a minimum. That's why I shot at fixed distances in manual mode with the camera on a tripod, took the photos in the same series consecutively on the same roll of film, and then scanned the entire roll in one go with my Coolscan 5000 scanner using the same settings. For film, a high resolution dedicated film scanner scanner such as the Coolscan 5000 is of course as good as it gets short of a drum scanner.
brbo
Well-known
This is probably the first time that I was able to single out a lens by only looking at the small pics. That Leica 35/1.4 FLE looks to be an awesome lens.
Others are not bad either. Surprised how good Canon 35/1.5 is. When I was looking for a 35 lens I discarded it based on a few samples on the net and bought a Canon 35/2. A mistake? Anyone know of or made a comparison between Canon 35/1.5 and 35/2?
Others are not bad either. Surprised how good Canon 35/1.5 is. When I was looking for a 35 lens I discarded it based on a few samples on the net and bought a Canon 35/2. A mistake? Anyone know of or made a comparison between Canon 35/1.5 and 35/2?
With vintage glass it all comes down to getting a good, defect free, untampered copy I think. This particular Canon 35/1.5 was essentially cherry picked after being compared with several other Canon 35/1.5s, so its a known good copy with perfect optics. Too bad I have to return it to its owner soon
bennyng
Benny Ng
Actually, there are a lot of bad images on the net from some of these vintage offerings. Also, a lot of times, opinions are formed from have used just one or two copies, sometimes with less than perfect optics unbeknownst to the shooter.
Hopefully I have a bit of time next month and I might just take up the challenge of comparing the popular 35 1.5/1.8/2.0 offering from Canon. Hopefully Jon's available to partake in this little adventure as well as I don't quite have access to a proper scanner.
Cheers,
MCTuomey
Mentor
Much obliged for your efforts, Jon. I've been looking for a fast 35 for awhile (for gig and club shooting). The night sequence and the "ema" board sequence are especially helpful. Excellent job and well-balanced commentary!