raid
Dad Photographer
I will look for a used one here or somewhere else.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Leica M5, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400.
Erik.
Erik.
ferider
Mentor
Amazing Erik with the subtle lights in the faces.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
The low light is actually very good. Shot in Tri-X at 400. VERY dark alley, 1/15th F1.1
uhoh7
Mentor
MCTuomey
Mentor
Erik van Straten
Mentor
There was some publicity shooting going on. I took advantage of their light shield.
Leica M5, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400.
Erik.
RichardPhoto
Established
Did anyone switch to the 1.1 Nokton from the 1.5 Nokton? Or have both?
I've have the ltm mount 1.5 Nokton for a long time and it's a lovely lens. Just wondering what real world differences are between the two.
I've have the ltm mount 1.5 Nokton for a long time and it's a lovely lens. Just wondering what real world differences are between the two.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
An interesting "business trip" you had, ferider
mdarnton
Well-known
The largest size taab is a tight fit, but it works nicely, once you get it on. I had to put double-stick tape under it to keep it in place. It changes the whole lens much for the better.
I wish Voigtlander would put some teeth on their slippery focus rings, though. The 1.1, the 28/1.9, original 35/1.7, original 50/1.5----all bad. The nasty focus ring is the reason I got rid of the otherwise-excellent 35/1.7.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
I have them both (the M-version of the f/1.5, but I've used the LTM too) and they are totally different. The f/1.5 is more refined, has smoother backgrounds and has a tiny bit of barrel-distortion. The f/1.1 is less smooth in the background - the "lightballs" are sharper - but has practically no distortion and seems to have more contrast.
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
The focusing ring of the f/1.1 is dimpled and has knurling in the "tops", the "valleys" are smooth. This shoud be reversed I think.
The latest version of the Ultron 35mm f/1.7 LTM has an excellent focusing ring in my opinion, more curved than the earlier version.
Erik.
mdarnton
Well-known
I would have been happy if they'd just done it like Leica: the same thing, deeper. As it is, it's sort of a poor imitation by someone who wasn't paying attention to details.
MCTuomey
Mentor
Thanks much
Out to Lunch
Menteur
I don't have much to complain about the Nokton 1.1
uhoh7
Mentor
Compared to the Leica .95 at widest aperture (CV first, Leica second) The number after the slash is astigmatism, center, mid and edge.
Center: 768/0, 840/0
Mid:672/96, 696/48
edge: 600/216, 504/120
stop down to f/2 and you get:
center: 1272/0, 1248/24
Mid: 1032/240, 912/48
edge, 624/120, 528/144
So, at F2 the CV is beating the .95 across the frame. At f/1.1 it gives a better edge than the leica can at f/.95. But to put these numbers in context, Mandlers v4 cron from the 80s at f/2 does 1200/0 1200/144 1200/240, center, mid and edge.
The large numbers are "the highest reading from either the Tangential or Sagittal lines, and the difference between the two lines is astigmatism"
Obviously there are other factors besides how lenses resolve, but it's always interesting to see, and these are from lensrentals:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7
Center: 768/0, 840/0
Mid:672/96, 696/48
edge: 600/216, 504/120
stop down to f/2 and you get:
center: 1272/0, 1248/24
Mid: 1032/240, 912/48
edge, 624/120, 528/144
So, at F2 the CV is beating the .95 across the frame. At f/1.1 it gives a better edge than the leica can at f/.95. But to put these numbers in context, Mandlers v4 cron from the 80s at f/2 does 1200/0 1200/144 1200/240, center, mid and edge.
The large numbers are "the highest reading from either the Tangential or Sagittal lines, and the difference between the two lines is astigmatism"
Obviously there are other factors besides how lenses resolve, but it's always interesting to see, and these are from lensrentals:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7
ferider
Mentor
Wonderful photo, Peter.
I mentioned that comparison in the OP, uhoh7. What I find more interesting is the comparison with the Planar at f2.0:
(MTF50 results in line pairs/image height, Astig: difference between sagittal and tangential MTF)
Basically, the Nokton is roughly on par with the Planar at f2. Plus it has all the extra speed when needed Which makes it a wonderful general purpose lens. Plus I trust the lensrentals guys to be unbiased when it comes to brand.
Roland.
I mentioned that comparison in the OP, uhoh7. What I find more interesting is the comparison with the Planar at f2.0:
(MTF50 results in line pairs/image height, Astig: difference between sagittal and tangential MTF)
Basically, the Nokton is roughly on par with the Planar at f2. Plus it has all the extra speed when needed
Which makes it a wonderful general purpose lens. Plus I trust the lensrentals guys to be unbiased when it comes to brand.Roland.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
This is a wonderful thread. I've thought the f/1.1 Nokton is an unbeatable lens for a long time.
Richard, I have had both as well. Erik's assessment is spot-on. I ended up selling the Nokton f/1.5 as there just wasn't enough difference to warrant keeping both. As a disclaimer, I do also have a Collapsible Heliar f/2 for those occasional times when I want a little less bulk.
Your comment is exactly the opposite of how I feel... I can't stand those damn focusing tabs on lenses, and the original Summicrons' focus rings upon which the Noktons' are apparently patterned is perfect and actually what brought me to buy the Nokton f/1.5 to begin with. I have both the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 v1 and the 50mm f/1.1 and I'm VERY pleased with the tactile function of the focusing rings. Diff'rent strokes and all that...
Richard, I have had both as well. Erik's assessment is spot-on. I ended up selling the Nokton f/1.5 as there just wasn't enough difference to warrant keeping both. As a disclaimer, I do also have a Collapsible Heliar f/2 for those occasional times when I want a little less bulk.
Your comment is exactly the opposite of how I feel... I can't stand those damn focusing tabs on lenses, and the original Summicrons' focus rings upon which the Noktons' are apparently patterned is perfect and actually what brought me to buy the Nokton f/1.5 to begin with. I have both the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 v1 and the 50mm f/1.1 and I'm VERY pleased with the tactile function of the focusing rings. Diff'rent strokes and all that...
gdi
Mentor
I considered one for a while, but that bokeh was a real turnoff. I see some nice shots here which makes it seem the lens may be best suited to B&W film vs. color/digital; Helen's shots really stand out. I have the old LTM 1.5 and it is really good, but I prefer the Noctilux F1.0 over this 1.1 (ignoring price, of course!)
ferider
Mentor
I agree about Helen's shots, of course. Then again, you can give her any lens, and she will return keepers.
This is what I want to come across with this thread:
There are two reasons IMO, to buy an ultra-fast lens:
1 - for the special image characteristics that an ultra-fast lens can give, like nice OOF highlights, etc. You might possible carry two 50mm lenses if you are in this camp.
2 - to be able to shoot in the dark and get the job done. And use the same lens for any other purpose.
Because we are coming from different perspectives, the 1.1 Nokton gets so mixed reviews. I think the lens was obviously designed for 2) and I have been very happy to carry only one 50mm when traveling. And - as the MTF numbers above show you - it does just fine on digital.
Roland.