Krosya
Konicaze
Well, now that this lens has been out for a little while and some people got to use it, what do you think about it? Was it as good as expected? Was it worth the wait or price? How's handling, construction, image quality? I know - there are many pics from it now on the web, plus everyone has a different idea about what is a good pics, etc., but I guess what I'm asking is - any complains about it? Do you wish you got something else instead? As much of a talk there was about this lens before it's release, did Cosina "deliver" what you expected?
Reason I'm asking - I'm still not sure about it. On one hand I'd like to try one and hope that it'd be good, but on the other hand ....based on pics I have seen and thier reputation, other lenses seem to be more to my liking. Yet its hard to judge , since the only two superfast lenses I have tried were Canon 50/1.2 and CV 35/1.2.
So, what are the user comments on Nokton 50/1.1?
Reason I'm asking - I'm still not sure about it. On one hand I'd like to try one and hope that it'd be good, but on the other hand ....based on pics I have seen and thier reputation, other lenses seem to be more to my liking. Yet its hard to judge , since the only two superfast lenses I have tried were Canon 50/1.2 and CV 35/1.2.
So, what are the user comments on Nokton 50/1.1?
sevres_babylone
Mentor
Has it knocked my socks off? No. Am I glad I bought it? Yes.
I use it on an R-D1.
Limited use so far. Mostly wide-open. Mostly musician shots in clubs. I have not had problems focusing, or more correctly, I have not had more problems focusing than with my Canon and Zeiss sonnars. To my surprise, I have found that I have been shooting more than I thought at 1.1 1SO 1600 1/15 to 1/30. I suspect I was slightly underexposing with the other lenses. Since in my experience the R-D1 does not take well to underexposure at 1600, it has been a revelation to me that I can make good colour enlargements from ISO 1600 exposures. (it will take more than revelation to knock my socks off). I also find that the colour rendition on with auto white balance in these club settings has been better than with the other two lenses I mentioned. So, so far, while I thought I would be using it primarily to get revelatory bokeh effects, it has been a more utilitarian experience so far.
I use it on an R-D1.
Limited use so far. Mostly wide-open. Mostly musician shots in clubs. I have not had problems focusing, or more correctly, I have not had more problems focusing than with my Canon and Zeiss sonnars. To my surprise, I have found that I have been shooting more than I thought at 1.1 1SO 1600 1/15 to 1/30. I suspect I was slightly underexposing with the other lenses. Since in my experience the R-D1 does not take well to underexposure at 1600, it has been a revelation to me that I can make good colour enlargements from ISO 1600 exposures. (it will take more than revelation to knock my socks off). I also find that the colour rendition on with auto white balance in these club settings has been better than with the other two lenses I mentioned. So, so far, while I thought I would be using it primarily to get revelatory bokeh effects, it has been a more utilitarian experience so far.
slumry
Member
To quote the last post:
Has it knocked my socks off? No. Am I glad I bought it? Yes.
Has easily met expectations. Low light sharp lens with a DOF to play with. Character, well that is not something that comes immediatley, we will see.
Has it knocked my socks off? No. Am I glad I bought it? Yes.
Has easily met expectations. Low light sharp lens with a DOF to play with. Character, well that is not something that comes immediatley, we will see.
D&A
Well-known
Interesting. In well controlled tests (test shots) I performed with it vs. the Leica Noctilux, the results were surprisingly close...both sharpness and bokeh..especially when both were shot wide open. Due to the fact that the Nokton puts the subject more in the center of the depth of field...as opposed to the Leica, which puts subject at the rear of the depth of field (slight front focus)..the leica's bokeh just behind subject and beyond is somewhat softer, a bit more rounder and has a slightly different character. The Leica 35mm Lux ASPH, does the same thing...putting the subject at the back of the depth of field (slight front focus) when shot wide open...giving a unusally soft background and bokeh as compared to the VC 35mm f1.2 when shot at 1.4 .
In actual real world shooting, it then surprised me how different the two 50mm lenses are. The Nokton wide open seems to nail a considerably higher percentage of in-focued subjects, with what appears to be a greater depth of field behind the subject, as others have oftened mentioned. It's a bit shaper wide open than the Leica. All this can be an advantage or disadvantage, depending what ones objectives are...so each lens has a purpose...and don't necessarily feel one lens can be a substitute for the other in most ways. The Nokton seems so far to be more of an everyday workhorse and can be used as a sole 50mm lens for a shooter..giving up some resolution and sharpness from f1.4-approx f5.6, against some other very sharp 50mm f1.4 lenses, such as VC's own 50mm f1.5 . By approx f5.6-f8, the 50mm f1.1 was very cl;ose to the VC 50mm f1.5 lens, except with a bit less contrast. The Leica in my view is a more specialized lens, producing some very lovely and unique images, especially in the way it draws and it's often unique bokeh and never felt it was a substitiute for an everyday 50mm lens. Then again, those controlled tests I mentioned above (as opposed to real world shooting, showed something very different...and both seemd a lot lot closer in characteristics (than my real world shooting suggested)...so I am at a bit of a loss to make a definitive statement one way or another.
One thing I feel more confident saying is this:
1. So far use of the 50mm f1.1 is a bit like taking the subway or metro, long distance, especially during rush hr. It gets you there fast (OK, at least the metro I take does), does what it's intended to do with minimum fuss and does all this with good consistantly. Nothing fancy, exotic or seemingly out of the ordinary, except for speed. Can't be quite as precise to get you to your exact location like a car (akin to a great 50mm f1.4) may do, so a tradeoff.
2. In contrast, the Leica 1.0, is a bit like taking the limosine, through trafic and local streets during heavy rush hour. It's different, out of the ordinary, feels completely the opposite of taking the metro. It's not as efficient getting you through bumper to bumper traffic, but the results while doing so are certainly noteworthy and different. One feels and can easily identify with the difference, the longer one uses it and often their (their images) or the limisine itself (the len's results) gets noticed while they employ it. For use in everyday travel? Thats up to the tasks and travels at hand and what one is trying to achieve.
3. Finially we have the well recognized car (great 50mm f1.4 and f2 lenses) Many styles to choose from and different feel..but there is a lot of commonality when comparing many of them. ...in terms of how fast, style, efficientcy etc. Advatages over the above two means of travel in many cases exist. but will ultimately lack one or two defining (and often important) criteria that (lenses) #1 and #2 might have, but these normal fast 50's don't. Not quite as fast or possibly efficient as the meteo during rush hour, but certainly has many other advantages most of the time. Not as stylish or having the some of the unique qualities of "that" limosine, but is that what you want to experience each day...especially when you're responsible for manuveriung or parking it, in the city?
Maybe silly analogies, but I hope some get the point regarding my observations and use of each.
Lastly build quality on the Nokton 50mm f1.1 seems to be quite good, where it's focusing is surprisingly "light". It'apature ring turns crisply too..but again, what happens over the long term in regards to overall built quality, too early to say. Interestingly, the handling and tactile feel of the lens (including sort of an overall subjective impression how it's built), seems to be very different than the VC 35mm f1.2 ...can't say better or worse, just different.
Dave (D&A)
In actual real world shooting, it then surprised me how different the two 50mm lenses are. The Nokton wide open seems to nail a considerably higher percentage of in-focued subjects, with what appears to be a greater depth of field behind the subject, as others have oftened mentioned. It's a bit shaper wide open than the Leica. All this can be an advantage or disadvantage, depending what ones objectives are...so each lens has a purpose...and don't necessarily feel one lens can be a substitute for the other in most ways. The Nokton seems so far to be more of an everyday workhorse and can be used as a sole 50mm lens for a shooter..giving up some resolution and sharpness from f1.4-approx f5.6, against some other very sharp 50mm f1.4 lenses, such as VC's own 50mm f1.5 . By approx f5.6-f8, the 50mm f1.1 was very cl;ose to the VC 50mm f1.5 lens, except with a bit less contrast. The Leica in my view is a more specialized lens, producing some very lovely and unique images, especially in the way it draws and it's often unique bokeh and never felt it was a substitiute for an everyday 50mm lens. Then again, those controlled tests I mentioned above (as opposed to real world shooting, showed something very different...and both seemd a lot lot closer in characteristics (than my real world shooting suggested)...so I am at a bit of a loss to make a definitive statement one way or another.
One thing I feel more confident saying is this:
1. So far use of the 50mm f1.1 is a bit like taking the subway or metro, long distance, especially during rush hr. It gets you there fast (OK, at least the metro I take does), does what it's intended to do with minimum fuss and does all this with good consistantly. Nothing fancy, exotic or seemingly out of the ordinary, except for speed. Can't be quite as precise to get you to your exact location like a car (akin to a great 50mm f1.4) may do, so a tradeoff.
2. In contrast, the Leica 1.0, is a bit like taking the limosine, through trafic and local streets during heavy rush hour. It's different, out of the ordinary, feels completely the opposite of taking the metro. It's not as efficient getting you through bumper to bumper traffic, but the results while doing so are certainly noteworthy and different. One feels and can easily identify with the difference, the longer one uses it and often their (their images) or the limisine itself (the len's results) gets noticed while they employ it. For use in everyday travel? Thats up to the tasks and travels at hand and what one is trying to achieve.
3. Finially we have the well recognized car (great 50mm f1.4 and f2 lenses) Many styles to choose from and different feel..but there is a lot of commonality when comparing many of them. ...in terms of how fast, style, efficientcy etc. Advatages over the above two means of travel in many cases exist. but will ultimately lack one or two defining (and often important) criteria that (lenses) #1 and #2 might have, but these normal fast 50's don't. Not quite as fast or possibly efficient as the meteo during rush hour, but certainly has many other advantages most of the time. Not as stylish or having the some of the unique qualities of "that" limosine, but is that what you want to experience each day...especially when you're responsible for manuveriung or parking it, in the city?
Maybe silly analogies, but I hope some get the point regarding my observations and use of each.
Lastly build quality on the Nokton 50mm f1.1 seems to be quite good, where it's focusing is surprisingly "light". It'apature ring turns crisply too..but again, what happens over the long term in regards to overall built quality, too early to say. Interestingly, the handling and tactile feel of the lens (including sort of an overall subjective impression how it's built), seems to be very different than the VC 35mm f1.2 ...can't say better or worse, just different.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
Erik van Straten
Mentor
The lens is not too heavy, I can carry it on my M2 around my neck without fatigue. Focusing wide open is spot on. It is sharp wide open. THERE IS NO DISTORTION. There is of course viewfinder cut-off, but not too much. The out of focus-rendering is a matter of taste. The lens feels and looks just OK. Conclusion: highly recommended.
Erik.
Erik.
bennyng
Benny Ng
From the time of announcement to delivery in my hands was not long, so there really wasn't much of a wait. I didn't have high expectations of this lens, but I was pleasantly surprised by the results it delivered.
At less than 15% of the price of the new Noctilux, the results are certainly not at 15% of the performance. Conversely, at hell of a lot more money than the Nokton 50mm f/1.1, the Noctilux certainly does not perform hell of a lot better. Obviously a debatable point, but that's just my opinion.
In terms of sharpness, it's definitely there. Wide open performance is great.
In terms of out of focus rendition, it's subjective, but I like what I'm seeing.
In terms of weight, it's lighter than the Noctilux and handles really well.
In terms of built, it feels just like the Nokton 35mm f/1.2, i.e. Good.
The Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM is shorter, but fatter. I will probably use this lens a lot less now that I have the Nokton 50mm f/1.1.
I do not have any problem with the lens protruding in the the frame line in the viewfinder on the various bodies that I have tried, e.g Epson R-D1, Bessa R3A/R3M R2M/R2A, Zeiss Ikon, Leica M 0.72X bodies, M3.
It's a shame they don't make a silver one as well. Can that be considered a complain?
"Do I wish I got something else instead?" No. In fact, I got a second copy as I heard that production can't seem to keep up with the demand and out of stock situations are already occurring with some dealers who didn't order enough.
Cheers,
Prosaic™
-
I do prefer the 50/1.5 Aspherical, being sharper (focus), smoother (out of focus), smaller and significantly cheaper. Also, I am not sure about the build quality compared to older CV designs. Cutting the aspherics was most likely a move to lower production cost in a time of recession, certainly not to improve image quality.
Two quotes on the 50/1.5:
"Very inexpensive and, yet, a high performance lens in most respects. The 50 Nokton would be worth considering even if it cost $2000. In fact, some people might take it more seriously at that price. Here´s a lens that costs $2400 less than the 50/1.4 Summilux Aspherical and yet provides performance that compares very well to that of the Leica."
Sean Reid
"The basic optical design of this lens is outstanding and it will certainly be studied by several optical departments over the world. (...) The image quality in most practical situations is impressive. The Summilux-M as comparison has at full aperture higher contrast on axis but its performance in the outer zones is not as good and the recording ability of very fine detail over the picture area is also not as good."
Erwin Puts
Two quotes on the 50/1.5:
"Very inexpensive and, yet, a high performance lens in most respects. The 50 Nokton would be worth considering even if it cost $2000. In fact, some people might take it more seriously at that price. Here´s a lens that costs $2400 less than the 50/1.4 Summilux Aspherical and yet provides performance that compares very well to that of the Leica."
Sean Reid
"The basic optical design of this lens is outstanding and it will certainly be studied by several optical departments over the world. (...) The image quality in most practical situations is impressive. The Summilux-M as comparison has at full aperture higher contrast on axis but its performance in the outer zones is not as good and the recording ability of very fine detail over the picture area is also not as good."
Erwin Puts
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I doubt that the Nokton was intended as a "knock your socks of" lens. It is a modern lens, using the latest glass and computer technology and that is what it was intended to be. - a high speed 50 with a price that makes it affordable.
It should not be compared to the Noctilux as that is a 40+ year old design. It should be compared to the 0.95/50mm as that is what Leica came up with using very much the same design criteria as Cosina. A bit faster (but not by much) and, though I haven't seen much from the 0.95 Noctilux - it looks fine, as it should - but I haven't seen anything that makes it worth $8800 more than the Nokton 50f1.1.
The Nokton 50f1.5 was the first lens for 35mm with two aspherical surfaces on the same element - it was when it came out one of the best 50f1.4-1.5's around and it is still a formidable lens compared to Leica's and Zeiss offerings.
The 50f1.1 just completes the line up, Heliar 50f3.5, Heliar 50f2, Color Skopar 50 f2.5, Nokton 50f1.5 and the 50 f1.1. All of which can be bought for less than a 50f1.4 Asph by the way!!!!!
It should not be compared to the Noctilux as that is a 40+ year old design. It should be compared to the 0.95/50mm as that is what Leica came up with using very much the same design criteria as Cosina. A bit faster (but not by much) and, though I haven't seen much from the 0.95 Noctilux - it looks fine, as it should - but I haven't seen anything that makes it worth $8800 more than the Nokton 50f1.1.
The Nokton 50f1.5 was the first lens for 35mm with two aspherical surfaces on the same element - it was when it came out one of the best 50f1.4-1.5's around and it is still a formidable lens compared to Leica's and Zeiss offerings.
The 50f1.1 just completes the line up, Heliar 50f3.5, Heliar 50f2, Color Skopar 50 f2.5, Nokton 50f1.5 and the 50 f1.1. All of which can be bought for less than a 50f1.4 Asph by the way!!!!!
Krosya
Konicaze
Thank you all for your comments. Its helpful to learn what others think. A lot of good points here.
Tom, as far as "knock your socks off" - thats how it is advertised on Cameraquest web site, so I used it here to. Yes it is cheaper than others by alot, and it is a fairly good performer, from what I have seen, but I think there are a lot of compromises with this lens - not 0.7m close focus, as it should be, not ASPH, as I think it could be, as they did make asph 35/1.2 35/1.7 and 50/1.5. I think it has a room for improvement.
I'm glad that there are people that like it as it is. I'm still not sold on it, but who knows - it took me a while to get 35/1.2 and now I love it. So, please keep posting your opinions on this lens, so it can help me and others decide if its the lens for us.
Tom, as far as "knock your socks off" - thats how it is advertised on Cameraquest web site, so I used it here to. Yes it is cheaper than others by alot, and it is a fairly good performer, from what I have seen, but I think there are a lot of compromises with this lens - not 0.7m close focus, as it should be, not ASPH, as I think it could be, as they did make asph 35/1.2 35/1.7 and 50/1.5. I think it has a room for improvement.
I'm glad that there are people that like it as it is. I'm still not sold on it, but who knows - it took me a while to get 35/1.2 and now I love it. So, please keep posting your opinions on this lens, so it can help me and others decide if its the lens for us.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The first Noctilux was an Aspheric and Dr Mandler took it and made a better lens, by using non-asph glass. There is a "fetish" with asphericals - they can help when nothing else does - but at a price. It also makes it more prone to flare, contrast gets problematic occasionally and the cost/complexity increases.
The 35f1.2 had to have 3 aspherical surfaces to reduce the size - it would have been massive without them!
The close focus is desirable - but only if it doesn't compromise the overall performance and in the case of the Nokton 50 f1.1 it would have added substantially to the complexity and price.
As for being "fairly good" I disagree - until I have seen some good stuff from the f0.95/50 (whatever i have seen so far has not impressed me) I would rank the 50f1.1 Nokton as the current champion in high speed lenses. I am not talking about "character" or weird bokeh here - I am talking about a good lens that will deliver sharp images at f1.1. If I want character - my old Summar/Summitar/Summarit will do it in *****s and even the C Sonnar 50f1.5 has a bit of it.
The 35f1.2 had to have 3 aspherical surfaces to reduce the size - it would have been massive without them!
The close focus is desirable - but only if it doesn't compromise the overall performance and in the case of the Nokton 50 f1.1 it would have added substantially to the complexity and price.
As for being "fairly good" I disagree - until I have seen some good stuff from the f0.95/50 (whatever i have seen so far has not impressed me) I would rank the 50f1.1 Nokton as the current champion in high speed lenses. I am not talking about "character" or weird bokeh here - I am talking about a good lens that will deliver sharp images at f1.1. If I want character - my old Summar/Summitar/Summarit will do it in *****s and even the C Sonnar 50f1.5 has a bit of it.
Krosya
Konicaze
Even compared to m-Hexanon 50/1.2?
wontonny
Well-known
When you guys say protrude into the viewfinder... does it protrude into the 0.72x framelines or just the viewfinder?
D&A
Well-known
Hi All,
I lengthened considerably my post above, describing what I feel have been the differences in shooting the 50mm f1.1, the Leica 50mm f1.0 and some other 50mm f1.4 (f1.5) fast 50's. Elements of both subjectivity and objectivity contained within. Dave (D&A)
I lengthened considerably my post above, describing what I feel have been the differences in shooting the 50mm f1.1, the Leica 50mm f1.0 and some other 50mm f1.4 (f1.5) fast 50's. Elements of both subjectivity and objectivity contained within. Dave (D&A)
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Originally Posted by Tom A 
I would rank the 50f1.1 Nokton as the current champion in high speed lenses. I am not talking about "character" or weird bokeh here - I am talking about a good lens that will deliver sharp images at f1.1.
I say the Nokton has weirder bokeh than the M-Hex has. More distracting on quite some occasions.
There's hardly any difference in 90% of shots made, but in the remainder of shots, the Nokton starts to act weird and I have not seen enough of the lens yet to be able to discover a method to its madness. Until that is sorted out with the Nokton, my money is on (and in!) the M-Hex.
I don't feel much for having to take possible lens quirks into consideration when shooting, I just want to nail the shot, so I guess I'm going to stick to the M-Hex.
I would rank the 50f1.1 Nokton as the current champion in high speed lenses. I am not talking about "character" or weird bokeh here - I am talking about a good lens that will deliver sharp images at f1.1.
I say the Nokton has weirder bokeh than the M-Hex has. More distracting on quite some occasions.
There's hardly any difference in 90% of shots made, but in the remainder of shots, the Nokton starts to act weird and I have not seen enough of the lens yet to be able to discover a method to its madness. Until that is sorted out with the Nokton, my money is on (and in!) the M-Hex.
I don't feel much for having to take possible lens quirks into consideration when shooting, I just want to nail the shot, so I guess I'm going to stick to the M-Hex.
24mgdriver
Michael A. Bender
I will never sell it - great combination with my R-D1
thrice
Established
It protrudes into the 50 framelines on a 0.72 finder. Not much at all without the hood though.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
These Lepper seats make your bike ride smooth as a Rolls Royce trip, heh?
This was shot with the M-Hexanon f1.2. Unfortunately, I could not find anything with as many highlights as your shot, the final call will have to wait I guess...
This was shot with the M-Hexanon f1.2. Unfortunately, I could not find anything with as many highlights as your shot, the final call will have to wait I guess...
Last edited: