Nokton 50/1.5 vs Nokton 50/1.1

Nokton 50/1.5 vs Nokton 50/1.1

  • Nokton 50/1.5

    Votes: 89 46.8%

  • Nokton 50/1.1

    Votes: 101 53.2%
  • Total voters
    190
mdspace said:
1.- Why?
2.- Is the performance of them so different?
3.- Is relevant the mount type?
4.- About the weight, size and built quality
5.- About price
Click to expand...

1. Lets me shoot at 1/60 @ ISO 640 on my M8 at night, or indoors, or any bad light situations I might run into. This is super invaluable for shooting people like this. If I was shooting with the 1.5, that's a full stop slower, and I'd be shooting instead at 1/30 and get a lot more blurred pictures. It's the same reason why people will spend 4K+ on a noctilux over a summilux - they want that extra stop.
2. Performance seems to be the same or similar.
3. I do prefer unconverted/native M Lenses to screw mount and adapted lenses. They are easier to code, seem more secure, and I feel like they are built better too. I also hate the push on caps that require the use of the hood to be functional that are included with the LTM voigtlanders.. the pinch caps are much better and I like how I can use the same cap whether or not the hood is mounted or not. The push on cap for my 28mm ultron 1.9 doesn't stay on at all
4. Weight is definitely the larger issue than size - I definitely notice the weight of my m8 with the 1.1. The build quality is unquestionably better on the 1.1, however.. I much prefer the more positive clicks of the aperture dial rather than the smooth dial on the 1.5. Size is large but I can deal with it.. it's not as quite as large as the 75 lux or 90 cron, and it's still small enough to be smaller than most slr lenses.
5. Price is a pretty large difference, but buying new, you have to figure in the cost of the adapter for the 1.5, which is not cheap either. The cost of both the 52 and 58mm uv/ir filters is pretty crazy, though.

To me it's harder to justify the 35 1.2 over the 35 1.4 CV... for sure the 35 performs better, but the 1.4 is SO much smaller, and in this case we're only talking a half-stop difference, so the price, size, and weight is a lot harder to swallow.

The 50, however, is just fast enough to warrant its extra speed, and since I use a 50 more than any other lens, I feel it's my general purpose lens that can tackle any situation, worry free.
 
cookedart said:
1. Lets me shoot at 1/60 @ ISO 640 on my M8 at night, or indoors, or any bad light situations I might run into. This is super invaluable for shooting people like this. If I was shooting with the 1.5, that's a full stop slower, and I'd be shooting instead at 1/30 and get a lot more blurred pictures. It's the same reason why people will spend 4K+ on a noctilux over a summilux - they want that extra stop.
2. Performance seems to be the same or similar.
3. I do prefer unconverted/native M Lenses to screw mount and adapted lenses. They are easier to code, seem more secure, and I feel like they are built better too. I also hate the push on caps that require the use of the hood to be functional that are included with the LTM voigtlanders.. the pinch caps are much better and I like how I can use the same cap whether or not the hood is mounted or not. The push on cap for my 28mm ultron 1.9 doesn't stay on at all
4. Weight is definitely the larger issue than size - I definitely notice the weight of my m8 with the 1.1. The build quality is unquestionably better on the 1.1, however.. I much prefer the more positive clicks of the aperture dial rather than the smooth dial on the 1.5. Size is large but I can deal with it.. it's not as quite as large as the 75 lux or 90 cron, and it's still small enough to be smaller than most slr lenses.
5. Price is a pretty large difference, but buying new, you have to figure in the cost of the adapter for the 1.5, which is not cheap either. The cost of both the 52 and 58mm uv/ir filters is pretty crazy, though.

To me it's harder to justify the 35 1.2 over the 35 1.4 CV... for sure the 35 performs better, but the 1.4 is SO much smaller, and in this case we're only talking a half-stop difference, so the price, size, and weight is a lot harder to swallow.

The 50, however, is just fast enough to warrant its extra speed, and since I use a 50 more than any other lens, I feel it's my general purpose lens that can tackle any situation, worry free.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with everything you said!
 
cookedart said:
To me it's harder to justify the 35 1.2 over the 35 1.4 CV... for sure the 35 performs better, but the 1.4 is SO much smaller, and in this case we're only talking a half-stop difference, so the price, size, and weight is a lot harder to swallow.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree. The buttery smooth character of the 1.2 (to me) is worth the price difference. The half stop is nice too. If you want to shoot in the dark, it's the only way to go. But mostly it's just the incredible way the 1.2 draws, the 1.4 seems good, but just good. The 1.2 IMO is exceptional.

I'm reading this thread because I'm torn about the 50 1.1. I want the speed, but don't necessarily love the way it draws. It reminds of the 35 1.4 - i like the size, but don't love the way it draws. And a noctilux is out of the question, unfortunately.
 
morgan said:
Not sure I agree. The buttery smooth character of the 1.2 (to me) is worth the price difference. The half stop is nice too. If you want to shoot in the dark, it's the only way to go. But mostly it's just the incredible way the 1.2 draws, the 1.4 seems good, but just good. The 1.2 IMO is exceptional.

I'm reading this thread because I'm torn about the 50 1.1. I want the speed, but don't necessarily love the way it draws. It reminds of the 35 1.4 - i like the size, but don't love the way it draws. And a noctilux is out of the question, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean - both lenses seem to have a tendency to have double lines/have nervous out of focus areas in certain situations.

I don't doubt that that the 35 1.2 draws very well.. I've never used it but heard very good things.

What it comes down to for me is that I use the 50mm (66mm equiv on m8) far more than the 35mm (45 equivalent on m8) - so if i bring a 35, it's nice that its small and light. I also like that it's a fast, small, almost pancake sized lens for if I want to travel very light and still have a fast shooting setup.

But because of this, I could never justify investing more in a 35 1.2, just personally. That doesn't mean I think it's a bad lens - it's probably fantastic!
 
cookedart said:
I understand what you mean - both lenses seem to have a tendency to have double lines/have nervous out of focus areas in certain situations.

I don't doubt that that the 35 1.2 draws very well.. I've never used it but heard very good things.

What it comes down to for me is that I use the 50mm (66mm equiv on m8) far more than the 35mm (45 equivalent on m8) - so if i bring a 35, it's nice that its small and light. I also like that it's a fast, small, almost pancake sized lens for if I want to travel very light and still have a fast shooting setup.

But because of this, I could never justify investing more in a 35 1.2, just personally. That doesn't mean I think it's a bad lens - it's probably fantastic!
Click to expand...

The 35 1.4 is a great choice for a size/speed balance. I mostly shoot my R-D1, which turns the 35 into a 50. But after having shot film again for a few weeks, I realize I need a solid 50 that I like (i have a few russian ones, none of which I really love).
 
Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Leica M2, Tmax400-2 printed on Ilford MGIV fb.

Erik.

4134615002_650e36de25_b.jpg
 
morgan said:
Not sure I agree. The buttery smooth character of the 1.2 (to me) is worth the price difference. The half stop is nice too. If you want to shoot in the dark, it's the only way to go. But mostly it's just the incredible way the 1.2 draws, the 1.4 seems good, but just good. The 1.2 IMO is exceptional.
Click to expand...

I don't mean any disrespect, but that is utter BS! I say that only because these sorts of statements are waaayyy too common around these parts.

Buttery smooth, my butt! I say: go for the 35/1.4 and show us what you can do.

And besides, what clown shoots in the friggin' dark??
 
RFluhver said:
And besides, what clown shoots in the friggin' dark??
Click to expand...

umm... I do... I shoot bands in clubs, pubs and bars... places that aren't lit light concert halls or dedicated performance venue's, half the time the band is back lit, side lit... or unlit and I need every scrap of light I can get. That's why I sold my Canon 85mm f1.8 for the 1.2L... sometimes even a fraction of a stop makes a huge difference, and for me it was worth the extra $1000. When you look at it from the point of view of one shot... ok... who cares if one shot is ruined due to lack of light...but if that half stop or stop is the difference between being able to get the shot or not... that extra bit of light could make or break 300 shots over the course of just one night for me.

That extra stop of light has paid for itself many times over for me at least... it's not a choice everyone will make the way I did.. but if you have the cash... or you know it will pay for itself by getting shots others can't... go for it.
 
I´ve tried neither Nokton. But find this thread funny in the sense that less than 10% of the posts relate to the OP´s question. The rest are a quarrel about which f1.2/1.1/1.0/0.95 lens is the better. Even drawing in different focal lengths altogether. That was not the question. Had I been the OP, I´d have taken my question elsewhere.

And yes, I´ve read the whole thread.
 
Saw some Noctilux shots on Flickr that blew me away, undeniably great! And for me proved why it has set the bar for this type of lens...Now if only I could find them again...what I also saw was the very comparable quality of the Nokton 1.1 at a fraction of the cost!

(Thread highlight, the Orwell reference).
 
Helen,

That's a really great shot...well composed, great tonality. Thanks for sharing it!

Best regards,

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top