Cosina unveils $700 Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.2 for Fujifilm X system cameras

For experienced photographers raised on manual focus 35mm cameras the idea that auto focus lenses as the only way to take photographs rather a sweeping generalisation. Manual focus lets the user fast-focus on subject. More control.

Auto focus lenses generally bigger and may eventually suffer from wear and tear especially zoom lenses. My Voigtlander 35mm f2 at 378g compared to Sony 35mm f1,4 GM 524g on my Sony A7R3.

Cosina Voigtlander realise their 35mm manual focus lenses have wide appeal and will be appreciated by users like me. Fuji Voigtlander 35mm much lower price than Sony Voigtlander 35mm.

Any autofocus lens can also be used in manual focus mode for those shooting occasions where someone explicitly wants or must shoot in MF. Both Fuji 35mm lenses are lighter than this lens, have great build and optical quality, are cheaper, and the F2 Version is even weather sealed. In terms of image quality, the Fuji APSC sensor is the limiting factor here and the differences - if any - will be neither noticeable in practice, nor able to justify the $700 price tag of this lens. So I still don’t see what problem is Cosina trying to solve with this lens and who is the target audience for it at this price point, but to each their own.

Cosina not really trying to solve any "problem". Perhaps the opposite about giving people the choice. Some people prefer manual focus lenses with less moving electronic parts; less to go wrong. The user in control deciding the exact focus point without any focusing aid; occasionally hunting all over the place. Photography about taking the time when you have time.

My old Sony 90mm macro prone to auto-focus hunting; sold. Why have auto focusing if you never use it?

Sony 35mm f1,4 GM more expensive than Voigtlander 35mm f2 comparing apples with apples. New Voigtlander Fuji 35mm price difference of 700 USD must be for a reason? Made in Japan.

My Fuji 16mm f1.4 Made in Japan produces incredibly sharp enlargements so Fuji XT system offers good value compared to full-frame cameras with expensive lenses like Sony GM range for professional users.

@robert seso: There is a huge difference between focusing by hand with an only manual lens or doing it with an AF lens. All AF lenses are focus by wire and tact and precision have nothing to do with a totally manual one. You can do it, but it's a poor implementation. Even the best AF lenses from the late film era (90s) have a very unprecise feeling, manually used. There are lots of people, mainly educated in the film era, who prefer manual focus and only manual focus lenses. This Cosina lens is wonderful for people who'd rather shoot this way.

"Any autofocus lens can also be used in manual focus mode...", yes but AF lenses often turn only 90° from closest focus to infinity whereas manual lenses turn more allowing more accurate MF and zone focus selection. It feels better too. Don't know how far this Voigtlander turns.

@Robert Seso - '... who is the target audience for it at this price point ...'

Probably all the people who are already using Voigtlander VM lenses on Fuji with adapters... Now they can do it natively, with a lens designed for the format.

Lenses are not released to "solve problems". If you don't want to buy it...don't buy it. Fortunately everyone has different needs and wants. It would certainly be a boring world if everyone liked the same thing.

“What problem does it solve…” If only businesses decided to make things based on this…we’d have a lot less choice.

@John Gellings: the main reason businesses fail is because the market does not need and/or is not willing to pay for their products or services. The sole purpose of a business is to make money, not to provide ‘choice’. So it’s very simple, if this lens does not solve a specific problem better than the competition or justify its price by adding value in some other way - it won’t sell well and will disappear from the market very soon. Speaking of choice, there is already a large choice of excellent fully manual, fast and cheap (some are <$100) 35mm lenses for the X mount from Samyang, Meike, TTartisan and 7Artisans (to name a few) and if the only advantage of this $700 lens is that it can transfer the selected aperture value to the camera - it’ll be a tough game for it.

Robert, the public simply needs to like your product and services in order to spend their money. My point is that there are many frivolous products and services that make money and are successful. They do not solve a problem, they offer something else. Now, we could say this solves a high quality manual focus void in Fuji’s line up… it will be in a different class than the brands you had mentioned. However, it does not solve a photographic problem. Lenses are lenses… they all are capable of decent photographs above a certain price point.

+1 on the 25mm f0.95 lens for M43.
Wish they would join the L Mount Alliance. Want this on my S5!

Voigtlander don't do autofocus....

The downside is size, weight, build, and full realisation of optical intent.

Plus, manually focussing with a lens like this is a true pleasure; focus-by-wire and non-resounding aluminium plating can only go so far, even with perfect implementation.

@Mal69 - 'I understand but whats the downside to it being manual and auto, any downsides with performance to offer that ?'

The downside is that it's basically impossible to have an efficient AF lens that uses a brass/aluminium helicoid for MF. This is what gives Voigtlander lenses (and most classic lenses) their amazing manual focus feel, and is why AF/MF lenses never feel as nice as dedicated MF.

Yes! A 27/1.2 (40mm equivalent) would get my buying impulse instantly.

Agreed, this is my dream lens as well.
27mm or 28mm f1.4 or even f2.

I use my Ultron 40mm f2 with speed booster which is about equivalent to 28mm f1.4, but it’s a big and heavy combination. Lovely images though!

Nope, manual focus works very well with Fujifilm cameras. In fact, the flexibility in choices and efficacity of focusing aids is best in class in the mirrorless world. More precise and less subject to calibration issues than any OVF. Testing complex devices at presentations is not enough to get acquainted with them.

I use central zoom in and there maximise sharpness. Works well and quick even with an f1.1 lens that I have. Camera = xt2.

@Tom_A: what do you mean by "and there maximize sharpness"? In AF assist I have: stand with "central zoom" on my xpro2. Split screen or peak highlight helps additionally...

Fuji had about the most options on the market, like the others said. Magnification, focus peaking in many colors, split screen, and with AF lenses you can even combine AF and MF.
Focusing in the OVF in the old analog SLRs was cumbersome at best. The split screen does not work well in the dark or with small apertures. The ground glass does not give a good DOF, because the best ones show DOF of f/2.8 at best, and cheaper cameras even f/5.6. So misficusing happened often, yet it was difficult to see on small prints.

@Constatin V. You just what to make your point that nothing touches Leica. Fine. The range finder patch had its uses, just like Fuji's, and its drawbacks.
I just find it striking you are firing off in a thread of a brand that has the best in market options.
You loathe the many peaking color options, but in practice, one color works best in 95% of the cases, and this method usually works fast.
When peaking is not accurate enough, I switch to magnification. Either you can click to zoom to 1:1 and back, which is great but slow, or you can show a magnified part next your full evf image all the time. And the nice thing? You can magnify _any_ part of your image, not just a patch in the middle. Try that on your Leica.
The AF/MF adjustments are handy and this you can't even do. My point with this property is that even when you are in AF mode, you can always make manual adjustments.
But be glad there are so many options. You are happy with your gear, I am with mine.

Autofocusing on a Fujifilm camera is extremely easy...perhaps your skill are just not up to the task...perhaps more practice may be warranted.

Constantin, well yes say a 35mm at 2 is still doable to focus quickly for active kids. However a 50 at 1.1 is much more critical. And the fuji focus help is ok.
I like my manual/adapted lenses but in general use my AF lenses for the kids.
Far fewer missed shots.

I believe AF is out of topic here. IMHO If you withdraw to AF when it became hard... Then no point to use MF at all. The point of this type of lenses is it requires skills. And Fuji bells and whistles are in the way.

> However a 50 at 1.1

Are we talking fuji crop here? Then it's about f2 FF. Anyway, I really don't see much sense you are using such apertures to blur the background. For me that's no primary method to make moody photograph. Mood is formed by many other non tech things. If you kids are lovely and active then show it like Alain Laboile did. Don't use that static and shot straight in the face approach. Think about colours, their meaning etc etc Many things form real photograph, not wide open-aperture and exact sharp focus.

I just want to say at the 50/1.1 lens is critical to focus and I could do it with my fuji. Whether you like the photo or not is not relevant.

@constantin Coming from manual focus analog SLR cameras, I really don't see your point.
The options of the Fuji you don't need to use all at the same time. With the Leica, there is exactly one option.

From the example rangefinder pics I saw in one of the posts, exact focusing is not really needed. In that case you pick the MF option in the Fuji that allows quick adjustments. In my experience either the focus peaking works well or the window-in-window, depending on the situation.

When critical focus is paramount, you use the slower, but more precise options. With the range finder you can't do that either, you would need to switch to live view just as well.

for sure the fuji allows me to focus more precisely than my friend's leica M, useful for large apertures. I don't find it slower either. Both are slow when you have critical wide aperture lenses.

@Frage You did however state that "all" Fuji lenses in the 16/23/35 range require "aggressive" software correction and that is still incorrect. The 16/1.4 has distortion below below 1%, which is low for a WA. Both the 23/1.4 and 23/2 have near zero distortion achieved by optical design. The 35/1.4 has about 1%. Only the 16/2.8 and 35/2 require strong correction.

You may not be interested in the lens, but also like what others say, you ignore it and other examples just to support your incorrect statements about distortion correction. And while you are at it, go check the new 18mm too, also fully optically corrected.

The lenses you talk about have alternatives with near zero distortion, so if you really want optically corrected lenses for those focal lengths, it is available.
High distortion you find in the more budget options:
XF16/2.8 at whopping -7.7%, XC35/2 at -4.3% and XF35/2 at -3.5%.

The alternatives: XF16/1.4 has -0.87%, the XF23/1.4 goes for -0.75%, the XF23/2 only a mere 0.05% and the XF35/1.4 at -0.55%.
So there you go

"Not my price range, however...

What I would like to have in X-mount is a 16/23/35mm lens wich is perfectly optically corrected against distortions"

So you want perfect for cheap. Huh..... never thought that was an option in this reality.

Based on the performance of Voigtlander lenses on other mounts, it should blow any of the Artisans and Samyang/Rokinon lenses out of the water. In this price range you really do get what you pay for.

Sounds like a great lens. I am looking forward to get it in hands and add it to my 35mm lens comparison for Fujifilm FX mount 3d party lenses.

https://schlueter-enterprises.com/comparison/35mm/

Thanks for the update. I haven't been keeping up with the latest aps-c news. However, that makes it f/1.425 and not exactly f/1.4. :)

I just looked at your sample photos. The Sigma f/1.4 definitely has a smoother bokeh...

I mean, really...? :D Sigma is a full-frame lens, with a 77mm filter thread, sized 84.5 x 68.2 mm and weighting 505g (which is not a lot, as its being made of plastic).

On the other side, Mitakon (mark II) is an APS-C lens, with a 55mm filter thread(!), sized 63 x 60 mm and weighting 460g (which _is_ a bit on the heavy side, but it`s pure metal, built like a tank).

So, all taken into account, Sigma would be rather bad if it wasn`t at least a bit better, but that doesn`t make Mitakon bad - on the contrary, for its size it`s a marvelous lens (certainly my favorite one), and it has one of the smoothest bokehs you can get (no matter my quick testing).

Besides, you were originally complaining about depth of field equivalence - which Mitakon delivers, and in spades ;)

edit: The reply was written for @Joed700, but it`s valid for @Eric Hensel just as well - Mitakon is certainly not without its issues (mechanical vignetting possibly being the main one, sometimes causing weird, triangle-shaped bokeh in the edges), it`s just still a wonderful lens to be shooting with. And of course everything is a compromise, that`s why we have options, no?

The original message complained there are still no (depth of field equivalent) options _at all_ - but there are, and for a long time now.

Otherwise, common sense still applies, different lenses will have different characteristics (compromises, based on size/weight as well) - but I don`t think anyone disputed that, so not sure why the need to bring it up as an argument?

@yayatosorus & boogisha - I agree with yayatosorus' comment. I had the Fuji X-series before, and I left because the lenses available at that time did not offer anything with SDOF more than a f/2.0 FF equivalent. I been shooting both FF and aps-c, and the only aps-c I personally would respect in term of quality and design is Fuji X-series. That was the whole point of my original comments. And by the way, Sony A series do offer both size and optics advantage in case you're wondering. In fact, it costs less to get the A7iii than the X-series by the current retail MSRP.

If i would get a dollar for each time someone rakes up the dead body called eQuIvAlEnCe, I would be rich.
Yes we know, the debate settled 14 years ago already

@Joed700 Sure, if you need the shallowest you can get, the Sony system is a great choice, but it's hard to generalize it more than that. Cameras, and their systems are very use case and taste dependent. Personally, although I'm a big fan of what Sony has been doing in terms of innovation, I've found the Fuji's X system to fit my needs and budget better than the latter. Now if we circle back to the quest for shallow dof, then sure if that's a key criteria, Sony FF (and essentially most FF systems) make more sense.

I shoot both Sony ff and Fuji xf.

While the systems are vastly different (I am partial toward Fuji since I prefer its ergos), not even once have I found the Fuji limiting in dof applications. I don’t own f/1.2 ff lenses since I find these unusable for my work.

Well the 7Artisans 35mm f0.95 is just performing in the depth of field like a classical f1.4 on FF but still with the extra light of f0.95. Optically it is as well very advanced, even better than the Zeiss Touit 32mm f1.8. https://schlueter-enterprises.com/comparison/35mm/