I would love to hear your opinions on the Voigtlander Nokton 1.5/50mm lens. I'm debating between this lens and spending a couple of hundred more for the leica 50mm sumicron. I need to be able to blow prints up to 16x20, which i know i can with the sumicron. Has anyone blown images that large with the nocton? any other thoughts? (ps i have read erwin putz' review, and i was unable to find questions specific to this lens in the forum archives)

thank you

-jeremyT

-- jeremyT (jerthomas@earthlink.net), December 04, 2001

Answers

and to those who own it: how much is the internal diameter of the lenscap (in mm) for the nokton

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), December 04, 2001.

I looked into one a while back before I bought my current Summicron, and I ended up getting the Leica lens used for only $150 more than what the Nokton sells for. Jeremy, make sure you go an handle the Nokton before ordering one. I found it to be on the large side, with a 52mm filter size, its more like an SLR lens dimensions. Minimum focus is about .9 meters (3 feet), which is not as close as the Summicron can go, .7 meters. Focus throw is kind of on the short side as well, making focusing fast but not as easy to fine tune as the Summicron. To me, It just doesn't have the same feel as the leica 50. As far as sharpness, I only shot a few test shots, and the lens seemed to have superb optics and should not disapoint you with image quality. The current 50 Summicron is the sharpest f2.0 lens wide open I've ever used. I didn't get a chance to compare the Voigtlander lens at f2.0 to the Leica lens at f2.0, and that would be an interesting comparison.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 04, 2001.

50/1.5 Nokton was the first rangefinder lens I bought (together with Bessa-R, two years ago). It is still my favorite one. I believe it is not quite fair to compare this lens to Summicron. Obviously, at all f-stops from f/2 to f/16 Summicron is superior lens. The question is whether you need f/1.5. I do and I don't mind the "bulk and weight". These pictures were shot at f/1.5 with Nokton on ISO 800. It would be a real stretch with Summicron. For those times when I want it light and compact I use current 50/2.8 Elmar, which is a lovely lens (and the only Leica lens I own). The two certainly cost more then Summicron, even new, so if you need general-purpose 50 and do not really need anything faster then f/2, my suggestion is to go with Summicron. I have yet to hear a bad word about this lens. The only thing that its bokeh can sometimes be weird, but same goes for almost any lens.

-- Alexander Grekhov (grekhov@wgukraine.com), December 04, 2001.

Jeremy,

I was in a similar situation two months ago: Wanting a 50 and not having enough money for a (used) summicron, since they are still at 500$ in acceptable condition (in Germany). So I ended up getting a 'like new' Hexanon 50/2 from someone who bought an Hexar RF set to complement his Leica collection and already having a summicron for about 250$. The Hexanon is very nice, the same size (and quality ? - flame me) as the summicron. I did not make a comparison between the two, but until now everything is perfect - no compatibility problems either. In my eyes this is a real alternative to the summicron / nokton, if you can live with a lens cap that has written 'KONICA' all over it when the lens is on your lovely old chrome Leica.

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), December 05, 2001.

I will do better than flaming you for suggesting the Konica 50mm f2 Hexanon is as good as the Summicron, I'll say it's better. I agree with Mike Johnston, the editor who writes about bokeh a lot, and say that the current Leica 50mm f2 lens is a good, sharp 50, but nothing special. My shots with that lens looked just like the shots with my Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar. Very sharp, but a bit harsh, with visible doughnuts in out of focus points of light in background. The Konica lens is as smooth as my 35mm Summicron, which I like very much. It may not have the same resolution as Leica's 50, but I think it takes prettier pictures. It's more a question of taste than absolute numbers, but for the qualities that many Leica users want, I think this is a better option. It is just as well made.

The disadvantages are the odd filter size (40.5mm) and short pull-out lens hood. Other than that, I don't miss my 50mm Summicron.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), December 05, 2001.

I fully agree with Alexander Grekhov. I use the Summicron 50 and the Nokton 50 and I love both of them. Although I have not blow up images up to 16x20 inch yet I guess the Summicron is the better lens for that purpose. BUT: If f2 is not enough, go for the Nokton - you won't be dissappointed. When I have shown 8x10 inch prints made at f.2 with both lenses to a friend of mine, he had to examine the prints very carefully to detect any differences. What is noticeable is the difference in bokeh. Rendition of the out of focus parts of the Leica pics are a bit harsher. BTW as an journalist I had the opportunity to test Konica's Hexanon 50 mm. It is a fine lens, better built than the Summicron and much better built than the Nokton. Unfortunately the Konica and the Nokton are much more flare prone (according to my practical experience and according to lab tests) than the Leica Summicron.

-- Frank (Thoma2811@aol.com), December 06, 2001.

Since I'm not alone with the suggestion of the Hexanon, yould you think it is a better buy at the same price than the Nokton ? I have never had a nokton, only handled it once and was pleased. But the Hexanon is better build, no doubt. How do they compare optically ? If it only had a larger shade or the possibility to use a clip-on shade ...

The 'odd' 40.5 filter size doesn't bother me that much: The Elmar 90C and the Jupiter-8 I have also use the same filters, but maybe these are 'odd' lenses as well ;-)

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), December 06, 2001.

Kai: Which is the better buy? Hmm, it depends on your style of photography. Optically the Hexanon is clearly the better lens overall - no doubt. But: For available light photography there is no alternative to the Nokton (except the M-Summilux with its ridiculous high price).Okay, okay, the mechanical quality of the Nokton is not as good, but it is far better than many SLR lenses professionals use every day... So, why worry? BTW optical performance of the Nokton at f.1.5 is excellent, you can use this f-stop without hesitation; naturally quality improves at stopping down to f. 2. At this f-stop pic quality is indistinguishable from the Hexanon for your eyes. When I shoot indoors (very often with Kodak Farbwelt 800 or Kodak T400CN - what a wonderful progress in film technology!!!) in most cases there is enough light for f.2, but sometimes f.1.5 is needed to get a shutter speed that is short enough. That's the moment the Nokton shines :-) If these moments happen very often I would go for the Nokton (if I had to decide for one lens). And don't forget: You don't see in your pics every little plus that can be proven in a test lab, especially at normal image sizes up to 8x10 inch.

-- Frank Thoma (Thoma2811@aol.com), December 07, 2001.

Frank,

thanks for your opinion; paying 250$ for the hexanon made the decision easy. I also saw one for $200 as a instant buy on ebay, but the lens ended in normal bidding over 300$. Still cheaper as a Nokton ;-). About that 1.5 shots: I don't do these often, and a 'softie' from Tom Abrahamsson helps a lot to hold 1/8th at f2 steady (more or less).

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), December 07, 2001.

Kai:

Do you know these silver, gold and black softies for M-Leicas that are sold bei www.monochrom.de? How do they differ from Tom Abrahamsson's? I bought a set of three softies but I don't use them ... don't see the advantage.

PS: Just curious. You live in Munich, don't you?

-- Frank Thoma (Thoma2811@aol.com), December 07, 2001.

Frank,

I don't know if I am talking the right softies of monochrom.de, but they seem to be quite large with a built in softener ? The Abrahamssons are just larger heads, which work surprisingly well (nothing to make it softer, the name is a little irrelevant, just larger and easier to trip). You don't see the advantage, you only feel it ;-).

And yes, I'm living in munich (just have a look at the pictures in photo.net and it is an easy guess ;-))

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), December 07, 2001.

Yep, there is no doubt, many pics look quite Bavarian... :-)

-- Frank Thoma (Thoma2811@aol.com), December 07, 2001.