Peter Klein
Regular
- Location
- Seattle
- Name
- Peter Klein
Matt, could you post a couple of photos that illustrate the pictorial differences you mention between the Voigtlander (older) 50/1.5 and the new 50/1.2? I too have them both. I bought the 1.2 when I saw that Voigtlander had solved the 1.5’s problem of very harsh, wiry background bokeh in close-in wide-open pictures. I did a little “shoot my bookcase” comparison and decided that the 1.2 was very close to the 1.5 at f/1.4, and quite sharp enough at other apertures. Since then, i’ve been too happy shooting the 1.2 to bother making more comparisons with the 1.5.
I’ve owned the LTM 50/1.5 for years. But I rarely shot it in good light, preferring my DR or tabbed 50 Summicrons for that. The 1.2, I feel like I can shoot in any conditions and be happy. The 50/1.2 has aspheric sharpness without as much of the aspheric harshness we often get in the bargain. It's like Walter Mandler and Peter Karbe each compromised a bit and worked together on designing a lens just for me.
—Peter
I’ve owned the LTM 50/1.5 for years. But I rarely shot it in good light, preferring my DR or tabbed 50 Summicrons for that. The 1.2, I feel like I can shoot in any conditions and be happy. The 50/1.2 has aspheric sharpness without as much of the aspheric harshness we often get in the bargain. It's like Walter Mandler and Peter Karbe each compromised a bit and worked together on designing a lens just for me.
—Peter
- Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.2: rather big and heavy for a rangefinder lens, though small for such a fast lens, decent wide open, very good stopped down; actually much better behaved than I dared hope; alas, nowhere near as charming as his f/1.5 stable mate: Its rendering is modern and contrasty, more bold than elegant.