Can I compare a Voigt Nokton 35mm f1.4 to a Leica 35mm???

[artspraken]

Imho, its not the lens or camera.

Its simply how close you get. Closer the better.

I find that i cannot get close with Leica coz i am afraid the subject will break my Leica. Very scared lor. But if i use cheaper lens and camera i am alot braver coz cheap camera = good weapon

 

[Benji77]

Do you proof read what you write sometimes Bro?

 

[sequitur]

I've used the Nokton 35mm f/1.4 and some of the Leica 35mm lenses.

Handling wise, Leica wins hands down.. fast to focus.

Keepers wise... So far there's a certain "look" with the Nokton that I like, and I do have quite some nice and important shots that I've shot with the Nokton. Barrel distortion is quite there, but what I feel is lacking is the resolution from the lens. Weird but the scanned files from the Nokton vs the Leicas show a resolution disadvantage. Or maybe it's something else, but let's just call it resolution. But it's these little imperfections in the lens that makes the photos interesting... honestly.

I think at the end of the day... price is a factor, but the lens drawing is another factor... and also what do you want to achieve with your photography. I lost to poison and GAS but that's not to say that I didn't gain some other benefits from going Leica... I think if you really feel like "upgrading" you can go borrow or buy some lenses to try it out first.. since 35mms hold their value pretty well these days.

But just to add: yes there's a huge difference in how the Nokton performs at 1.4 vs the Leica summilux asph. The Nokton really gives a very nice classic and creamy drawing... the Asph gives a sharp but still creamy.. more "modern" drawing. Depends on the look you like....

 

[The Dry Box]

While i believe the lens don't make the photographs, i don't think ts doesn't know that already.
A nice weight lens does affect how a photographer takes a picture. It affect confidence, and many time the willingness to compose a picture. I remember i dump the voight ultron 28/2 twice because i couldn't get used to the rough body operation.

I have used both preasph lux 35 and nokton 1.4. The sizes are about the same, and so are the output, but lux has the advantages of ergonomics for me. It's aperture clicks better, and the focusing throw is longer. It is personal preference, but i sold the nokton 1 month after buying, and the lux i kept for 6 months to use it before i went back to 28mm again.

I think you need to hold the lens in your hands to decides. Imo, the best one to use was the 35/2.5 skopar pii i used to own., and that lens was comparable to the 35 cron asph i am using now as i don't print big anyway.

 

[Canonised]

Costs wise, can't compare la.

 

[anerjee]

are you shooting film or digital? if you are shooting film, do you print or scan?

I shoot with film and self-scan. For me the advantages of expensive glass are limited, as I am stuck with a scanner which resolves far less than your lens. I asked a similar question some time back, and based on the feedback, sold my zeiss biogon and bought a canon 35mm f/2 ltm. very good decision.

Hi,

Anyone has experience with both Nokton 35mm and a Leica 35mm lens???

Thinking of upgrading my nokton 35mm to a Leica, but not sure which model to go for, and for that matter, if I would be able to see any difference?

Any advice would be great!

Cheers!

Larry

 

[benwal]

Well I shoot film and scan. So you're right, it does boil down to the scanner.

Actually to be frank, I started thinking about this when I compared the shots made by the Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 and my Hasselblad 40mm f4 on Xpan.

On the same film and setting, the images made by the Xpan are just so much sharper and smoother. So I thought, maybe the Voigtlander ought to be sharper?

Anyway, It still produces some very nice shots, so I'll stick to it for a while longer. I'm just suffering from a momentary "hand-itchy" syndrome.

are you shooting film or digital? if you are shooting film, do you print or scan?

I shoot with film and self-scan. For me the advantages of expensive glass are limited, as I am stuck with a scanner which resolves far less than your lens. I asked a similar question some time back, and based on the feedback, sold my zeiss biogon and bought a canon 35mm f/2 ltm. very good decision.

 

[Royale With Cheese]

use the money for the 35mm lux to buy a nikon coolscan 9000?

 

[nordleadx]

Well I shoot film and scan. So you're right, it does boil down to the scanner.

Actually to be frank, I started thinking about this when I compared the shots made by the Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 and my Hasselblad 40mm f4 on Xpan.

On the same film and setting, the images made by the Xpan are just so much sharper and smoother. So I thought, maybe the Voigtlander ought to be sharper?



Anyway, It still produces some very nice shots, so I'll stick to it for a while longer. I'm just suffering from a momentary "hand-itchy" syndrome.

Hahaha. Nice photos !!!!

 

[gommy]

No difference!!
But you will always think that something is missing.
Then someday, you will get one!
It's illogical!
I started with Leica lenses now I'm playing old Japanese lenses.
You go figure.:lovegrin:

I'll like to clarify. I said No difference because your photograhy is already very good. Your approach, style and composition is already excellent looking at your photos.
But if your hand is itchy and you have the means, why not?
I also know you ultimately will.

 

[zixaw]

Just taking the lens into account, I feel that Leica lenses are mostly very usable wide open whereas CV lenses tend to be very soft wide open and only start to get sharp when they are stepped down a few stops. My general rule of thumb, which may be highly inaccurate, is that CV lenses only get sharp about 2 full stops down from their advertised max.

Once they are stepped down, Leica and CV lenses are equally sharp and it is all down to the lens characteristics.

The noticeable difference will of course be shallower DoF and more natural light shots.

 

[chiif]

My advise... you already have one of the best lenses that a photographer could ask for... use the money and travel more and take more pictures. That is money better spent that trying to compare which lens is better....

A lux could buy you a return ticket to any destination in the world and some $$$ spare for accommodation and a few good beer...

 

[cableguy55]

My advise... you already have one of the best lenses that a photographer could ask for... use the money and travel more and take more pictures. That is money better spent that trying to compare which lens is better....

A lux could buy you a return ticket to any destination in the world and some $$$ spare for accommodation and a few good beer...

Well said Mr Chiff
My advise is use what you can afford and make great pictures
Take pictures to please yourself than to please others

 

[benwal]

My advise... you already have one of the best lenses that a photographer could ask for... use the money and travel more and take more pictures. That is money better spent that trying to compare which lens is better....

A lux could buy you a return ticket to any destination in the world and some $$$ spare for accommodation and a few good beer...

Wow Chiff, thanks for putting things in perspective.

 

[artspraken]

Lol depending which version of 35 lux, the ASPH version can pay for whole family to go on holiday hehe

 

[sim4nee]

People say picture speak a thousand words, if your images are all like what they are in your website and I'm a buyer I don't care if you use ta toy lens!

I see the person behind the camera not the optic in front of the camera.

 

[rosewood1969]

Take pictures to please yourself than to please others

Well said Mr Jav,sorry I meant Jeff. We all know what pictures please you,lol!

 

[raytoei]

let me take an another approach.... Buy Buy... gear acquisition syndrome, or otherwise known as GAS is perfectly fine, as long as you equate it independent of image output. If you look at some of the greats, they liked to mess around with gear, eg. David Bailey has one of the largest collection of cameras; Helmut Newton liked to mess around with new stuff. But they kept that separate from their work, which was to produce great pictures. In other words, you can be a great photographer with simple setup, but don't get too enamored about great gear = great images. Another approach taken was by Ralph Gibson, he is being quoted as saying that photographers should learn to "tame your glass", and his entire setup is a 35, 50 and 90mm leica glass, that's it.

The great essayist Malcolm Gladwell wrote that the starting point to be very good (not great great yet) at something takes around 10,000 hours of practice. I suppose we could put that into a film analogy: perhaps, the departure of sunday snapshots to serious photography is around 10,000 images (or 400 rolls if each is 24 exp) ? And from serious photography to great photography a lot more ?

raytoei

 

[anerjee]

here are some options for travel :bsmilie:

http://idleicarefundplease.blogspot.com/

My advise... you already have one of the best lenses that a photographer could ask for... use the money and travel more and take more pictures. That is money better spent that trying to compare which lens is better....

A lux could buy you a return ticket to any destination in the world and some $$$ spare for accommodation and a few good beer...

 

[paapoopa]

i think its perfectly all right to buy buy buy hahhaa... :devil:
some people just enjoy trying out different gears, nothing wrong with that...

just dont put the idea of better gears = better pictures.....

and did I just told you that you dont need to buy more gear in my eariler post? :bsmilie: