Voigtlander 50/1.1 Compared to Noctilux 50/.95

[CameraQuest]

Here Jeff Hapeman compares the 50/.95 Noctilux with the 50/1.1 Nokton

http://www.digitalhapeman.com/Digital_Hapeman/Blog/Entries/2010/9/22_Ultra-fast_50mm_lenses_on_the_Leica_M9.html

Stephen

[Keith]

That link goes nowhere for me! ???

[CameraQuest]

That link goes nowhere for me! ???

now try it

[maddoc]

He compares the Noctilux 50mm 1:0.95 ASPH with the CV 50/1.1, not the Noctilux 50/1.0

[CameraQuest]

He compares the Noctilux 50mm 1:0.95 ASPH with the CV 50/1.1, not the Noctilux 50/1.0

yep,
will correct thread title.

Stephen

[hteasley]

Sean Reid just did a fast 50 review: 0.95 and 1.0 Nocts, and the 1.1 Nokt.

[Keith]

I don't actually see the point in comparing a $10000.00 lens to a $1000.00 lens!

A bit like comparing a Ferrari to a Lexus IMO ... different products aimed at different markets. How much would Mr K have to spend to bridge that ten percent gap in performance ... and what would the end price be?

[sper]

It makes sense because they're similar tools. The Leica is irresponsibly expensive, and the Voigtlander is affordable to many. Of course they should be compared!

I'm just happy that CV so clearly holds it own against the more fashionable German lens.

[Erik van Straten]

Leica MP, Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400, silver/gelatineprint.

This Nokton works fine with the MP. Maybe it's focal length is slightly longer than 50mm so the 50mm frames of the MP work better with this lens than with "true" 50mm lenses.

Erik.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3967512426_f67f9f02af_b.jpg

[Erik van Straten]

Leica M2, Voigtländer 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400, silver/gelatineprint.

Erik.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2513/4134615002_650e36de25_z.jpg

[chrishayton]

I have to say looking at those samples at each aperture the Leica is mind blowing. Im just about to recieve my 1.1 and its an amazing lens without even taking its value into account but the Leica looks so much crisper (not to mention the bokeh being ALOT smoother)

however there is £4000 gap in price. Nice to see however with all the talk of issues with the M8 and M9 Leica still produce the best small format lenses in the world

[damien.murphy]

I don't actually see the point in comparing a $10000.00 lens to a $1000.00 lens!

A bit like comparing a Ferrari to a Lexus IMO ... different products aimed at different markets. How much would Mr K have to spend to bridge that ten percent gap in performance ... and what would the end price be?

I agree, the usual net outcome of these tests I see is the ego boost they deliver to the more inexpensive lens. I think when you get to the margin levels that seperate a Noctilux from a Nokton f1.1, diminishing returns are such a big factor that the cost to improve a Nokton f1.1 to Noctilux standards becomes crazily expensive.

Although, that said, as a soon to be new owner of a nicely used f1.1, the ego boost is nice :)

[Erik van Straten]

I have to say looking at those samples at each aperture the Leica is mind blowing.

You will not be happy with the Leica lens when you have to carry around the 700 grams. The Nokton is just over 400 grams and balances just right on an M-Leica. I also prefer the Nokton because its images are very much like the old lenses. It is a tad sharper but otherwise it is like the old Nikkor 50mm f/1.1 or like the old Sonnars 50mm f/1.4.

Erik.

[CameraQuest]

I don't actually see the point in comparing a $10000.00 lens to a $1000.00 lens!

A bit like comparing a Ferrari to a Lexus IMO ... different products aimed at different markets. How much would Mr K have to spend to bridge that ten percent gap in performance ... and what would the end price be?

Keith, I wouldn't expect you to get it. You are too busy naysaying the 50/1.1 Nokton - a lens you have never shot LOL

If you read and compare Jeff's results, the difference between the 1.1 and .95 is minimal, and certainly not worth the $9000 difference in price to most shooters. That's the point.

Stephen

[Thardy]

Keith, I wouldn't expect you to get it. You are too busy naysaying the 50/1.1 Nokton - a lens you have never shot LOL

If you read and compare Jeff's results, the difference between the 1.1 and .95 is minimal, and certainly not worth the $9000 difference in price to most shooters. That's the point.

Stephen

Similarly, there is a guy who "reviews" (I think he likes to buy stuff) camera gear who looked at the CV 50 1.1, and a Noctilux 0.95, (the one without the crazy bokeh) and found the images not TOO dissimilar (to warrant the huge price difference anyway) yet says the Leica gets the nod, but both lenses are winners.

[chrishayton]

You will not be happy with the Leica lens when you have to carry around the 700 grams. The Nokton is just over 400 grams and balances just right on an M-Leica. I also prefer the Nokton because its images are very much like the old lenses. It is a tad sharper but otherwise it is like the old Nikkor 50mm f/1.1 or like the old Sonnars 50mm f/1.4.

Erik.

Weight wouldnt bother me at all. Heavy weigh means quality construction. However I wouldnt fancy swapping a £7000 lens outside unless its over a mattress

[monochromejrnl]

I don't actually see the point in comparing a $10000.00 lens to a $1000.00 lens!

A bit like comparing a Ferrari to a Lexus IMO ... different products aimed at different markets. How much would Mr K have to spend to bridge that ten percent gap in performance ... and what would the end price be?

helps drive sales for the $1000 lens ;)

[back alley]

so many cynics...

[marnicq]

I don't actually see the point in comparing a $10000.00 lens to a $1000.00 lens!

A bit like comparing a Ferrari to a Lexus IMO ... different products aimed at different markets. How much would Mr K have to spend to bridge that ten percent gap in performance ... and what would the end price be?
It's not because one is more expensive that it is better ...
For example we take two exactly the same apple sell one for $1 and one for $1000. Is the one sold for $1000 dollar therefor more tasty/goodlooking? And even if it would be, would it be 1000 times more tasty (meaning: worth the price)?
(I don't want to say that Leica isn't any good, because it's superb to pretty much any lens - and no offense meant to anyone - I simply believe saying the more expensive something is, the better it is, isn't as logical as it perhaps should be and therefor comparing two comparable products of two completely different price ranges not that odd)
(:
I hope my 'statement' wasn't too messy, as English isn't my first language..

[Krosya]

helps drive sales for the $1000 lens ;)

Exactly. Plus if Nokton 1.1 was THAT close to Leica, I'd think we would see lots of Leicas being sold off and price of used Noctilux would drop at least a little. Somehow I dont see that happening. What I do see is - people try and re-sell Noktons 1.1 and at the same time price of the used Nokton 50/1.5, Noctilux 1.0, Canon 50/1.2, M-Hexanon 50/1.2 stays the same or even goes up. Hmmmmm:rolleyes:

[bwcolor]

The Reid review is also worth a look, as mentioned above. Perhaps comparing other lenses, which are available under $2000.00 would be of more interest. It really is of little surprise that a $10,000 lens bests one at about one-tenth the price. It is a tribute to the Nokton that anyone even considers making the comparison.

[cgiff]

Exactly. Plus if Nokton 1.1 was THAT close to Leica, I'd think we would see lots of Leicas being sold off and price of used Noctilux would drop at least a little. Somehow I dont see that happening. What I do see is - people try and re-sell Noktons 1.1 and at the same time price of the used Nokton 50/1.5, Noctilux 1.0, Canon 50/1.2, M-Hexanon 50/1.2 stays the same or even goes up. Hmmmmm:rolleyes:

Supply/demand + emotions = irrationality.

[leicashot]

Having owned both, I think a comparison is pretty simple. You can either afford one or the other. Besides that there is a considerable difference between the two in signature and performance, but both are what I'd regard as excellent performers, and one is certainly better value than the other.


For me I've chosen to keep the Noctilux as 'to me' it is 10x better cause I'd use it 10x more than the Nokton - silly justification, but true.

[Keith]

Keith, I wouldn't expect you to get it. You are too busy naysaying the 50/1.1 Nokton - a lens you have never shot LOL

If you read and compare Jeff's results, the difference between the 1.1 and .95 is minimal, and certainly not worth the $9000 difference in price to most shooters. That's the point.

Stephen



You're the one who's not getting it because my criticism here was not of the Nokton but of the validity of the comparison.

If I was in the market for a superspeed fifty I wouldn't hesitate to buy the Nokton because the value is unquestionable ... I wouldn't care that it had a wealthy cousin in the Noctilux because ten or even five thousand dollar lenses aren't my thing and everything the Nokton does is totally acceptable in my book ... I just don't think it has any standout characteristics or quirks which probably makes it a very safe buy compared to the Noctilux which at ten grand wouldn't want to disappoint!

As for never having shot with one I guess that applies to most things I don't own or have never owned ... or borrowed for that matter.

You could correct that fault in my resume by sending me one to try for a few weeks! :)

[Mister E]

I just read the whole review to find out he used an M8.2, what a waste? You have a $10,000 Noctilux and you can't borrow an M9?

[Erik van Straten]

Heavy weigh means quality construction.

I have a heavily used Summaron 35mm f/2.8 from 1958 that is a stellar performer and it just weights over a 100 grams. I think quality construction has nothing to do with weight, only with quality.

Erik.

[bizarrius]

I think it is apples vs oranges.
But on the other hand, the only reason i sold the nokton is because my camera wouldn't fit in my pocket anymore.
other than that it is an excellent tool and performs beyond my skills.
I wouldn't buy the noctilux even if i had the money. :)

[chrishayton]

I have a heavily used Summaron 35mm f/2.8 from 1958 that is a stellar performer and it just weights over a 100 grams. I think quality construction has nothing to do with weight, only with quality.

Erik.
True, And in other cases you get heavy cameras that are junk (pentacon 6 springs to mind)

However the point I was making as you are probably aware is that the noctilux is heavy due to fact its made with with brass and huge pieces of expensive glass, coupled with a dense construction. Not the kind of manufacturing techniques used on a budget lens.

[chrishayton]

Like those Kievs... They're built like tanks! ;)

lol Kievs aren't actually that bad , got one on my desk here and its better than a zorki lol (though not that hard is it)

I did acknowledge that though in the post above yours :P