Leica M 50mm lens comparison: 10 fast options - Part 4. Conclusions
At long last, here we are. The summary and conclusions. It was a lot of information, analysis (if you bothered to go through that as the photo-geek you are, like me) and loads of pictures in grids. I hope all that was useful for some of you readers. If you landed on this page directly and would like a bit of background for these conclusions, please refer to Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 of this comparison to see what we are talking about.
Choosing a lens for your favourite camera can be a difficult decision if you have a lot of options. It wasn’t so problematic in the past, you had the camera manufacturer’s options (or option, just one at times) and possibly a few third party ones. The manufacturer’s option was the high quality one (albeit expensive), the third party compromised in quality to give cheaper alternatives. In the last few years things have really changed: if it’s true that the official choices from your favourite camera company are still the most expensive (case in point with Leica, which has prices that range from extortionate to ludicrous and everything in between), third party companies really upped their game and are now competing on equal terms. Look at what Sigma and then Tamron have been doing lately, they have been really rocking the boat with their great optics, at prices that are much more attractive than the official options. The Chinese lens companies have also been growing strongly and offering better and better quality products at exceptional prices. We have a misguided notion that Chinese products are low quality, but this is only the fault of the companies offshoring production to the far east: the Chinese factories will make what you want at the quality level you want. They do plastic fantastic but also make Apple products, and everything in between. The commissioning company decides on the quality.
In the Leica M system world the cheap alternatives were mainly made by Voigtlander (owned by Cosina in Japan) and, a little less cheap, by Zeiss (produced but not owned by Cosina). Cheap compared to what though? To Leica of course. Splurging over £900 for a fast nifty-fifty designed in 1932 and rejoicing for the value for money only happens in the Leica fandom. Not considering that the £99 Canon EF 50mm 1.8 is objectively a better optic. Having said that, Voigtlander and Zeiss options have never been slouches in their category: actually, they were really, really good lenses. Until Voigtlander decided to up their game even more. Lately the Cosina owned company, which Leica aficionados call Cosina-Voigtlander, or CV for short, has released absolutely outstanding lenses one after the other, starting with the Nokton 40mm 1.2 in 2017. Zeiss lenses were already extremely good, but since the Distagon 35mm 1.4 in 2014 (touted as the best 35mm lens in the Leica M system, bar none) they have not released any new lenses. Then the Chinese companies, like 7Artisans and then TTArtisan, started entering the fray as well, and they have improved really quickly. The most expensive Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses cost at most one third of the equivalent Leica offerings, delivering most of the performance or in many cases just a different compromise, but same quality. The Chinese lenses are far from top performance at times, but their prices are a tenth or less than Leica equivalents. A staggering difference. Do you get what you pay for? For real photography no. For pixel-peeping measurbation? Actually, I am not sure! Let’s draw a few conclusions so we can answer such question.
There won’t be a winner
This is a comparison and not a competition. I am not pitching one lens against the other, I am comparing their strengths and weaknesses and sets of compromises chosen by the manufacturers to understand why we would choose to buy one lens instead of another. The competition mentality is only for brand fanatics that need reassurance and re-affirmation of their product choice. No manufacturer is the best, no lens is the best. They’re just different.
I will be scoring each lens on the basis of the test results. Some lenses will score high, some less, but no winner there: how much does the high scorer cost? That will be an important parameter: value and the law of diminishing returns will be major considerations.
The scoring will work this way:
★☆☆☆☆ Not good
★★☆☆☆ Average
★★★☆☆ Good
★★★★☆ Excellent
★★★★★ Outstanding
Obviously, outstanding does not mean perfect: perfection doesn’t exist in optics. Physics don’t allow that.
The total number of stars will be added together to give a score to each lens. This score will then be related to the price. I think this is a fair evaluation. Of course we will comment on this ratio between score and price in the conclusions.
Also, pros and cons will be listed. A good performance of three stars (★★★☆☆) won’t be a pro for the lens: it’s the minimum requirement!
The parameters that will be scored are:
Clicking on any of these headings, above or in the summary for each lens, will open a new page taking you to the relevant part of the previous articles so you can refer to that while reading this page.
We have 12 different parameters. Assuming we had a perfect lens, with 5 stars per category it would score 60 stars. A bottle bottom lens would score 12. Let’s see how each lens does.
Voigtlander Nokton VM 50mm 1:1.1
Handling and ergonomics ★★☆☆☆
My first Leica M lens. Ergonomically it is great from a handling perspective. Everything works as it should, firm and easy to distinguish aperture ring, smooth, well designed and easy to use focus ring, easy to focus precisely. But the size is the problem. Big and heavy for a Leica M lens. It makes the camera very front heavy and it blocks the viewfinder considerably. Still, I used it on a daily basis for a long time and it’s a matter of habit. I always wished for smaller and lighter ergonomically. The supplied lens hood is solid, not vented, adding further viewfinder blockage. Dumb. They offer an optional hood, vented but mounted around the front ring making it block more of the viewfinder again, and it costs £102. Dumb again. £3 for a third party vented screw on, like you see in this comparison, is the best solution. I would judge the handling and ergonomics as average for the excellent handling but size and hood issues.
Infinity performance ★★★☆☆
The lens sharpness at infinity is surprisingly good in the central two thirds of the image, but it falls apart in the corners. It needs to be stopped down to F5.6 for good corner sharpness. Given the excellent performance in most of the frame for the speed, I consider its performance good.
MFD and magnification ★☆☆☆☆
A big drawback for this lens os the minimum focusing distance (MFD) of just 1 metre, and I guarantee that in use you will run against it very often. The magnification is not great even by rangefinder standards, but there is plenty of detail although not very clean until F2.8. Not enough to redeem it I think, Not good.
Focus shift ★★☆☆☆
Focus shift is another issue with this lens, the intended focus point loses definition straight away stopping down to F1.4 and requires F5.6 to get sharp again. One would say this is a bad performance, but compared to what? No lens can be free of focus shift, it’s inherent in the optical design and can be controlled but not eliminated. And there are worse performers here. So I’ll consider this performance average for the purposes of this comparison.
Coma and astigmatism ★☆☆☆☆
Coma and astigmatism are a major issue with the Nokton 1.1 until F2.8, and although it looks great afterwards it still is problematic. This is a lens that is designed to be used wide open: not good.
Sunstars ★★★★★
Sunstars are another matter altogether: all Voigtlanders use straight aperture blades and such architecture gives wonderful sunstars, 10 pointed ones in this case and really well defined. Outstanding.
Vignetting ★★★★☆
Vignetting is hefty but diminishes quickly, disappearing at F5.6. Considering the speed of this lens this is an excellent performance.
Chromatic aberrations ★☆☆☆☆
We can’t say the performance was that good in the chromatic aberrations department though, with overpowering purple fringing (PF) and Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations (LoCA) and messy corners from wide open. Not a good show in this company, even though it really improves from F4.
Flare ★★★★☆
Flare handling is excellent, I was impressed by how this lens handled strong light sources hitting its glass.
Distortion ★★☆☆☆
Distortion on the Nokton 1.1 is moderate and of the barrel type. It requires correction in some instances, making it an average performance.
Bokeh ★★☆☆☆
An ultra-fast lens like this nowadays is designed to have a good bokeh rendition. Although this lens was released when film was still a common format among photographers, it is still in production and it has to compete against designs with the bokeh philosophy. The strong outlining and quite unpleasant out of focus highlights (OOFH) in the corners at further distances make the bokeh rendering of this lens not very good. But there is a lot of it and it can be beautiful in real use. That will make it an average performance.
Portrait ★★★★☆
The lens redeems itself in the portrait performance, where it has a beautiful rendition already wide open and, as every other lens, becomes fantastic on stopping down, making it an excellent choice for studio portrait.
Final score: 31 out of 60★
Price: £699
Pros and Cons
PROS
Speed
Vignetting is quite acceptable for this speed
Flare handling real great
Sunstars are beautiful
Great for portraits
Really reasonable price
CONS
Big and heavy, viewfinder blockage
MFD of 1 metre
Heavy focus shift
Coma and astigmatism terrible until F2
Chromatic aberrations pretty intrusive till F2
Distortion can be noticeable
Bokeh is nervous and can be ugly in the corner
7Artisans 50mm F1.1
Handling and ergonomics ★★☆☆☆
This lens has the same maximum aperture as the Nokton 1.1 but it’s definitely shorter, narrower and a bit lighter. This bodes well for the ergonomics, and indeed it feels less unbalanced on the camera, a bit front-heavy but not more so than other lenses in this comparison. Its viewfinder blockage is less obtrusive than the Japanese lens. It comes with no lens hood, a common feature (or lack thereof) among the lenses in this comparison. No official hood is available either, but a £3-4 third party hood is very easy to source online and it does everything it needs to. The handling of the lens would be great if it wasn’t for the de-clicked aperture ring. I’m not sure about the reason for this choice, because this is a photographic lens and sold as such, not marketed for video. De-clicked apertures are for video work, to change the aperture, thus the exposure, smoothly during the footage. We don’t need that in photography. Actually, that is really annoying in stills shooting, because you have to get your camera off your eye and look at the lens to get the right aperture value. Even worse, the stops are unevenly spaced, and severely so, being wide apart at faster stops and clustered together after midrange. Not a great solution. The rest of the handling is good, nice and smooth focus ring although both it and the aperture one sound slightly scratchy. Build quality feels top notch, really solid, but there are a couple of issues: the focusing cam is sloped, a cheaper but slightly less precise solution for rangefinder focusing. This lens is soft enough as it is, it doesn’t need sloppy focusing. On the plus side, like all other Chinese M mount lenses manufactured by DJ-Optical (7Artisans and TTArtisan lenses are both manufactured by them), it can be calibrated at home for a specific camera with the supplied screwdriver, adding to the precision, but allowing for a much less accurate quality control in production. Indeed, I have had four DJ-Optical manufactured lenses and all needed calibration. Another issue is the protruding rear lens element, which, apart from being a potential cause of image degradation, is something you really have to be careful about when mounting the lens on the camera not to scratch the rear element and it doesn’t fit the rear lens cap if you don’t the focus ring below the 4ft mark. Nitpicking? Possibly. But I notice in use. Lastly, the red mount alignment mark, a tiny notch in the mounting flange that is difficult to find visually, invisible in low light and impossible to find with a finger like the typical Leica red raised dot. It makes you fumble when changing lenses. Overall to me this adds up to a barely average handling experience.
Infinity performance ★☆☆☆☆
Oh. My. God. That’s awful. If you want to shoot something in the distance and retain anything resembling detail stay away from this lens. Horrible.
MFD and magnification ★★☆☆☆
A different performance at close range for the 7Artisans 1.1: not very sharp or detailed wide open, it needs stopping down to F2.8 to achieve a good image rendering, but when it gets there it is good. I would say this is average.
Focus shift ★☆☆☆☆
The very nature of the Sonnar optical design induces a very high amount of focus shift. The focus plane runs away so fast as soon as you stop down that the growing depth of field (DoF) never manages to get deep enough to contain it, even at F8, never getting acceptable sharpness on the intended target. A resounding fail for a rangefinder lens. Hey, it shouldn’t be such a problem on a mirrorless camera with live view and stopped down focusing. But this is a Leica M mount lens, and as such it fails the test badly.
Coma and astigmatism ★★☆☆☆
Not a good performance until F2 but decent at F2.8. At F4 is pretty good. For a lens designed for wide open use I don’t think it is good, but it’s less dramatic than the Nokton 1.1 and more usable, making it an average performance.
Sunstars ★★☆☆☆
The 7Artisans 1.1 sports 13 outwardly rounded aperture blades giving round OOFH until F2 and faintly polygonal after that. If this is a very good architecture for the bokeh rendition, it doesn’t work as well for sunstars, which are struggling to appear until F5.6 and even then, with uneven aperture blades, they have 27 points and are smaller than the even bladed aperture lenses. This is an average sunstar performance, making it difficult to produce defined ones in real world shooting.
Vignetting ★☆☆☆☆
The worst offender in the comparison (if just by a hair) for amount of vignetting, which is severe but most importantly very abrupt in its transition, but it doesn’t deserve a single star only for that reason. The other reason for the bad rating is that there is also some colour vignetting, in the form of magenta shading on the sides, probably due to the protruding rear lens element that causes the light rays hitting the sensor to be too oblique, causing the colour shift. Also, the colour signature of the lens is not a signature, it’s a strong colour cast.
Chromatic aberrations ★★☆☆☆
If the centre cleans up from a poor performance wide open with less than a stop, becoming very good very quickly, the corners are quite nasty until F2.8. The chromatic aberrations are not the main problem in this case, the monochromatic aberrations are. After that lateral chromatic aberrations (LaCA) are marked in the corner and longitudinal ones (LoCA) can be obnoxious if there is any highlight behind dark details. Calling it an average performance is generous but compared to the Nokton 1.1 it is a bit better.
Flare ★☆☆☆☆
Ouch. A total wipeout in many instances, and it was easy to induce such dramatic flare. True, it takes a little movement to improve it but not always. And on a rangefinder lens this is a problem, because we can’t see it while shooting to correct for it. We only see it after the fact. Not good.
Distortion ★☆☆☆☆
Not a good show in the distortion department: not only the amount is considerable, but the barrel distortion also has a moustache waviness, making it extremely difficult to fully correct.
Bokeh ★★★☆☆
The bokeh at close distance gets really funky, with the 7Artisans 1.1 surprising us with multicoloured effects especially in the outer portion of the frame. The strong outlining at the wider apertures makes the bokeh quite nervous, but it can soften quite a bit closing down. The corners, especially at longer distances, are less offensive than the Nokton 1.1 ones, albeit not spectacular. All considered, the bokeh from this lens can be satisfactory.
Portrait ★★★☆☆
Wide open performance is quite ugly for me. Almost like a Lomography lens, and a look I don’t like. It reminds me of the covers of dodgy magazines from the seventies. Stopping down it gets quite good, and quickly, but so do all other lenses. It is a good performance, just don’t use it wide open.
Final score: 21 out of 60★
Price: £380 (£229 on eBay but plus import and shipping)
Pros and Cons
PROS
Speed
Really reasonable price
Ehr…oh, dear!
CONS
De-clicked aperture
Handling cumbersome in changing lenses
Horrible performance at infinity
Dramatic focus shift
Coma and astigmatism intrusive until F2
Chromatic aberrations can be intrusive till F2
Bad flare handling
Distortion is noticeable and complex
Voigtlander Nokton VM 50mm 1:1.2 Aspherical
Handling and ergonomics ★★★★☆
The Nokton 1.2 is a small lens for its specification given the optical quality. The build is fantastic, with a premium feel. The focus ring is buttery smooth and dampened, making it very easy to hit focus, with a knurling that has a fantastic tactile feeling and grip. The aperture ring is dampened and has positive detents that never move inadvertently. The balance on the camera is slightly front heavy but not noticeable in everyday use. The lens is so short that, even with its larger diameter, it hardly blocks the viewfinder at infinity. The blockage can become intrusive with its hood mounted though. Talking about the hood, there are two options and the dedicated one is ludicrously big. The smaller one is perfect. They are mounted via a bayonet design that works perfectly. This lens is excellent in this department.
Infinity performance ★★★★☆
Outstanding in the central portion of the image, it has a mid-frame dip in definition and takes a stop and a half to get excellent elsewhere, but this is an excellent performance.
MFD and magnification ★★★☆☆
The Nokton 1.2 is hindered by some uncorrected spherical aberration at MFD that robs it of definition until F4. Nothing more than a good performance.
Focus shift ★★★★☆
There is focus shift but it’s kept under control very well. Even at its worst at F2 it maintains a good level of sharpness on the intended target. This is excellent.
Coma and astigmatism ★★★★★
Outstanding performance here, at the top of the heap and remarkable control of monochromatic aberrations, that are limited to the corner and disappear quickly.
Sunstars ★★★★★
Outstanding sunstar rendering as well, thanks to the 12 straight aperture blades. The Noktons will do very well in this department.
Vignetting ★★★☆☆
Quite a strong vignetting wide open that never truly disappears. It will be irrelevant by F4, but it’s there. It might be a trade-off for the small size. A good show considering the competition, but not excellent.
Chromatic aberrations ★★★★☆
Some LoCA remains visible in the corners until F5.6 but it’s hardly noticeable and the centre is impressive. That is an excellent behaviour.
Flare ★★★★★
Outstanding. I had a really hard time making this lens flare, and even then it is moderate when it happens.
Distortion ★★★☆☆
Pincushion distortion that I never noticed in use, but it could be noticed with very straight lines. This level is just good in this comparison.
Bokeh ★★★★☆
Smooth and soft bokeh most of the time, never objectionable even at its worst. A fantastic bokeh machine, this is an excellent performer.
Portrait ★★★★☆
Rich and beautiful from wide open, not outstanding just because of the slight spherical aberration wide open. An excellent portrait lens, maybe even preferred by some because not so blistering sharp wide open.
Final score: 48 out of 60★
Price: £879
Pros and Cons
PROS
Speed
Great handling
Performance at infinity
Very low focus shift
Minimal coma and astigmatism
Beautiful sunstars
Very well controlled chromatic aberrations
Spectacular flare control
Beautiful, soft bokeh
Excellent portrait lens
CONS
Maybe if I keep testing I can find some?
Leica Summilux-M 50 f/1.4 ASPH.
Handling and ergonomics ★★★☆☆
This is a dense piece of glass and metal. It feels mostly well built, really well put together, but it falls apart with the hood for it solidity. That wonderful idea of a retractable hood is ruined in part by the flimsiness of it: it’s thin metal and the twist and lock mechanism is more of a twist and hope it doesn’t twist back mechanism. It wobbles when deploying it. At this level of construction I would like to see a slightly more solid solution. Remember, I know it’s quite clear that my copy has taken a knock on the filter ring and hood, but this is not the only lens I handled and it feels the same on uninjured copies. Still, I’m grateful for its presence. The lens is slender but quite long, and being on the heavier side it creates a front heavy balance on the camera that in actual fact does not disturb at all in everyday use. The chromed brass version is obnoxiously front heavy though. A big plus in the handling of this lens is the focus ring that sports both a knurling and a focus tab, satisfying both sides of the rangefinder focusing options. The knurling is very thin though, and exactly the same as the aperture ring. it takes time to get used to it and not get confused. Also, the smoothness of the focus ring could be better. This is due to the architecture of the lens, true, but still. The aperture ring itself has reasonably positive detents but is a bit on the loose side, and so it was on all copies I handled. Pushing the focus tab towards infinity with your pointer finger can touch and move the aperture, it happened quite a few times to me. This is one of my main gripes with Leica lenses: the aperture and focus rings are never consistent. Ever. Stiffer or looser for the aperture, always with a bit of stiction in the focus ring, making small adjustments frustrating. Not so with all other lenses, which are really consistent across the same model and in the case of Zeiss across brand. Buying a Leica lens is a lottery on the fine ergonomics. I understand that the grease in used lenses can dry up or deteriorate, but probably the Germans need to go to Japan and learn about lubricants and springs for the aperture rings, because the ones they use out there don’t dry so easily. Just a thought. Anyway, a minor but pleasant perk of the camera manufacturer’s lens is the 6-bit coding, allowing the camera to recognise the lens and record it in the exif data. For the 50mm lenses that is the only useful thing about the coding. Wide-angles are a different matter, but this is not the place for that discussion. Overall good handling, but not more than that.
Infinity performance ★★★★★
I would rate the infinity performance outstanding even in light of the mid-frame dip, which is noticeable but only important until F2.8, and the LaCA visible in the corner only if you pixel-peep.
MFD and magnification ★★★★★
Simply outstanding, fantastic detail and image quality, best magnification ratio in the comparison.
Focus shift ★★★★★
What is focus shift? The Summilux 1.4 is not aware of its existence. That floating lens group really works. Outstanding.
Coma and astigmatism ★★★★★
Outstanding again, no monochromatic aberrations to speak of.
Sunstars ★★★☆☆
The inwardly curved aperture blades struggle to produce good sunstars until F5.6. After that the 9 blades produce 18 pointed stars, rich and beautiful but smaller than the even bladed lenses. A good performance, but it’s not easy to get those sunstars out of it.
Vignetting ★★★★★
Outstanding performance, it’s at the same level of many others in the comparison until F2.8, which is excellent, but then the vignetting vanishes completely.
Chromatic aberrations ★★★☆☆
A bit of a surprise here: the Summilux 1.4 has been described by its designer as an APO lens, albeit unofficially so because of marketing reasons. APO or not, the LoCA is there and goes along with some LaCA as well. The performance is good but not excellent.
Flare ★☆☆☆☆
Oh my. What happened? I’m sure there is something not right here, the flare appearance is unnatural in a couple of shots, but it can’t account for all the dramatic flaring we have seen in the test. Also, look at the Chromatic aberrations test in the corner: the veiling flare there was impossible to ignore, and it really washed out the corner towards F8. Not good. And quite surprising for a lens that enjoys a good reputation in this department. I’ll be happy to be proved wrong with another sample. In the meantime, the lens is back with the technician for the second time to see what’s wrong.
Distortion ★★★★☆
Excellent performance with a slight pincushion distortion that will be virtually invisible.
Bokeh ★★★★☆
Touted as a bokeh champion, the Summilux 1.4 is doing well indeed but it’s not outstanding in this company. It’s no better than the Nokton 1.2 and the “ninja star” bokeh can be obnoxious at F2 and F2.8. At further distances is really good but not the softest. Nevertheless, it’s excellent.
Portrait ★★★★★
No question here, this was a test where the Summilux 1.4 was outstanding and had something over the others. It was really subtle but I did notice it and this makes it the best performer of the bunch.
Final score: 48 out of 60★
Price: £3350/3550, £2400 used
Pros and Cons
PROS
Performance at infinity is incredible, even with the mid-frame dip
MFD is astonishing
No focus shift
Coma and astigmatism are almost non-existent
Vignetting moderate and fully gone at F4
Distortion irrelevant
Bokeh is beautiful
Fantastic. There is something special there.
CONS
Flare is horrible. But I reserve to change this result if I can test another copy and verify this. Very strange.
That price!
TTArtisan M50mm f/1.4
Handling and ergonomics ★★★★☆
This lens looks like a direct competitor to the Summilux 1.4. Same specification, similar shape and both knurled ring and tab for focus.. In reality the TTArtisan 1.4 is definitely bigger and heavier, getting a bit more front heavy and starting to be noticeably so. It is well built, dense and solid, with precise tolerances. The focus ring is smooth and the knurling is wider than the Leica counterpart, making it more useful. The tab works well, it seems made of metal (plastic on the German lens). The focus is quite dampened but easy to use and precise, although not buttery smooth. The aperture ring is dampened and has detents that could be more positive but it stays in place without moving unintentionally. The lens disappears in use ergonomically if you are ok with the weight. It’s certainly not as ungainly as the Nokton 1.1, but it can’t be called svelte. Viewfinder blockage is imperceptibly more than the Summilux 1.4 even with its bigger size, thanks to the fluted profile of the barrel. Like its other Chinese cousin this lens can be calibrated at home for the camera, using the provided screwdriver. Again, this is both positive and negative: you can get the lens to focus very precisely but the quality control in the factory is less tight. I can see a money saving solution in the plastic aperture blade rail, that is also shiny and causes flare issues. Overall the lens works exceptionally well in hand and makes you forget the small drawbacks. I find it excellent.
Infinity performance ★★☆☆☆
The TTArtisan 1.4 is not optimised for infinity performance. Although good but not exceptional in the centre, the mid-frame dip in resolution is quite dramatic and never gets truly sharp there, The corners are even worse, with a good amount coma and tangential astigmatism at the larger stops. It needs F8 to get good across the frame. An average performance at best, but still better than its 7Artisans 1.1 cousin.
MFD and magnification ★★★★★
Outstanding at MFD, rivalling the Summilux 1.4 across the range. Sharp and detailed. Ok, I guess it’s optimised for close range!
Focus shift ★★★★★
Outstanding again, just a slight hesitation at F2 but almost the same as the Summilux 1.4 in this test as well, which means that focus shift is a non-issue on this lens..
Coma and astigmatism ★★★★☆
The monochromatic aberration correction is exceptional, almost up there with the best of the bunch. Wide open shows a little sagittal astigmatism and external coma and eliminates them straight away on stopping down.
Sunstars ★★★☆☆
It does produce sunstars if you twist its arm (or better the aperture ring), but it needs cajoling. Before F5.6 the sunstars are not very defined. Good but not great.
Vignetting ★★★★☆
From wide open to F2.8 it’s excellent, but then it never manages to eliminate the remaining vignetting. It’s irrelevant in real photography, but for the comparison purposes it’s there.
Chromatic aberrations ★★★★☆
Apart from the corner resolution that is not fantastic the chromatic aberrations levels are pretty well controlled, with an unobtrusive LaCA fringing in the outer two thirds of the frame. Excellent performance.
Flare ★☆☆☆☆
Flare is a sore spot for this lens. It can get wild wide open with that jagged flare from the plastic aperture rail, but it doesn’t need that to completely destroy some shots at some angles. Poor performance.
Distortion ★★☆☆☆
The pincushion distortion is visible at times and complicated by some wavy moustache distortion as well. Not as bad as the 7Artisans, but still not great.
Bokeh ★★★★☆
A very strong performance in the bokeh department, soft and beautiful most of the time. A peculiar outwards smearing of the OOFH doesn’t detract at all, but misses the fifth star because of the visible onion ring bokeh (ORB). Excellent.
Portrait ★★★★★
The portrait performance is outstanding, almost Summilux 1.4 level, and that’s quite something. Absolutely beautiful.
Final score: 43 out of 60★
Price: £285 plus import duties
Pros and Cons
PROS
Great handling
Spectacular at MFD
No focus shift to speak of!
Very low coma and astigmatism
Vignetting is moderate and unobtrusive.
Well controlled chromatic aberrations
Great looking bokeh
Outstanding rendering in portraits
Incredible price
CONS
Not optimised for infinity
Flare can be overpowering and destructive
Mild moustache distortion
Voigtlander Nokton 50mm F/1.5 Aspherical VM
Handling and ergonomics ★☆☆☆☆
I owned this lens so many times. Oh dear. I sold it in frustration as many times. On the positive side, this lens is the perfect size and weight for the Leica M platform. The balance on camera is excellent. The build quality is good if not outstanding: the aperture ring is fully knurled and easy to find and its dampening avoids any unwanted movements. The detents could be more positive though. Oh, the lens has very low viewfinder blockage without hood. That’s it for the positives. Now, if you wish to read my rant about the lens ergonomics click here. I won’t vent my frustration again here, just state the facts. This lens has horrible ergonomics. Period. The focus ring is the culprit. The design harks back to the original Voigtlander Nokton 50mm 1.5 LTM (Leica Thread Mount) made in the 1950s. The barrel design is a faithful copy of that lens and it would be nice had it been just a decoration item. In use that thin focus ring is uncomfortable, very much so. The stronger dampening makes it even more uncomfortable with those sharp angles of the knurling digging in your finger pads. The brass version is even sharper (of course I owned the brass version as well!). A resounding fail in ergonomics. To irk the user a bit more the designers decided that a vented lens hood was not a good idea. They do provide one, but it is solid and quite wide, blocking a lot more of the viewfinder than needed. Lastly, the lens changes are hindered by the hard to see little red notch in the side of the mount flange, instead of a clearly visible dot on the barrel or even better the raised dot like most other lenses here. Not good is a kind way to put it.
Infinity performance ★★★☆☆
Great performance in the central two thirds of the image with no mid-frame dip: it’s refreshing because it is a typical issue in aspherical designs and the Nokton 1.5 is aspherical. The problem is in the corners, which will clean up only after F5.6 but take F8 to get truly sharp. I’d say this is a good performance overall.
MFD and magnification ★★★☆☆
Nothing exceptional at MFD, does the job competently. Good.
Focus shift ★★☆☆☆
Noticeable focus shift robs the target of definition all the way to F5.6 and even at F8 it’s not blistering sharp. An average performance in this company.
Coma and astigmatism ★★★★☆
The monochromatic aberration control of the Nokton 1.5 is excellent overall. It can’t get the fifth star because wide open and at F2 it does show a bit of trouble in the corners, but when it cleans up it’s really good.
Sunstars ★★★★★
It’s a Voigtlander. You might have gathered now that they produce incredible sunstars.
Vignetting ★★★★★
Moderate vignetting wide open, goes away quickly and disappears at F4. Outstanding.
Chromatic aberrations ★★★☆☆
The Nokton 1.5 has trouble with purple fringing (PF), a secondary spectrum LoCA. It struggles to get rid of it until F5.6. On the other hand, no LaCA to speak of. The two things balance themselves out to give a good result.
Flare ★★★☆☆
Good performance but not exceptional in the flare department. Direct light in the frame is a bit troublesome.
Distortion ★★★☆☆
A level of barrel distortion that is not objectionable in most shooting. Good.
Bokeh ★★★☆☆
Not the softest bokeh out there but it is certainly unobtrusive, making this a good choice for blurred backgrounds although not exceptional.
Portrait ★★★★☆
Excellent performance from wide open even though there is a little spherical aberration, which might be an asset for some.
Final score: 39 out of 60★
Price: £647, £755 for silver chrome
Pros and Cons
PROS
Good coma and astigmatism control
Beautiful sunstars
Vignetting is moderate and gone at F4
Great choice for portraits
CONS
Horrible handling
Focus shift can be problematic at times
Voigtlander Nokton Vintage Line 50mm F1.5 Aspherical II VM
Handling and ergonomics ★★★★☆
This is the smallest lens of the bunch. Even shorter and slimmer than the Sonnar 1.5, which has always been on my radar for its size and ergonomics. Smaller than both the slower F2 lenses in this comparison. Does this size come at a cost? Hardly. Ergonomically this lens is a dream for me except for three details. The focus ring is tabbed, not with a knurling running around at least part of the circumference, making you slightly fumble at times to find the tabs when the camera is up to the eye. A minor annoyance but I do notice in use. The detents are firm and never move unintentionally. The second thing is the focus ring dampening, which is quite noticeable: it slows the ring down a little, but it’s buttery smooth and makes precise focusing a breeze. I really don’t notice in use but it’s worth mentioning. The third is an issue for me: the lack of a raised and visible alignment dot to align the lens when mounting it on camera. Again that tiny notch on the side of the flange. Damn historical references! You always turn the lens around to find it before mounting it, slowing your lens changes down. More fumbling. Apart from these details the lens is a dream to use and carry around, so light you don’t notice having a lens on the camera! Balance is perfect, the small size does not hinder handling, as soon as you reach for the focus ring is right there under your fingers. No viewfinder blockage, it adds some with the bayonet mounted lens hood, which I like. Excellent ergonomics, would be outstanding without those little niggles.
Infinity performance ★★★★☆
The Nokton 1.5 II has amazing corner performance all the way to the edge. The best here. It does have a mid-frame dip and the centre is not outstanding, but overall this is an excellent performance.
MFD and magnification ★★★★☆
Some uncorrected spherical aberration wide open robs the lens of some detail and a star, but from F2 it is outstanding. Overall excellent.
Focus shift ★★★★☆
Even at its worst, F2.8, there is still good sharpness in the target, unnoticeable otherwise. Excellent focus shift control.
Coma and astigmatism ★★★★☆
Excellent monochromatic aberrations control, they are hardly an issue at all.
Sunstars ★★★★★
Those 12 straight blades render really striking sunstars.
Vignetting ★★☆☆☆
This is the Nokton 1.5 II Achille’s heel. The small size and small filter size are creating a vignetting that is strong and can be obtrusive wide open in some shots. It never fully disappears. but it’s more gradual than the 7Artisans 1.1 and definitely less stopping down. For these reasons it gets one more star, reaching an average performance in this department.
Chromatic aberrations ★★★★★
Outstanding, no question. The best performer. The chromatic aberration control is fantastic.
Flare ★★★★☆
Excellent flare control, it doesn’t get the fifth star because it can bloom intensely with the light source just outside the frame.
Distortion ★★★☆☆
Pincushion distortion is moderate, possibly needing correction in exacting architectural shots.
Bokeh ★★★★★
The best of the bunch to my eyes: always less outlining than the others, the softest rendition at further distances, perfectly clean OOFH with absolutely no ORB. True, the cat’s eye bokeh (CEB) is there and can produce a little swirling but it’s minimal. The spherochromatism in the OOFH is present but hardly disturbing the image. Outstanding.
Portrait ★★★★☆
Spectacular performance in portrait, but it shows a little spherical aberration wide open that robs the subject of some sharpness. An advantage for some, not for me: I like the eyes really sharp, the rest can be softened a little later if necessary. Excellent.
Final score: 48 out of 60★
Price: £849, £899 nickel black paint version
Pros and Cons
PROS
Great handling, small and a pleasure to use
Good performance at infinity
Fantastic performance at MFD from F2
Really well controlled focus shift
Great coma and astigmatism control
Outstanding chromatic aberration handling
Excellent flare performance
Beautiful sunstars
Soft and beautiful bokeh
Great choice for portrait work
CONS
Vignetting is obtrusive
Zeiss C Sonnar T* 1.5/50 ZM
Handling and ergonomics ★★★★★
Outstanding ergonomics for the Sonnar 1.5. Well built, small and light, perfectly balanced on the camera. The focus ring is knurled and easy to find, with the perfect resistance. It has a focusing nub instead of a tab and it works perfectly (for me) as a substitute, there if you want it, invisible if you don’t. Great solution. The aperture ring has firm detents and the knurling is always easy to find even though it’s not on the full circumference. The third stop detents are just that, not positive or negative and a matter of preference. No viewfinder blockage unless you use the bayonet mounted hood. Just a pleasure to handle.
Infinity performance ★☆☆☆☆
Poor. Not much to say that’s positive: soft, worsens stopping down. The centre reaches a decent amount of detail at F8, mid-frame at F5.6, the corner never does. Not a good show.
MFD and magnification ★★☆☆☆
Soft until F4, the LoCA needs F8 to go, it’s never crisp in detail. An average performance at best.
Focus shift ★☆☆☆☆
Oh dear. That plane of focus takes off as soon as you stop down and never comes back. Not that sharp wide open, softer and softer till F8, where it is…just less soft. Not good at all. Its bad reputation for focus shift is well deserved.
Coma and astigmatism ★★☆☆☆
Pretty wild until F2, it gets a lot better at F2.8. Average.
Sunstars ★★★★☆
The curved aperture blades are giving beautiful sunstars but take a stop more than the straight bladed ones to get defined. They look excellent though.
Vignetting ★★★★☆
Moderate vignetting that never fully disappears but is irrelevant at F2.8 already. This is excellent.
Chromatic aberrations ★☆☆☆☆
Ouch. It takes F8 to clean up in the centre, never gets great in the corner with its LoCA. A poor performance.
Flare ★★★★☆
Excellent flare resistance. Really impressive, although it can bloom with the light source just outside the frame.
Distortion ★★★★☆
Hardly any distortion although what there is seems barrel shaped with a hint of moustache waviness. Irrelevant to my eyes. Excellent.
Bokeh ★★★★☆
The Sonnar 1.5 shows some outlining in its bokeh that can get a bit wiry in some areas and has some “ninja star” bokeh OOFH at F2.8, but overall the rendition is excellent.
Portrait ★★★★☆
Not the sharpest wide open, but excellent portraits in controlled light.
Final score: 36 out of 60★
Price: £919
Pros and Cons
PROS
Fantastic handling, small and a pleasure to use
Beautiful sunstars
Low vignetting
Flare control
Minimal distortion
Good bokeh
Great choice for portrait work
CONS
Infinity performance is poor
MFD is just average
Terrible focus shift
Poor coma and astigmatism control
Intrusive chromatic aberrations
Quite pricey for the performance
Leica Summicron-M 50 f/2
Handling and ergonomics ★★★★★
Outstanding ergonomics, the best of the bunch. Fantastic build quality. Built like a tank, feels great in the hand, perfect size for the camera and great balance. The knurled focus ring resistance is low and perfect, the knurled aperture ring has positive detents and moves only when asked to. Built in hood, minimal viewfinder blockage. Issues? Of course, no lens is perfect. The hood is solid in construction but flimsy and not locking in use. The wretched Leica focus ring stiction is there. Nevertheless, a pleasure to use.
Infinity performance ★★☆☆☆
This is a hard one. Wide open and at F2.8 not good, then sharp as tack in the centre from F4. Less stellar in mid-frame and the corner, but this copy has a problem and I have to take that into account. I will change my assessment if I manage to try a copy that actually reaches infinity focus. I’d call it average as it is.
MFD and magnification ★★★★★
Just outstanding. Largest magnification like its Summilux 1.4 sibling, spectacular detail and image quality from wide open.
Focus shift ★★☆☆☆
A lot more than expected, the target gets a bit softer at F4 and at F8 it isn’t crisp yet. An average performance.
Coma and astigmatism ★★★★☆
Excellent performance for monochromatic aberrations that are moderate wide open and disappear very quickly.
Sunstars ★★★★☆
Sunstars appear just a bit later than on the straight bladed lenses, and only have 8 points, but they are excellent nevertheless.
Vignetting ★★★☆☆
Moderate vignetting that takes until F5.6 to disappear. Good but not spectacular.
Chromatic aberrations ★★★★☆
Excellent performance for chromatic aberration control, shame that those extreme corners never clean up.
Flare ★★★☆☆
Really good flare control for a lens with a bad reputation in this department. But don’t put the light just outside of the frame.
Distortion ★★★★★
No distortion. None. Outstanding. ‘Nuff said.
Bokeh ★★★☆☆
Outlining wide open robs the background of smoothness and the octagonal OOFH are not that wonderful, but the bokeh rendition is still pretty good.
Portrait ★★★★★
Outstanding, just beautiful from wide open, the portrait sparkles.
Final score: 45 out of 60★
Price: £2050
Pros and Cons
PROS
Spectacular ergonomics, a bliss to use
Fantastic performance at MFD
Great coma and astigmatism control
Excellent chromatic aberration handling
No distortion. Amazing
Beautiful sunstars
Absolutely splendid rendering for portrait
CONS
Infinity performance - but I think this copy is defective!
Focus shift is not tamed
That price!
Zeiss Planar T* 2/50 ZM
Handling and ergonomics ★★★★★
Outstanding ergonomics like the Sonnar 1.5. Well built, small and light, perfectly balanced on the camera. The focus ring is knurled and easy to find, with the perfect resistance. It has a focusing nub instead of a tab and it works perfectly (for me) as a substitute, there if you want it, invisible if you don’t. Great solution. The aperture ring has firm detents and the knurling is always easy to find even if not on the full circumference. The third stop detents are just that, not positive or negative and a matter of preference. No viewfinder blockage unless you use the bayonet mounted hood. Just a pleasure to handle. Yes, I did copy and paste from the Sonnar 1.5: it’s exactly the same ergonomics and build quality, just slightly longer and slimmer.
Infinity performance ★★★★☆
Excellent performance across the frame, it just needs to stop down to F2.8 to excel.
MFD and magnification ★★★★☆
Excellent performance at MFD but not quite the best here.
Focus shift ★★☆☆☆
Average performance, actually worse than the Summicron at medium apertures. A surprise.
Coma and astigmatism ★★★★☆
Excellent handling of the monochromatic aberrations as soon as it’s stopped down, good wide open.
Sunstars ★★★★★
Beautiful and well defined
Vignetting ★★★★☆
Moderate wide open and disappears quickly. Excellent.
Chromatic aberrations ★★☆☆☆
A little struggle with LoCA fringing makes its performance just average in this company.
Flare ★★★★☆
Excellent flare control, few weak points.
Distortion ★★☆☆☆
The barrel distortion can disturb at times, relegating it to an average level.
Bokeh ★★★★☆
Outlining wide open robs the background of smoothness but the bokeh rendition is still quite excellent.
Portrait ★★★★☆
Excellent portrait rendering from wide open.
Final score: 44 out of 60★
Price: £649
Pros and Cons
PROS
Fantastic ergonomics, a joy to handle
Excellent at infinity
Excellent performance at MFD
Coma and astigmatism are controlled well
Beautiful sunstars
Low vignetting
Great flare resistance
Beautiful bokeh
Excellent portrait rendering
CONS
Focus shift is not well controlled
Chromatic aberrations can disturb the image
Distortion can be bothersome
Let’s see a comparison grid with the star ratings, final score and price all in one place. Of course you can click on it to enlarge, or click here for an even larger version.
Conclusions at last!
I have no idea which route you took to get here, but if you read the whole thing I salute you. That was a lot of reading! Thanks for such dedication! if you skipped through the articles using the summaries it is still a good chunk of reading, well done! And if this is the only page you have bothered to read or skim through, I hope the information is still enough to be useful: I tried to cater to every approach.
This comparison has ben a rollercoaster for me, it’s been a huge amount of work and so many hours I don’t want to think about it, but it’s been also fun and very interesting. If you suffer from bouts of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) this is the best way to cure it: I can’t think of a better way to make an informed decision than to try all your options together and compare them. Is that feasible normally? Of course not! But If you can it’s a blast.
So, what can we conclude then from all of this testing?
I think the main three things are:
We have a fantastic range of choices
No lens is even close to perfect
The price and absolute performance ratio is all over the place
Let’s look at the score related to the price (in the case of the 7Artisans I’m using the UK price, because the importer is official and the eBay item is grey market. The TTArtisan only has the option to buy from China, so I listed that price). From highest to lowest score:
48★ for the Nokton 1.2 - £879
48★ for the Summilux 1.4 - £3350/3550
48★ for the Nokton 1.5 II - £849/899
45★ for the Summicron F2 - £2050
44★ for the Planar F2 - £649
43★ for the TTArtisan 1.4 - £285 plus import duties
39★ for the Nokton 1.5 - £647/755
36★ for the Sonnar 1.5 - £919
31★ for the Nokton 1.1 - £699
21★ for the 7Artisans 1.1 - £380
Two things seem clear to me: two of the best scoring lenses are the latest from Voigtlander which also are two of the three newest lenses. Technology is going forward and these optics are getting stellar.
The second thing is this: the other two highest scores are the Leicas, the most expensive lenses by far. But also the only two lenses with issues that seem to need repair. Without those issues I am confident the they would have scored even higher. But probably by just one star. This means that they aren’t really better than the much cheaper Voigtlanders, they are just different. Which brings us back to the law of diminishing returns. The consensus in much of the Leica community is that the Leicas are inherently better lenses and the Voigtlanders are the cheap options that give you enough performance if you can’t afford the real thing. The Zeiss offerings are considered better than the Voigtlander counterparts. This comparison seems to discredit those beliefs. The latest Noktons are as good as the Leicas. Period. Different strengths and weaknessess on both sides, but equals. At a fraction of the price. The Zeiss lenses in this comparison are two completely different concepts: the modern and the classic, with a vastly different type of performance.
The Planar F2 is not at the Summicron F2 level by just one star out of sixty and it costs less than a third of the Leica: the law of diminishing returns is fully at play here: you pay over three times as much for 2.2% more performance. Maybe, if after repair the Summicron F2 gains one or even two stars, it is 6.7% at most. Is it worth it? I don’t think so. Will you notice in real life? No. Nobody will notice, especially your audience.
A real surprise is the TTArtisan 1.4: it’s the cheapest lens in the comparison and quite a high scorer. That is really impressive. Where the difference with more expensive lenses is felt is in the balance of performance: if flare can be a real issue even on really expensive lenses (I’m thinking of the Leica APO-Summicron-M 2/50, that has a little flare issue and is the crown jewel of the Leica M system, with a price to match), the poor performance at infinity tells that the designers sacrificed that aspect to get such stellar performance in other departments. But such a strong contender at such a low price commands attention and respect for what the up and coming lens designers and manufacturers from China have to offer. And at ridiculously low prices compared to the competition from Japan and Germany, I might add.
Talking about Chinese lenses, the 7Artisans 1.1 is the low scorer and by far. Personally, I find it a terrible lens. I would never choose to own it. It has ghastly performance across the board with a few barely decent areas and a likeable bokeh. On the other hand there is quite a number of voices on the web and in the Leica community praising the lens and its rendering. I find it a Lomography kind of lens. It’s beautiful to see how different our opinions can be.
The Sonnar 1.5 is another conundrum for me. Optically it is not great at all. It is 89 years old and it shows. the modern barrel design makes it one of the best in handling though. I don’t like how it renders very much, I don’t find the bokeh exceptional at all, I find the horrible focus shift a complete deal breaker for me. But the Sonnar 1.5 has a cult following for its rendering and especially its bokeh. Go figure.
A surprise for me has been the Nokton 1.5: it scored a lot lower than expected. It’s overall a good lens but not that exceptional in this company. The Nokton 1.5 II is definitely a better lens. But before this comparison I had no complaints at all regarding the optics of the Nokton 1.5, it has reliably given me fantastic results even if I never liked the handling. What does this tell us? Possibly that all this work and the hours I put into this comparison were wasted. Just get one lens that works and get out shooting, stop measurbating in front of the screen. Most of these lenses will give you great results: if you actually do photography instead of fondling gear and pixel-peeping you don’t care about the small differences. Because the overall differences are very small in real use. Really small.
We haven’t mentioned the Nokton 1.1: the score was low. It’s an ultra-fast lens with a spherical design at a great price. It shows. But for what it is I think it rocks. It is scoffed at a lot in the Leica inner circles, but I think that if it had a Leica badge instead of Voigtlander it would be worshipped. It is very curious how dated, poor performers with a Leica badge have a cult following and that is raving about their character like the “Leica glow”, which is nothing else that uncorrected spherical aberration, the “classic bokeh”, that is simply bad, nervous bokeh, the “gentle rendering”, that is poor sharpness and low contrast, and so on. But when the lens is manufactured by another brand those are all damning defects that prove the absolute superiority of the divine German optics. Again, go figure.
Finally, let’s talk about those two Noktons with the high score. They are just wonderful lenses to handle and give wonderful results. They are far from perfect but they are very well balanced, offering two very different options for a difference of only two thirds of a stop of light gathering capabilities. They both lack the Summilux 1.4 FLE system and it shows at close distance, but as soon as you stop down that difference disappears, and they show other strengths. Either one can be your only 50mm. Hell, they can be your only lens! I wouldn’t complain. But so can be many others in the comparison.
So, who is the winner? There isn’t one!
As I said, no winner here. Just a different set of compromises, and none in some cases.
Low budget? Get the TTArtisan 1.4
Medium budget and balanced performance: Nokton 1.5 or Planar F2
Slightly higher budget and no compromises: Nokton 1.2 or Nokton 1.5 II
Your money is burning a hole in you pocket: either Leica is great. Plan a repair if used
Classic look? Nokton 1.1 or Sonnar 1.5
Lomography style? The 7Artisans 1.1
I think you might be starting to see where I’m going with my choice, aren’t you?
So, what did I choose?
My final choice was between two lenses: the Nokton 1.2 and the Nokton 1.5 II. They are equally fantastic lenses. They don’t compromise in optical quality, handling and build quality. And they are priced right.
If you need/want speed at any cost the Nokton 1.2 is just unbeatable: so much quality in so small a package for the speed.
If you want portability and lightness without compromising in speed the Nokton 1.5 II is the choice.
I went for portability and lightness. When I said that if they made a lens with the optics of the Nokton 1.5 and the barrel/ergonomics of the Sonnar 1.5 it would be my desert island lens I meant it. they did that and more: the optical quality is better, the ergonomics almost there.
The Nokton 1.5 II is my desert island lens.
I will leave you with two main concepts that I mentioned just above but want to reiterate because they deeply resonate with me:
The latest Noktons are as good as the Leicas. Period. And at a fraction of the price.
Let’s stop worshipping the Leica lenses because of their price or their heritage. They are not the top of the heap anymore and the prices don’t reflect the quality compared to the competition. The competition chooses to be price conscious and they cater to price conscious customers, but there is no compromise in quality. Just a different balance of characteristics. The Voigtlanders command respect, even more with the latest products.
Most of these lenses will give you great results: if you actually do photography instead of fondling gear and pixel-peeping you don’t care about the small differences.
Photography is an endeavour that produces images. Those images beg to be seen by an audience, from your partner/mum/dad/sibling to the potential buyer of a print. Nobody in that audience will ever comment on the quality of the bokeh, the corner sharpness or how free of chromatic aberrations that branch is. They will look at the content. If the image moves them in some way, they will experience an emotional response. That is the ultimate success of a photograph. What camera, lens, post-production software you used doesn’t matter one bit. The image does. Let’s use the information like what you find in this comparison for enjoyment or academic interest, or to just choose the right tool for ourselves and then let’s go shoot. Let’s craft images. Let’s stir emotions in our audience.
Thank you for reading. Feel free to comment, ask questions, correct me if I made a mistake. Keep in touch.
Flavio
Previous comments:
I have all the lenses you mention except for the Chinese ones, plus the Apo-Summicron F2, the Summilux F1.4 in the earlier spherical version, and several dozen more 50mm lenses made for the M over the last 70 years, and agree that the new Nokton F1.5 is a fantastic lens for the price, in practical use as sharp and clear as any Leica lens, though not the exact equal. The Planars and Sonnars one chooses when emphasis on the center and some fall-off are desired, or when you want softness in a portrait. In those situations it is not about sharpness. It wasn't so long ago that vignetting and fall-off were expected features for certain types of photos.
Flavio Admin Jonathan • 9 days ago
Thanks for your comment! In what way is the Nokton 1.5 II not the exact equal?. I see what you mean about choosing Planars and Sonnars. Fact is, my requirement for a lens is transparency, so I can give character to the content of the image and not leave that to the lens. But that’s me!
Also, most of us are not shooting film anymore: if a lens is too sharp for the skin blemishes is can be softened a little in post, but the eyes can be very sharp and “jump out of the picture”. I don’t do studio portrait normally and my genre is Street and Documentary photography, so my needs will be different than those of others. There is a lot of subjectivity certainly in choosing a lens.Jonathan Flavio • 9 days ago • edited
Wide open, the Summuilux F1.4 asph definitely has a bit less glow, and better sharpness carried out to the corners, than the Voigtlander F1.5 asph. Here are two pictures where you can see the difference. Not perfect subject matter for comparison, but the difference is there. I included a few other photos in the folder as well, they are all F1.5 or greater. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/...
Does the discussion allow dropbox links?
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/...
Here are a bunch of lenses F1.4 and greater, all used at F1.4. The Summicron ASPH definitely has less glow and better sharpness when used wide open. The difference diminishes as you stop it down.Flavio Admin Jonathan • 9 days ago • edited
Hi Jonathan, my comparison is based on way, way more parameters than just wide open sharpness. As I said above, the lenses have different strengths and weaknesses. Wide open sharpness is a strength of the Summilux 1.4, although I am not convinced at all that is is better in the corner. Actually, my findings in the testing are that the Nokton 1.5 II might be even a hair sharper in the far edge at infinity, although it has a bit more spherical aberration (AKA glow) in the centre of the frame. But we are really nitpicking here, my test shots are enormously enlarged. I checked the shots and to see the difference you are talking about we have to enlarge to 100% size. Aren't we again pixel-peeping? And this is just a single parameter. The Summilux is not a superior lens across the board. It is up there, but not better than the Nokton 1.5 II or the Nokton 1.2.
Bastian Kratzke • 9 days ago • edited
Well carried out comparison!
The only thing I miss is sharpness at portrait distance (~25x focal length), an area where I found not only big but also actually meaningful differences between different lenses.
We mostly agree on the lenses that I have also used (CV 1.2/50, CV 1.5/50 MKI, TTA 1.4/50) and I guess we would agree on the other ones as well.
I am one of those who are not really bothered by the 1.5/50 MK I focus ring though, never understood why people hate it so much.
Yet I can't stand the look of the latest CV 1.5/50 MK II. I prefer the all black design of the 1.7/35, 1.5/50 MKI and 1.5/75 "era".
When looking for a small and lightweight 50mm lens for my M10 my weight limit was ~200g which unfortunately ruled out the CV 1.2/50 as well as the TTA 1.4/50, both great lenses, the TTA with astounding price/performance ratio.
That "longer FL double gauss coupled with speedbooster rear group"-design of the TTA is one that allows to combine great sharpness and bokeh, unfortunately it drives the element count up and the double gauss part elements are not that small either, which is ultimately reflected by the weight.
I have - for now - settled for a rather exotic and flawed alternative, the MS-Optics 50mm 1.0 ISM.
A lens with plenty of issues and not exactly your "every day 50" (mainly because it is unusable for infinity shooting). For portraiture a rather shitty f/1.0 lens, but a decent f/1.4 lens, at least for what I want to use it for. Not as good as the TTA at f/1.4, but less than half the weight, so I am willing to live with that.
Flavio Admin Bastian Kratzke • 9 days ago
Bastian, thanks for your contribution! I had read somewhere about the “ longer FL double gauss coupled with speedbooster rear group" design of the TTArtisan but certainly hadn’t remembered about it when writing up.
The portrait session is shot at almost exactly the distance you mention! If my math is not an opinion 25x50mm=1250mm, which is 1.25m and almost to the centimetre the distance for the portrait series!
I am amused by the fact that I have such a visceral response to the Nokton 1.5 mk1 and you just don’t see the issue. I wish I was as unfazed by it as you are, I would have stopped running around for my ideal lens long ago and settled on it. It’s still a great optic.
The look of the Nokton 1.5 mk2? I agree that is could be cleaner, like the Sonnar 1.5, but what is so ugly? Not a criticism, mind you, I do find that the looks of the lens count in part for me: I like a beautiful item. But I can’t say I find it polarising at all.
I advise you to try a black Nokton 1.5 mk2 just for kicks: you might realise it’s exactly what you were looking for. 198g and a hell of a lens.Bastian Kratzke Flavio • 9 days ago
I despise the look of all of the lenses that get thinner towards the front element.
Purely subjective, obviously, but I cannot help it.
This is not limited to the 1.5/50 MK II but also applies to the 1.4/50 Asph vintage, most of the 2.8/90 Elmarits, older 4/135 Tele Elmars and surely a few more.
With the 1.5/50 MK II Cosina also revived the focus ring design of the Topcor-S 2/50, clearly for reasons I do not understand.
I might still give it a try if I come across a cheap used one some day though.
But I mainly keep the M10 for the cool look anyway, so I don't want to use a lens that does not appeal to me cosmetically.Flavio Admin Bastian Kratzke • 9 days ago
I do agree that the tapering lenses are not that attractive, but at least they don’t hinder the handling! I had the 50 Lux ver III and loved it. I didn’t mind at all its shape, it made it smaller and reduced the viewfinder blockage.
As you say, I can’t fathom why Cosina is so bent on reviving old barrel designs to the detriment of ergonomics. It makes no sense, especially given such high and modern optical quality.astrostl Bastian Kratzke • 7 days ago
“I despise the look of all of the lenses that get thinner towards the front element.”
YES! I'm glad I'm not the only one. This is the biggest knock of the Fuji G MF system for me, like 80% of those damned lenses are tapered.
What about TTA 50mm f/0.95?)
I have only Planar ZM of 50mm lenses.
Flavio Admin Mark • 8 days ago
Hello Mark, I reviewed the TTA 0.95 some time ago and was’t wowed by it. Have a look at the review! Plenty of people like it though.
Thank you, yes I read the whole article here) May be Mitakon 50mm f/0.95 leica m...
Just thinking about 0.95 for some purposes. In Russia often cloudy & dark winters)
Great review. Well done.
Flavio Admin Akiva Shapero • 6 days ago
Thank you!
Lars Harrekilde-Petersen • 4 days ago
Thanks for the thorough, detailed and encompassing review. You did a great job!
I have bought and sold the Nokton f/1.5 and 7Artisans f/1.1, while I use, love and adore the Nokton f/1.2 Asph VM. I find the Nokton f/1.2 to be a _stellar_ allround lens. Usually I try to buy my lenses used because I often end up selling them a few years later and want to keep the loss at a minimum. However, that Nokton f/1.2 has hit a home run for me being both super fast, super sharp stopped down and very compact for what it is, so no worries about a potential loss when selling it because I won't! It does loose some contrast and details at short focus distance, but adding a weak achromatic close-up lens like the Leitz Elpro 4 (+0.75 diopter) or especially the Tokina AT-X (+0.4 diopter) takes care of the weakness at short distance - if and when needed.
Flavio Admin Lars Harrekilde-Petersen • 2 hours ago
Thank you for the kind words.
And thank you for the tip about the diopter! I will definitely be looking into it for my Nokton 1.5 II, it has the same slight weakness wide open at short distance.
Enjoy that Nokton 1.2, it's a fantastic lens.