Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Voigtlander 40/1.4 (was Leica prices)
From: frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE)
Date: Fri Jun 10 08:28:00 2005

Yes, I read Erwins test resultand his interpretation -
and have seen the MTF graphs. BUT I have also shot
with and own(ed) both lenses. The Nokton may be a tad
sharper round the edges - but isn't in the center, it
is much more flare prone and yes, the boke is ugly,
only important if you are using it wide open, of
course, where the bulk of the pictue area is usually
OOF and the ugly boke distracts.
Erwin's opinion about the difference between the
lenses is due to the fact that he gives more weight to
even performance across the frame and isn't interested
by boke. My opinion is because the boke and flare
resistance make more difference to me than a small
potential increase in sharpness in the margins where
with most subjects it is OOF wide open anyway. Stopped
down there is less to chose, as usual, but flare
resistance is always important in my book.
The summilux suits me much better, I sold the Nokton.
Frank

--- "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@comcast.net> wrote:

> Fascinating - since LUG optics God Erwin Puts found
> that the Nokton very
> slightly edged out the old Summilux - or are we
> talking about the new, $2500
> 50 mm lens? - on sharpness and contrast, although he
> found his slightly
> decentered. As to the bokeh, there are those who
> hate it, and those who like
> it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/10/05 10:15 AM, "FRANK DERNIE"
> <frank.dernie@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> > I didn't like the Nokton, sold it. I like my
> Summilux
> > much better sharper and a better "look"
> > Frank
> > 
> > --- Grduprey@aol.com wrote:
> > 
> >> In a message dated 6/9/2005 4:42:20 PM Central
> >> Daylight Time, 
> >> luisripoll@telefonica.net writes:
> >> Thanks for your opinion Gene, I thaught that
> Nokton
> >> was better...
> >> I guess I must be the only LUGer that does not
> like
> >> his/her CV optic.  The
> >> mechanicals are very nice, but the optics are not
> >> what I expected.
> >> 
> >> Gene
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug
> for
> >> more information
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug
> for more information
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for
> more information
> 


Replies: Reply from feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli) ([Leica] Re: Voigtlander 40/1.4 (was Leica prices))
In reply to: Message from bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Re: Voigtlander 40/1.4 (was Leica prices))