As I waver, between buying the 35mm f/1.4 Nokton II VM, and the f/1.5 Nokton VM, I am coming to the realization that the only possible long-term solution is to acquire both of them. Different lenses, for different effects. Of course, then, one could argue that it would be useful to have both the Single-Coated and Multi-Coated versions of the f/1.4 II. That would be a “trinity” of Noktons.
RexGig0 wrote:
Interesting. I should experiment with some of these filters, and am thankful for your images and writing.
Enjoy your Sigma 60-600! Our super-zooming Sigma is the original 150-600mm Sport version, for the Nikon F mount, so, is quite heavy and bulky, but, when all set-up and ready to go, can do amazing things. Your newer Sigma 60-600 should be even more amazing.
RexGig0 wrote:
Interesting. I should experiment with some of these filters, and am thankful for your images and writing.
Enjoy your Sigma 60-600! Our super-zooming Sigma is the original 150-600mm Sport version, for the Nikon F mount, so, is quite heavy and bulky, but, when all set-up and ready to go, can do amazing things. Your newer Sigma 60-600 should be even more amazing.
Thanks, so far I'm impressed with the AF speed and stabilization of the 60-600. But. It's a BEAST of a lens. The lens plus SL2-S body is over 8lbs. Needless to say, I'm now shopping for a monopod!
Lens is super nice to handle, though I might add that Loxia grip tape so I can turn it by the barrel when I don't need the larger leverage of the tab. It's like super sharp, maybe harsh levels sharp (but I prefer this) on the M10M.
RexGig0 wrote:
As I waver, between buying the 35mm f/1.4 Nokton II VM, and the f/1.5 Nokton VM, I am coming to the realization that the only possible long-term solution is to acquire both of them. Different lenses, for different effects. Of course, then, one could argue that it would be useful to have both the Single-Coated and Multi-Coated versions of the f/1.4 II. That would be a “trinity” of Noktons.
Good thinking. But surely you need a quad of Noktons? Don’t forget the f/1.2 III
In all seriousness, I am in danger of convincing myself that I could have the f/1.5 on my M11 and the f/1.4 II on my MP. The fly in the ointment is the fact that I already have ZMs f/1.4 and f/2.8. If only I still had a Monochrom ….
ftllens wrote:
Lens is super nice to handle, though I might add that Loxia grip tape so I can turn it by the barrel when I don't need the larger leverage of the tab. It's like super sharp, maybe harsh levels sharp (but I prefer this) on the M10M.
Yes, I think the sharpness WO is very good for me. I have the CV 21 1.4, CV 50 1.0 and this one is just as sharp and maybe more global contrast. I'm gonna add a diffusion filter and test it with that next.
Continuing to casually use this lens. I'm convinced that if this lens has a glaring flaw (pun), it is veiling flare.
I have the matte black aluminum version. Are those with the brass version seeing the same veiling flare?
Makes me wonder if the Type I version is an off-label "SC" single coated lens since examples here with the Type II show less veiling flare. Or maybe the Type I version has another physical difference, perhaps lacking an inner anti-reflective paint coating or rear baffling.
nehemiahphoto wrote: Flare, Ghosting and Veiling:
In real world shooting, with strongly side and backlight situations, like sunsets, I found this CV 35/1.5 to produce some slight rainbow flare, definite ghosting artifacts but quite good in terms of veiling (maintaining contrast). In my experience, better than many lenses, but not as good as the CV 35/1.7. Some samples from the other night. All shot without a filter.
Hi, nehemiah. Do you have the Type II brass version? I have the Type I aluminum version, and the veiling flare seems really bad to me. Even with the sun just outside the frame, the entire image will loose critical contrast unless I shield the lens with my hand.
Hi, and I really have to apologize…can you remind me of your first name? I should really know by this point as you’re a kind member and regular.
I had v1–the lighter (weight wise) version. My experience is that some recent voigtlander’s have not had as good of flair resistance as some of the slightly older versions from the last generation. I posted somewhere along time ago on this thread, this new 35 is not as good as the 35/1.7 or ZM 35/1.4 with some flare and ghosting, but easily better than the FLE. It did better than a lot of lenses, like most of the cheaper offbrand lenses with poor flare performance (esp flare) IMO or lenses like the 35i or FE 35.
I look through my RAWs—I sold my copy, and I think I can find some pretty gnarly veiling just in the situation you are.
I was looking for the LH-4N hood for this, but ordered a slim cheap one and it looks great on it. Does intrude the RF a bit but not horrible, and it covers the glistening ring in the sun from onlookers:
Hi, and I really have to apologize…can you remind me of your first name? I should really know by this point as you’re a kind member and regular.
I had v1–the lighter (weight wise) version. My experience is that some recent voigtlander’s have not had as good of flair resistance as some of the slightly older versions from the last generation. I posted somewhere along time ago on this thread, this new 35 is not as good as the 35/1.7 or ZM 35/1.4 with some flare and ghosting, but easily better than the FLE. It did better than a lot of lenses, like most of the cheaper offbrand lenses with poor flare performance (esp flare) IMO or lenses like the 35i or FE 35.
I look through my RAWs—I sold my copy, and I think I can find some pretty gnarly veiling just in the situation you are....Show more →
Thanks, it's James. Too many Jims around here to use the less formal version
Ok, that makes sense. I saw your post back earlier in the thread with the flare examples, and they didn't look veiling, so I wondered if there was something either wrong with or different about mine. Sounds like you saw the same thing with your copy.
ftllens wrote:
I was looking for the LH-4N hood for this, but ordered a slim cheap one and it looks great on it. Does intrude the RF a bit but not horrible, and it covers the glistening ring in the sun from onlookers:
Make sure to order the slim version like above though
I like using the round ones like yours because of the look, but the LH-12 "tornado siren" hood is the only one that actually helps very much in real world use. Even then, I had to use my hand a lot to shade the lens when shooting toward the sun, so I revert back to the LH-4N most of the time.
Haven't had time to do much with it yet, but the size and build quality are already impressive. One thing I don't love is the focus tab and especially the position it's in below 0.7m - it moves so far up that it requires me to change my hand position. I guess that could be an advantage for Leica shooters as it makes it pretty obvious when you're below rangerfinder coupling..
Haven't had time to do much with it yet, but the size and build quality are already impressive. One thing I don't love is the focus tab and especially the position it's in below 0.7m - it moves so far up that it requires me to change my hand position. I guess that could be an advantage for Leica shooters as it makes it pretty obvious when you're below rangerfinder coupling..
For MFD (0.5m) is it like 9 o'clock or even further up, like 10?
I never had focusing tab lens, always those with focusing rings.
Now, I'm about to buy CV 21/3.5 VM II, which has tab and dont know if I should go with version I with that "stick" and just unscrew it to use whole ring.
phinix wrote:
I never had focusing tab lens, always those with focusing rings.
Now, I'm about to buy CV 21/3.5 VM II, which has tab and dont know if I should go with version I with that "stick" and just unscrew it to use whole ring.
The tab is really useful for small-and-short lenses like this, though. If you support the left side of the camera with your left thumb and stick out your index finger so it slots into the depression in the tab, you can focus quickly and accurately that way. Some people use two fingers, some use the middle finger, it doesn't matter. Whatever works for you.
I have a few small rangefinder lenses without tabs and it's harder to focus them, especially when you're looking through the viewfinder and trying to find the focus ring. Sometimes I end up turning the aperture ring by mistake.
phinix wrote:
For MFD (0.5m) is it like 9 o'clock or even further up, like 10?
From which angle are you looking at the lens?
Viewed from the front 0.7m sits at about 5 o'clock and 0.5m is at about 4 or 3:30. Doesn't sound too bad, but I find it uncomfortable as this is the 'close' position for the left hand and beyond where my index finger can move, so I have to re-position my hand.
But I was just on a first walk with the lens and it's a joy to use. Focus is super smooth and also very easy with the TTartisan 6-bit adapter which gives focus confirmation on my Nikon.
The other big value of the tab that I forgot to mention is that it gives you a physical sense of where you are on the focusing scale; over time you'll develop muscle memory that will allow you to quickly focus on subjects at different distances. You don't get that tactile feedback from a ring without a tab.
When John McPhee interviewed Bill Bradley in the 1960s for The New Yorker, Bradley moved around the basketball court, talking to McPhee with his back to the basket, and threw the ball over his shoulder into the net without looking, repeatedly. He said if you spend enough time on a basketball court you develop a sense of where you are. The tab is like that!
