I'll play a bit with the profile on & off over the next 10 days to decide then. I know I prefer my 35/1.7 on it's own.
I did. Canon 50mm F1.2 LTM on its way to me by the weekend. Condition isn't good externally, there's a scratch or two on the front element and the aperture blades were those apparently inappropriately greased by Canon when the lens was released many years ago. But I'm told this has no effect on IQ, the main thing being there's no haze. The seller was quite keen to emphasise shooting at F1.3 as opposed to F1.2 to get best results in terms of "that edge of sharpness and detail together with a nice glow" (I do like it when a seller is upfront about what they're selling). We'll see. I'm expecting this'll be a different process and rendering compared to my Leica/ Zeiss lenses so hopefully fun times ahead.I'd grab it.
Although Cosina-made Voigtlander and Zeiss optics are wonderful they do not suit Leica's digital sensors from the M8 to the M10. Statistics show that 85% of all new users who bought an M bought a Japanese lens to go with it only to find out, in the long run, that at full speed it suffers significantly at the edges, it has little control of flare and coma, has an imprecise focus coupling with the M mechanism, and other issues of less importance. You don't buy a used Ferrari to stick a Fiat engine in it. I wouldn't.
Doesn't seem soft to me and certainly not "objectively soft", I've been trying a bit of landscape wide open myself to grab the atmosphere as you described, it's an effective way of shooting.So I posted this in Black N White/Words no words:
Nokton 50/1.5 wide open, focused at infinity, I liked it & got a couple of likes for it. Posted it at a different place and got a person saying it seemed "soft".
I'm not seeing it, especially when I look at the full size jpg. It's no scalpel but OTOH, it's f/1.5 & it grabbed the early fall atmosphere fine to me.
Just curious if anyone else sees it as being objectionably soft?