Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Konica RF / Zeiss Ikon ZM Leica Mount Rangefinders

Konica RF / Zeiss Ikon ZM Leica Mount Rangefinders Konica and Zeiss versions of the AE electronic film rangefinder camera

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Whether Noktonlux or Plain-Jane-ar...
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #1
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 356
Whether Noktonlux or Plain-Jane-ar...

I'm looking at getting a 50 here pretty soon. I love my Biogon F2, and I know the F2 Planar is a very good lens, nay, great lens! But I sometimes squint an eye at those 1.5 Noktons and think, what might I be missing...

Planar Pros:
As sharp as the devil himself.
Same filter size as my Biogon!
Zeiss Planars generally have my bokeh preference.

Nokton Pros:
Faster
More boooookeh
???

I do shoot a lot of portraits close up. I do have fast lenses for my SLRs. Will I miss the 1 stop advantage from a DoF perspective at 0.7 MFD? I will also only be using this on film so the speed could actually have a real-world advantage with films like Portra 160 and Provia.

I would love to hear thoughts and see image samples.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #2
larmarv916
Registered User
 
larmarv916 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 405
I would highly suggest that you go to YouTube and look at the short video review from "Professor Foto" on the Nokton "New Version" F1.5. As someone who has owned an original Nocti ( E58 ) and Zeiss Sonnar F1.5. I would say that the Nokton F1.5 is really a killer performer at full aperture....If you stop down to F2 or 2.8....the results are stunning. The Zeiss is also the same story...but costs double! The Boke of the new Nokton....is better than the Planar...it melts steam. but this is all subjective. it all you call but your over thinking this! You also can not lose with any other choices your talking about either. At close focus the Sonnar and Nokton deliver better resolution of details. Best Regards
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #3
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 356
I should mention that for me personally I have a deal where the Planar is the cheaper option.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #4
A.S.
Registered User
 
A.S. is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
I'm looking at getting a 50 here pretty soon. I love my Biogon F2, and I know the F2 Planar is a very good lens, nay, great lens! But I sometimes squint an eye at those 1.5 Noktons and think, what might I be missing...

Planar Pros:
As sharp as the devil himself.
Same filter size as my Biogon!
Zeiss Planars generally have my bokeh preference.

Nokton Pros:
Faster
More boooookeh
???

I do shoot a lot of portraits close up. I do have fast lenses for my SLRs. Will I miss the 1 stop advantage from a DoF perspective at 0.7 MFD? I will also only be using this on film so the speed could actually have a real-world advantage with films like Portra 160 and Provia.

I would love to hear thoughts and see image samples.
The VM 50/1.5 and ZM 50/2.0 both focus down to 0.7m. At f/2.0 that's an "acceptable" depth of field of less than an inch. Do you need less or more than that for your portraits? If you need less, the f/1.5 will have less at f/1.5. Note also that if you need to get REALLY specific with DOF measurements, the Planar is closer to 49mm, while the Nokton is closer to 51mm. DOF difference will present itself then there, too. Regardless, and in general, I recall preferring the rear OOF areas of the Nokton.

Both are fantastic lenses, and practically the same size (a nod to the Nokton there).

My only complaint with the Nokton was the way the purple fringing presented itself with the two copies I had had. At f/4.0 and wider, it wasn't just the edges of high contrast scenes that were purple-ish. The color was completely off across most of the frame. It's a beautiful lens otherwise.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #5
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.S. View Post
My only complaint with the Nokton was the way the purple fringing presented itself with the two copies I had had. At f/4.0 and wider, it wasn't just the edges of high contrast scenes that were purple-ish. The color was completely off across most of the frame. It's a beautiful lens otherwise.
That's funny. I haven't noticed anything like that. This picture (wide open or maybe f2) should be a perfect candidate for fringing... and it's got none of it.

__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #6
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.S. View Post
The VM 50/1.5 and ZM 50/2.0 both focus down to 0.7m. At f/2.0 that's an "acceptable" depth of field of less than an inch. Do you need less or more than that for your portraits? If you need less, the f/1.5 will have less at f/1.5.

Both are fantastic lenses, and practically the same size (a nod to the Nokton there).
When you put it like that, it makes me lean toward the Planar. That will be pretty nice and dreamy at F2 that close and sharing the same filter size/hood with my Biogon & Rolleiflex is a wonderful thing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #7
A.S.
Registered User
 
A.S. is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
This picture (wide open or maybe f2) should be a perfect candidate for fringing... and it's got none of it.
I'm not familiar with Velvia. Here's an unretouched scan (54mb) of Portra 160 at around f/2.8 (not that I would recommend photographing a scene like this at f/2.8): http://abbottshimkus.com/misc/2015-03-31%20(6).tif
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #8
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.S. View Post
Here's an unretouched scan (54mb) of Portra 160 at around f/2.8 (not that I would recommend photographing a scene like this at f/2.8): http://abbottshimkus.com/misc/2015-03-31%20(6).tif
That's just an unprocessed scan with poor inversion from negative. The magenta tint in your scan has nothing to do with the lens.

A few clicks to go from:



to something like this:



Where is the problem? The branches? Every lens will have some fringing there. Some even much more (like Zeiss Sonnar 1,5/50). There is definitely not a problem like you describe with Nokton M 1,5/50.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #9
A.S.
Registered User
 
A.S. is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13
A poor inversion?
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #10
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.S. View Post
A poor inversion?
I don't think this is a thread to discuss scanning of C-41 film. My point was that the problem you've show here has got nothing to do with the lens.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #11
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 356
I understood that he was showing me a SooS scan, and that it's not representative of a properly corrected image. But I also appreciate the processed version that you posted.

I have shifted a little bit toward considering the Nokton over the Planar. I think I might appreciate the extra F stop and I've seen a lot of pretty nice image samples out there. Overall though it doesn't seem like there are a ton of people shooting with this lens. The Flickr group is rarely updated and there isn't much action here. I figured this lens was all the rage after it's release a while back...

Is it a Sonnar derivative or more like a Planar? It looks less symmetrical than the 50/2 Planar, but it has the same number of elements front to and back, just smaller in the rear...
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #12
A.S.
Registered User
 
A.S. is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
My point was that the problem you've show here has got nothing to do with the lens.
The problem I've shown here is specific to that lens, which is why I posted it. But's it's good to have a range of beliefs out there floating around.

Edit: You said magenta, but the artifacts in question are closer to violet, which is going to have a greater impact on the blue channel when processing then, say, the Planar (it's spherical). So perhaps my qualm is with the aspherical element at apertures wider than f/5.6 screwing up the color all over the place, which is why the bark in the tree of your edit has a green cast on it (you corrected for the magenta), but there's no yellow cast in the concrete (your few clicks didn't address the blue side of the spectrum).
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #13
A.S.
Registered User
 
A.S. is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
Is it a Sonnar derivative or more like a Planar? It looks less symmetrical than the 50/2 Planar, but it has the same number of elements front to and back, just smaller in the rear...
I'm tempted by the Sonnar, too, but it's definitely not the Planar.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #14
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.S. View Post
I'm tempted by the Sonnar, too, but it's definitely not the Planar.
I actually owned the C Sonnar for a while. While it's a lovely little optic, the problems became more pronounced in the kind of shooting I was doing. Mine was 1.5 optimized and that means that at f2-5.6 the focus shift is REALLY bad at long distances, of likesay 20ft or so. I think that's why Zeiss used to deliver them out of the box 2.8 optimized. Overall I'm willing to sacrifice the special rendering of the C Sonnar for more consistent performance throughout the range.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #15
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
I actually owned the C Sonnar for a while. While it's a lovely little optic, the problems became more pronounced in the kind of shooting I was doing. Mine was 1.5 optimized and that means that at f2-5.6 the focus shift is REALLY bad at long distances, of likesay 20ft or so. I think that's why Zeiss used to deliver them out of the box 2.8 optimized. Overall I'm willing to sacrifice the special rendering of the C Sonnar for more consistent performance throughout the range.
I had C Sonnar and I still have post WW2 Zeiss Sonnar in Contax mount. I bought Nokton thinking I'd then finally be able to sell the Sonnar.

If you are looking for a f1.4/1.5 lens, Nokton is a perfect candidate. Well behaved, sharp enough wide open, you don't have to worry about focus shift and if you like your lenses black and light it's also pretty cheap. What I don't like about it is the focusing ring (looks cool, but I keep grabbing the wrong part of the lens) and supplied hood and lens cap look ridiculous on the lens. A perfect, boring (when boring is good) fast lens. Except when it's aspherical element decides to render the shot in purple

If you haven't said that you'd only be using it on film I'd recommend Planar for the obvious reasons you already stated in the first post. But, fastest slide film is now ISO 100 (if you don't count Rollei CR200), who knows if Superia 1600/800, Portra 800 will make it another year... For me, 1/15 vs. 1/8s makes much more difference than a tiny bit of sharpness I won't notice on film anyway. It's obviously a different story if you are using wide apertures when there is plenty of light...
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #16
A.S.
Registered User
 
A.S. is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
I actually owned the C Sonnar for a while. While it's a lovely little optic, the problems became more pronounced in the kind of shooting I was doing. Mine was 1.5 optimized and that means that at f2-5.6 the focus shift is REALLY bad at long distances, of likesay 20ft or so. I think that's why Zeiss used to deliver them out of the box 2.8 optimized. Overall I'm willing to sacrifice the special rendering of the C Sonnar for more consistent performance throughout the range.
Focus shift with both of the lenses you're considering is negligible. Wide open at 20' field curvature is more apparent with the Nokton, but the very far corners of Planar will be a tiny bit more swirly, for lack of a more technical description, from what I've experienced. Here's a fifty something MB unretouched example of the latter: http://abbottshimkus.com/misc/2015-03-31%20(6).tif
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:07.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.