The Nokton 50/1.1 Revisited

Voigtlander 50mm f1.1 Nokton VM lens, Sony A7II
Yokohama, Japan - March 2019

DSC06733.JPG


DSC06741.JPG


Mike
 
joseph_galilee said:
Maybe, just one thing of new f/1.2 has better: .70cm minimum focus.
For portrait/isolation can be worthwhile.
Cheers
Click to expand...


Yes, and no. At 0.70cm the dept of field of a 50mm f/1.1 lens is very thin, maybe too thin. The picture will be almost completely blurred.


I love Mikes photo's here that show the incredible sharpness of this lens and also its incredible bokeh.


Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Yes, and no. At 0.70cm the dept of field of a 50mm f/1.1 lens is very thin, maybe too thin. The picture will be almost completely blurred.


I love Mikes photo's here that show the incredible sharpness of this lens and also its incredible bokeh.


Erik.
Click to expand...

Stunning sharpness. In the second picture, on black background show an yellow bubble with aperture blades at the borders. Remember me an your post on similarly picture, that at f/2 did show the same behavior:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76156&page=3

"I do not very much like the sharpness of the confusion-circle of the specular highlight in the out of focus background. The confusioncircle must be unsharp because the sharpness contredicts the feeling of dept. Also the clearly shown aperture blades at the borders of the specular highlight are ugly."

Erik.
 
joseph_galilee said:
Stunning sharpness. In the second picture, on black background show an yellow bubble with aperture blades at the borders. Remember me an your post on similarly picture, that at f/2 did show the same behavior:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76156&page=3

"I do not very much like the sharpness of the confusion-circle of the specular highlight in the out of focus background. The confusioncircle must be unsharp because the sharpness contredicts the feeling of dept. Also the clearly shown aperture blades at the borders of the specular highlight are ugly."

Erik.
Click to expand...


Yes, that was ten years ago. I still think that in situations like this full aperture is better. A sharp oval is less disturbing than ten sharp aperture blades. The problem with a rangefinder is that you can not see the effect in the viewfinder.

However, most of the time the Nokton gives a beautiful image, better than the f/1 Noctilux with its unsharpness and black corners.

Erik.

Leica M3, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400, printed on Adox MCC 110.

45624001641_d1a8804b21_z.jpg
 
Erik van Straten said:
Yes, that was ten years ago. I still think that in situations like this full aperture is better. A sharp oval is less disturbing than ten sharp aperture blades. The problem with a rangefinder is that you can not see the effect in the viewfinder.

However, most of the time the Nokton gives a beautiful image, better than the f/1 Noctilux with its unsharpness and black corners.

Erik.

Leica M3, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400, printed on Adox MCC 110.
Click to expand...

Wow, time flies!
That photo of yours along with others I saved to enjoy sharpness and bokeh, whenever I like to see them. However, I was seeing the differences of bokeh with the Sonnar-C ZM 50 / 1.5 and scanning the photographs of others, I don't find the same effect; "square balls" to f / 2. For f / 2.8 is just mentioned and f / 4 you can see slight squaring. However, a side-by-side test should be made, to confirm or deny, however briefly, it would seem that Sonnar is less prone to this effect, which we don't like. As well as I did write, the f/1.2 new version, with its 12 blades, could be less prone to squared bubbles, lacking some such kind of classic behavior too.
In this link you can see the bokeh effect variation along the route of the Sonnar-C aperture values.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ61GvNIpEo

Good evening.
 
I do not have experience with modern Sonnars, but quite a lot with the old Nikkors from the Nikon rangefinder era. These lenses (in fact copies of the old prewar Sonnar) are for me problematic: the 50mm f/2 has quite a lot of barrel distortion and the 50mm f/1.4 has unsharp corners at all apertures (but no distortion). Therefore I use on my rangefinder Nikons only the superb Voigtländer S Skopar 50mm f/2.5.


The Nokton 50mmf/1.1 is not a Sonnar-type, but a development of the Xenon/Summarit/Summilux v1 50mm lenses.


Erik.
 
raid said:
Erik: have you tried using the Millenium Nikkor 50/1.4?
I have a CV 50/1.1 too.
Click to expand...


No Raid, I am sorry, I never tried that lens (Olympic/Millenium). Usually they are very expensive. If I am right, that lens is not a Sonnar type, but a Gauss type. I am not 100% sure of that. The formula of that lens is unknown (see the books by Robert Rotoloni).


Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
I do not have experience with modern Sonnars, but quite a lot with the old Nikkors from the Nikon rangefinder era. These lenses (in fact copies of the old prewar Sonnar) are for me problematic: the 50mm f/2 has quite a lot of barrel distortion and the 50mm f/1.4 has unsharp corners at all apertures (but no distortion). Therefore I use on my rangefinder Nikons only the superb Voigtländer S Skopar 50mm f/2.5.


The Nokton 50mmf/1.1 is not a Sonnar-type, but a development of the Xenon/Summarit/Summilux v1 50mm lenses.


Erik.
Click to expand...

I do agree, on all battle field:)
Sonnar design and its derivates. Has endogenous criticality, especially with focus shift.
 
Erik van Straten said:
No Raid, I am sorry, I never tried that lens (Olympic/Millenium). Usually they are very expensive. If I am right, that lens is not a Sonnar type, but a Gauss type. I am not 100% sure of that. The formula of that lens is unknown (see the books by Robert Rotoloni).


Erik.
Click to expand...

I bought it with a camera just to get the lens. Some have claimed it to be as "good" as a Summilux. It is as costly as a new CV lens. Not more.
 
raid said:
I bought it with a camera just to get the lens. Some have claimed it to be as "good" as a Summilux. It is as costly as a new CV lens. Not more.
Click to expand...


I've not seen one for sale for a long time, but I must admit that I did not really look for it. I am very happy with the S Skopar 50mm F2.5 on my RF Nikons, not in the least because of the flat shade.

Erik.

Nikon S2, S Skopar 50mmf/2.5, 400-2TMY, printed on Adox MCC 110.

45773358721_092cefba91_c.jpg
 
Erik van Straten said:
I do not have experience with modern Sonnars, but quite a lot with the old Nikkors from the Nikon rangefinder era. These lenses (in fact copies of the old prewar Sonnar) are for me problematic: the 50mm f/2 has quite a lot of barrel distortion and the 50mm f/1.4 has unsharp corners at all apertures (but no distortion). Therefore I use on my rangefinder Nikons only the superb Voigtländer S Skopar 50mm f/2.5.


The Nokton 50mmf/1.1 is not a Sonnar-type, but a development of the Xenon/Summarit/Summilux v1 50mm lenses.


Erik.
Click to expand...

.... Xenon/Summarit/Summilux v1... and Noctilux f/1

Continuing on the Bokeh theme. It is interesting to observe the differences in the blurred between the Sonnar version of Miyazaki and the Nokton f / 1.1, therefore a comparison between the two declensions, Sonnetar vs Nokton:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17916504@N06/sets/72157635794527423/
My personal opinion only, is that the differences are very thin and ultimately given the difficult and expensive availability of the Sonnetar, the Nokton comes out as an excellent alternative without spending too much.
Cheers
 
Very interesting comparison. The Sonnetar sometimes produces those sharp onion rings in the background. The Nokton has a more "normal" rendition. This is how I see it.


Thank you Joseph!


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