The Voigtl&#228;nder Nokton classic 35mm F1.4 for E-Mount ships in February, will cost $750

More uneducated comments in here. We're talking about 35mm lenses, so saying it's a boring FOV versus 12mm is , to be honest, uneducated.

IMHO the 35mm focal length can be broadly divided into two groups. Manual focus lenses tend to be smaller and lighter, auto focus lenses tend to be larger and more expensive. However, the primary driver of size is aperture.

Then there's classic versus modern character. Neither right or wrong, just different.

I'm looking for a smaller manual focus lens that will yield amazing results in my eyes. Like some, I'm gravitating towards Voigtlander, Leica and Zeiss. Once I find my holy grail I'll sell all my other 35's except the Zeiss 1.4.

One person has labelled these lenses as collectors items for rich people. Comments that are of no use to any of us as they don't help and are profoundly ignorant.

Be constructive and helpful and if you can't... read, listen and learn. Honestly, it's a part of becoming a better photographer.

Dec 22, 2017permalink

Boeing skipper

It looks very well built ... and compact!

Dec 22, 2017permalink

andriyka

Is it for APS-C matrix cameras or for full frame? E.g. is it possible to use it for Sony a6x00 APS-C cameras?

Dec 21, 2017permalink

You can use it on the A6x00 bodies, just don't expect it to set any resolution records when shot wide open.

The image quality will be higher on an FF body, but if you like the 35mm field of view on APS-C, this will work just fine. Value for money is maybe not superb in this application, though.

Dec 21, 2017*permalink

andriyka

Thanks. Does it mean for A6x00 bodies FF equiv. of this lens will be 35mm * 1.5 Sony APS-C crop factor = 55 mm?

Dec 21, 2017permalink

Correct. It will have the same field of view as 52.5mm lens mounted on a full-frame body.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

Andre JF

Looking foreward to a compare between new and old version. I've got the old m-mount and must say there is definately room for improvements...

Dec 21, 2017permalink

RStyga

Way to go Kobayashi!!

Dec 21, 2017permalink

Sutlore

very interesting lens. I wondered how much it has improved from the classic Nokton M after Voiglander set a new price tag.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

S Yu

This is genuinely interesting because of how compact it is, only I'm still a little more interested in the M mount version because of the possiblity of AF.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

cosinaphile

very nice

i approve....well of course i do

Dec 20, 2017permalink

ml6

So this lens allows me to use about 10% of my camera's abilities. At half the camera price. Where's the point? For $200 I get an optically excellent lens (Sigma 60/2.8) that uses about 75% of my camera's abilities.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

User3397642960

Are you [somehow] claiming that a 60mm lens is equivalent to a 35mm lens?

Apples and oranges.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

I don't even understand what you're trying to suggest.

And what body are you even using?

This lens covers FF, the 60mm/f2.8 only covers APS-C.

And this is 2 (!) full stops faster. That's bigger than the difference between a 1" compact and your APS-C Sony.

And it's a wide-normal instead of a short telephoto.

I just...I don't even understand this comparison. It's just wacky.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

CosminMunteanu

Before AF there was no photography, huh?! :))

Dec 21, 2017permalink

Maybe there needs to be a compulsory intelligence test before people can post.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

Andre JF

So you clame your camera is 90% af and 10% image quality. Dude I dont know what camera you got, but I sugest you either learn to use it or you get a new one with descent image quality ...

Dec 21, 2017permalink

Dr_Jon

The reviews of the Leica version seems decent, E.g.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/02/the-voigtlander-nokton-35-1-4-mc-lens-review/
http://www.martinirwinphotography.com/reviews/voigtlnder-nokton-classic-35mm-f14-review
"This lens is fairly sharp. Sharp wide open in the centre, and very sharp when stopped-down to f/11. I don't tend to use the lens for landscape very often, but when I do, I really like the results. In short, I don't think that sharpness will define whether you get this lens or not, it'll boil down to other qualities (such as bokeh and ergonomics)."

Dec 20, 2017permalink

dansclic

Nothing to do with this’version : sensor technologies are different, so you cannot compare and even so not with huff.s « reviews » which are actually no scientific based reviews.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

Dr_Jon

Sensor technologies really aren't that different when it comes to the lens unless the cover glass is a different size...

Dec 20, 2017permalink

DVT80111

Is this made from the same factory that churns out the Loxia 35/2?

Dec 20, 2017permalink

rialcnis

This is must have for E Mount.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

brendon1000

Why ??? Its a soft lens with tons of flaws at a pretty price. If you want something soft and unsharp there are plenty of old lenses you can adapt

Dec 20, 2017permalink

Dr_Jon

Steve Huff said of the Leica version:
When shot at 1.4 it is sharp but with a “glow”. He also liked the subject separation:
"http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/minstr3d.jpg"

Dec 20, 2017permalink

dansclic

Older Wide angle lenses with old designs are not recommanded for modern cameras. Again, the Leica version has nothing to do with this E mount version. All sensible people know that it is risky to adapt Leica M lenses either on Sony or even on Fuji cameras. Buy original lenses !

Dec 20, 2017permalink

brendon1000

^^ You say it has nothing to do with the Leica version but voigtlander says it's adapted from the Leica version and the optical formula, MFD are all same.

I think other than some tweaks to work better with the Sony sensor it's still the same Leica lens. But now it has to work with higher MP sensor.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

Kashim

What's with all these crappy "classic" lenses they keep bringing back lately at exorbitant prices? Who is this garbage for? Rich collectors or something?

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Expensive? Surely you never owned a Voigtlander. It's cheap for the IQ and build quality. The Zeiss Loxia range is much more expensive. Garbage? LOL Best lenses for anyone shooting manual.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

couchpotato

The Ultron 35mm f1.7 is a gem, but not the 35mm f1.4. Unless Voigtlander somehow changes the optical formula for the new E mount version.

Dec 19, 2017*permalink

Everythingis1

Rich collectors are exactly who these lenses are for.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

Some really uninformed comments here, but what's new? I am neither rich or a collector, but will be buying this lens (or the 1.7 Ultron) let me explain why for the uninformed.

1) IQ - Voigtlander sits up there with Leica and Zeiss producing some of the best lenses we can buy. However, theirs are significantly lower price.

2) Size - At about 250g it is way smaller than my Sony Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4.

3) Price - This is cheap versus other 35mm f1.4 lenses

4) The MF experience on a Sony a7 body - I love it!

Kashim and Everythings1, you might want to try using these types of lenses before pouring out poorly thought through comments.

Rob

Dec 20, 2017*permalink

Where are you finding a cheaper 35mm/f1.4 that weighs 250g?

Heck, this is literally $350 cheaper than the Nikkor Ai-s 35mm/1.4 that is available brand new, and is basically a 40 year old lens. MF only, of course. And 50% bigger and heavier to go with the price tag.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

brendon1000

Please don't compare this lens to a Sony 35mm f1.4. The Sony is sharp while this isn't. Its a soft lens and not a great performer.

If you buy it then its for the rendering or weight definitely not for sharpness which this lens lacks.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

I don't think that Leica and Voigtlander are sitting up there with modern Zeiss optics.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

User3397642960

Too damned emotive for my taste—‘garbage’? Have you used this lens?

Dec 20, 2017permalink

Michiel953

The Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4 for F-mount is quite good, not crap at all, and compares well to the 50/1.2 AiS.
I have to say I sue them mainly on b&w 400ISO film, where they both excel.

Why would this 35mm be any worse?

Dec 20, 2017permalink

MSchue

I have some question marks too: I have bought the Alpha-7 exactly for this use case: I got several fine Rollei/Zeiss primes (1,4/35 Distagon, 1,4/85 Planar) from my father and I wanted to use these lenses.
In the end with all of these primes: You are really pretty slow. They are OK for landscape or architecture, but critical for portraits and nearly unusable for any kind of moving objects.

And eBay is full of such glasses - why buy new ones?

Probably I don't get the point neither...

Dec 20, 2017permalink

"Kashim and Everythings1, you might want to try using these types of lenses before pouring out poorly thought through comments."

Now there is a radical thought.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

"I don't think that Leica and Voigtlander are sitting up there with modern Zeiss optics."

So much ignorance in one short remark.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

"So much ignorance in one short remark." - Please explain.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

Everythingis1

I have tried many of these lenses, manual focus + expensive makes them for rich (or just money unconsciousness) collectors only.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

Again, where are you finding a cheaper 35mm/f1.4 lens with autofocus?

Anyone? Anyone?

A Sigma ART 35mm/1.4 is the cheapest around, and it's $900. Plus a $250 MC-11 AF adapter.

So now you're at $1150, and a weight of 790g. That's $400 more, and 3x (!) the weight.

"Just for rich collectors." Absurd.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

@Androole
Samyang/Rokinon 35/1.4 is only $400.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

The two questions I posed in this thread:

"Where are you finding a cheaper 35mm/f1.4 that weighs 250g?"

And:

"Where are you finding a cheaper 35mm/f1.4 lens with autofocus?"

The Samyang 35/1.4, good as it is, fulfils neither of those criteria. It's a manual focus beast that weighs 710g.

Some people are happy to pay $350 more for less than half the weight. That doesn't make them just "rich collectors" who are "not conscious of money."

Dec 21, 2017permalink

I wasn't answering your question :). I'm just saying that Samyang costs as much as the difference between those two options you were trying to compare.
I don't really care how small is this antique, manual, soft lens, or how much it costs. Lomography is not my thing :). At least Samyang can produce a decent quality image. And there is AF version for Sony E. It's a bit lighter and smaller, but twice the price ($800).
Now, about that question ... there is $600 M-mount Nokton 35/1.4 (200g), which can be used with the Leica-to-E-mount AF adapter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp48vm8dOnk

Sometimes lenses are small just because they are cheap, even if the price says differently.

Dec 22, 2017*permalink

Everythingis1

@Androole Yes, it does make them "rich collectors" who are "not conscious of money".

Dec 22, 2017permalink

jennajenna

such a boring fov. where's the 12mm?

Dec 19, 2017permalink

On sale for a while. Google it before commenting. You have several FE Voigtlander's for sale right now. 10mm, 12mm, 15mm, 40mm, 65mm and soon this 35mm.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

thx1138

Also there is the Laowa 12 f/2.8 Zero-D, 15 f/2 Zero-D. The E mount has a ton of choice for primes.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

Not only does your remark show a lack of awareness of what is available, it also reveals that you need gimmicks (ultra wide angle) to find photography interesting, rather than learning how to use any field of view in an interesting and visionary way.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

There is nothing more boring and tiresome than a 12mm lens. You take 10 photos with it and get tired of the "special effect".... just my opinion of course.

Dec 23, 2017permalink

Becksvart

In the same price range as the new Samyang AF FE 35 1,4, which is about as large and heavy as the Sony 35 1,4, which is significantly more costly.

I look forward to seeing comparisons between this, the Samyang and the Loxia 35/2. From what we see right now it seems attractive to me. MFD is 3cm, again like the Samy.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

tkbslc

Which there was just a small and affordable 35mm f2 with AF.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Becksvart

Yes, an oft-repeated wish as of late. Maybe Sigma?

Personally I'm okay with 2,8 for convenience and 1,4 for bokeh. Small and AF and f/2 is the 28/2 which I really like. Yes there's still a 35/2 AF-sized hole but it has well defined edges. But maybe Sigma.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

osv

x2 on a small affordable 35/2 with af.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Small 35/2 for a Sony - Summicron. Affordable, not so sure :-)

Dec 20, 2017permalink

Edgar_in_Indy

Not to mention the lack of AF...

Dec 20, 2017permalink

@Edgar_in_Indy err that's the whole point. No AF, just full mechanical manual lenses that some photographers love and use with great success. With all the advantage in design and build quality that a manual lens permits.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

TonyPM

E mount only? Not FE?

Dec 19, 2017permalink

sebbe

Dec 19, 2017permalink

trungtran

What is the Sony Fe mount? My Sony only says e mount

Dec 19, 2017permalink

tkbslc

There's only E mount. Sony brands their lenses that are full frame with an FE naming convention, but they are still E mount lenses.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

TonyPM

Thanks!

Thats better.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

EcoR1

I have multiple times corrected even dpreviews editors for their usage of term: ”FE-mount”. Can you now see what you have done. People get confused. Are you happy now editors?

Dec 19, 2017permalink

E-mount is the mount, but the designation FE is for Full Frame E-Mount.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Thoughts

Did Voigtlander sack the guy who designed latest 35mm f1.7 and 50mm f1.5? These new lenses' design is very underwhelming.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

guyfawkes

Why would you wish for someone to lose their job just because you didn't like the design of a lens and which, in all probability, you wouldn't be buying anyway? Just a thought.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Those are under the Vintage design while the FE lenses that we get are all in the classic design. Different designs but the same commitment and quality we love.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

CCD FTW

No, he's saying those two lenses are their best designs, so why they haven't released those two for E-Mount and instead these 'classic' series instead.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

Sure, but they are part of another set, Vintage. I would wait for Voigtlander's upcoming lens roadmap while finishing the classic setup. The "new" 35mm isn't like the old M 35mm variants, at least that's what Voigtlander is saying. They already gave us a 35mm, 40mm, and a 65mm, that's 3 lenses to the other 3 that we already got. Not bad, 6 new native lenses for a company like Voigtlander while delivering more to the M system. That's really something for a company the size of Cosina. I'm sure more will come in 2018, meanwhile, shoot with whatever you like. I use both the 35mm f 1.7 and 50mm f 1.5 in my work and never went native with the Sony's (A7+A7RII). Plus the close-up adapter gives something more.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

Thoughts

I was commenting on the fact all the E mount lenses (10,12,35,40 and 65mm) from voigtlander so far all look chunkier (than their Leica equivalents). And it is a probably a conscious decision to differentiate their product lines. No one will disagree though 35 f1,7 and 50 f1.5 are the best in terms of design, does it matter if lenses look big and fat ? Maybe not to all. Not all my lenses are pretty. I do wish Voigtlander would not sack anyone because of my view.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

ClassicPhotoLearner

FR mounts are larger than Leica equiv because they Lso include the additional flange distance an adapter would add.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

CCD FTW

Their design (exterior) is based more around their lenses for SLRs than for RF cameras. I have the 50/1.5 (new, had older LTM as well) and honestly they look nice, but are not comfortable to use. The 35/1.2, 75/1.8, 21/1.8 and these new E-Mounts all seem far better for a usability perspective. This lens is not chunky by any stretch, it’s actually smaller than the 35/1.7 while also being faster.

Dec 21, 2017permalink

tkbslc

So why would you get this instead of adapting the existing M-mount pancake one that is actually cheaper?

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Thoughts

Because the Sony sensor is different from Leica's with thicker filter

Dec 19, 2017permalink

The Davinator

I love my Ultron 35 f/1.7. Simply a beautiful lens.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

guyfawkes

+1 for the 35 f/1.7.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Beside EXIF you will also gain better compatibility to the mount. No matter how good your adapter is you will always have a loss compared to a native lens. And since there's connection to the body the I.S will detect the lens your using maintaining a 100% use of it.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

ZeBebito

The corners of any wide m-mount lens with a Sony full frame camera sucks.

Dec 20, 2017permalink

HandelT

Would be worth it over the LM version if the aperture is automatic. I don't like having to stop down the aperture to shot.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

technotic

A shame it doesn't look nearly as beautiful as the M-mount version.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Matt_Anderson

Waiting for the stellar Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 FE Optimized Mount... ;)
(and the 14mm, 50mm, 135mm)
Sigma, Chop Chop!

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Sigma has optimized them already. It is called MC-11.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

Matt_Anderson

Sigma FE mount lenses require a redesign for optimization.
MC-11 is a temporary band-aid.

Dec 19, 2017permalink

EcoR1

You mean Sigma’s full frame e-mount lens. There is no FE-mount. Please stop using that term, because it will confuse people. FE is a lens designator used by Sony only, not a mount.

Dec 19, 2017*permalink

I think Sigma will not do that until Canon and Nikon start producing FF mirrorless cameras. Producing this type of lenses for a single "third party" lens mount (system) exclusively would be too risky. Unless Sigma starts making their own FF mirrorless cameras, which I doubt.

Dec 19, 2017permalink