Just picked it up, after a 3+ month waitIt's -to my knowledge- the smallest 135-format 50mm f/1 lens by quite a margin. Although not tiny, it is not a brick like the Noctilux or the TTartisan 50 f/0.95 or some others. It feels quite dense, but as the center of gravity is pretty close to the camera-body, it feels better balanced than e.g. a Summicron-M 90mm ("pre-APO") which weighs about the same.Mechanical quality is outstanding, as we can expect from the current crop of Voigtländer-branded Cosinas.Even at f/1 there's a decent amount of sharpness and contrast in the center of the frame, which is not a given for lenses of this spec. Bokeh is nice, even the front-bokeh is well-behaved.2 quick test-shots taken on the way home from the camerastore.@ f/1@ f/8

Congrats on getting your hands on one of those! I preordered back in February and am still waiting for mine. Awesome shots - pairing that lens with the Monochrom should let you own the night!Can you check how flare resistant it is and whether a hood is really necessary to get for it?

Alan Sy wrote:Congrats on getting your hands on one of those! I preordered back in February and am still waiting for mine.Thanks Alan! A new batch has apparently been delivered to dealers recently. I hope you will get your copy soon.Awesome shots - pairing that lens with the Monochrom should let you own the night!I'm indeed looking forward to take this one into the local nightlife!Can you check how flare resistant it is and whether a hood is really necessary to get for it?The hood is included in the package, and it's really not cumbersome. I'll use it with hood exclusively: I carry my camera cross-body, without lens cap, so the hood gives protection.As for flare-resistance, the 2nd shot gives an idea when stopped down: the sun is in the frame, near the top/left corner, yet the contrast in the images stays very good. I expect flare to be less well controlled at wider apertures under similar conditions.

the lens is wider them 50mm. more like a 45mmat 90mm there is front focus issue on the one I have..

aknyc wrote:the lens is wider them 50mm. more like a 45mmIt is substantially tighter than my 1.2/40 Nokton. But the advertised focal length is usually rounded up by manufacturers. So a "50" can be anything between around 45mm and 53mm or so. But I could compare it to a few other 50ies I have; I believe e.g. the J3 is a bit tighter than actual 50mm.at 90mm there is front focus issue on the one I have..How does it behave at other focusing distances?I'll have to do more testing to check for this, but 1st impression is that so far my copy is spot on.And maybe the min. focus distance was design choice to avoid this type of issues. I recall reading the TTartisan 50 0.95 was off at closer focusing distances.

Sjak wrote:aknyc wrote:the lens is wider them 50mm. more like a 45mmIt is substantially tighter than my 1.2/40 Nokton. But the advertised focal length is usually rounded up by manufacturers. So a "50" can be anything between around 45mm and 53mm or so. But I could compare it to a few other 50ies I have; I believe e.g. the J3 is a bit tighter than actual 50mm.Leica has a little number on the "M" distance scale to indicate if it is actually different from 50 and how much.I have been testing my copy to the Noctilux 0.95 and the Summiluxat 90mm there is front focus issue on the one I have..How does it behave at other focusing distances?I'll have to do more testing to check for this, but 1st impression is that so far my copy is spot on.And maybe the min. focus distance was design choice to avoid this type of issues. I recall reading the TTartisan 50 0.95 was off at closer focusing distances.It seam always of in the range on 90cm and 100cm. the rest is fine.The vignetting is strong and needs correction in post. There are no profiles so it has to be done manually.Otherwise, the lens is a good fast lens.

aknyc wrote:It seam always of in the range on 90cm and 100cm. the rest is fine.Thanks! I'll pay some more attention to this!The vignetting is strong and needs correction in post. There are no profiles so it has to be done manually.Yes I'm aware of the vignetting, it's inherent to ultra-fast lenses I think. But in general I don't mind, as I'd select f/1-1.4 to isolate a subject, which vignetting will further accentuate. Also, it's not difficult to correct if so desired.Besides, I wonder if profiles are useful for a fully manual lens? The amount of vignetting is depending on the selected aperture, and the camera (or PP-software) has no way of knowing that.Otherwise, the lens is a good fast lens.Yes, so far it fully meets the expectations I had based on the online resources. This is a lens that I will enjoy a lot. I hesitated for a long time about the TTartisan 50 0.95; the main thing that put me off about that one is the size&weight, and the fact that it seems a 1-trick-pony; this new Nokton seems more versatile.

Thanks for your user report, and excellent “1st shots.” This 50mm f/1.0 Nokton, and the 21mm f/1.4 Nokton, are both high on my list of “would-be-really-nice-to-have” lenses, as I chose to acquire some “faster” lenses, to use on a Type 246 Monochrom, rather than upgrade to an M10 Monochrom. (The 21mm Nokton may well be given higher priority, as my only ultra-wide-angle M-mount lenses, at this time, are a Zeiss f/4,5 21mm C Biogon ZM, and an f/4 18mm Distagon ZM.)My budget was side-tracked by the opportunity to buy a quite nice, pre-loved Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH, which is not a “fast” lens, either, so, my “fast fifty project” will have to wait until June, or so.

Rexgig0 wrote:Thanks for your user report, and excellent “1st shots.” This 50mm f/1.0 Nokton, and the 21mm f/1.4 Nokton, are both high on my list of “would-be-really-nice-to-have” lenses, as I chose to acquire some “faster” lenses, to use on a Type 246 Monochrom, rather than upgrade to an M10 Monochrom.It makes sense to spend money on glass rather than on a camera-body. The cameras depreciate much faster.21mm is generally too wide for me, especially for use on a body withouy live view, but this 21 Nokton is tempting nonetheless...

On a gloomy / cloudy day, the camera still picks 1/4000 at f/11st shot was to test a subject significantly off-center, at around 1.5m, combined with the most difficult background for bokeh (a leafless tree)2nd shot was focused on the center, at 5m. It's nice to see that at f/1 there's still subject isolation. Probably movie-makes would enjoy this lens too.Just quick&dirty editing, but the files are certainly not lacking contrast and clarity. The vignetting is quite obvious, especially on the 2nd shot.@ f/1; focus on the bulb & recompose@ f/1, focused on the center, slight recompose.

Sjak wrote:Besides, I wonder if profiles are useful for a fully manual lens? The amount of vignetting is depending on the selected aperture, and the camera (or PP-software) has no way of knowing that.I think the lens profiles are mostly about reducing color casts at the left & right edges of photos. With most wider lenses I've seen a reduction in vignetting when using a profile compared to not using one, but usually it's barely noticeable. Which makes sense: if you aggressively correct for f/1.4 vignetting with a camera that doesn't know your lens' aperture setting, your photos are gonna look weird at f/8.-Dave-

David Kieltyka wrote:Sjak wrote:Besides, I wonder if profiles are useful for a fully manual lens? The amount of vignetting is depending on the selected aperture, and the camera (or PP-software) has no way of knowing that.I think the lens profiles are mostly about reducing color casts at the left & right edges of photos.A rarely discussed advantage of a Monochrom: no such issues

David Kieltyka wrote:Sjak wrote:Besides, I wonder if profiles are useful for a fully manual lens? The amount of vignetting is depending on the selected aperture, and the camera (or PP-software) has no way of knowing that.I think the lens profiles are mostly about reducing color casts at the left & right edges of photos. With most wider lenses I've seen a reduction in vignetting when using a profile compared to not using one, but usually it's barely noticeable. Which makes sense: if you aggressively correct for f/1.4 vignetting with a camera that doesn't know your lens' aperture setting, your photos are gonna look weird at f/8.-Dave-the color cast you are talking about is usually visible on the 21mm CV that was made for the film days. The new generation lenses don't have that.Lens profiles are correct mostly for distortion and vignetting.CV at 1.0Noctilux 0.95 at f1.0

B&H has them in stock if you're in the US!

Sjak wrote:aknyc wrote:the lens is wider them 50mm. more like a 45mmIt is substantially tighter than my 1.2/40 Nokton. But the advertised focal length is usually rounded up by manufacturers. So a "50" can be anything between around 45mm and 53mm or so. But I could compare it to a few other 50ies I have; I believe e.g. the J3 is a bit tighter than actual 50mm.can you comment on the 40 1.2 vs the 50 1.0?i had been intending to pick up the 40, but now tempted to get the 50. Probably prefer 40mm focal length, but I have the impression the 50 is the better lens by some margin

SafariBob wrote:can you comment on the 40 1.2 vs the 50 1.0?These are totally different lenses. The 40 can also be used for candids. The 50 1.0 lends itself more to slower photography; the paper-thin DOF means you need to take great care with focusing.The handling is also very different. The 50 1.0 is big on an M, and has considerable viewfinder blocking, especially with the hood installed.i had been intending to pick up the 40, but now tempted to get the 50. Probably prefer 40mm focal length, but I have the impression the 50 is the better lens by some marginBetter at what, or better for what?If it's not the right focal length for you, it's probably not the better lensI also prefer the 40mm for general purpose, so the 50 1.0 did not replace the 40 1.2; it's rather a very nice addition to it.As a compromise between the 2, there's also the widely acclaimed Nokton 50 1.2.*EDIT* there's also the price-difference: When I purchased the lenses, the 40 1.2 was 1000 euro new, the 50 1.0 was 1750 euro.

These are totally different lenses. The 40 can also be used for candids. The 50 1.0 lends itself more to slower photography; the paper-thin DOF means you need to take great care with focusing.well, you could always stop down the 50mmThe handling is also very different. The 50 1.0 is big on an M, and has considerable viewfinder blocking, especially with the hood installed.good point, but it’s not that bad from what I can tell.Better at what, or better for what?well, for one, it seems a lot sharper wide open. It also sports the equivalent of 1 stop shallower dof.If it's not the right focal length for you, it's probably not the better lensmaybe it could be argued that they are not so completely different that one may not consider bothI also prefer the 40mm for general purpose, so the 50 1.0 did not replace the 40 1.2; it's rather a very nice addition to it.this is my sense too. But I find the samples significantly more exciting with the 50.As a compromise between the 2, there's also the widely acclaimed Nokton 50 1.2.imo, and for my usage, the 40 1.2 is clearly better than the 50 1.2*EDIT* there's also the price-difference: When I purchased the lenses, the 40 1.2 was 1000 euro new, the 50 1.0 was 1750 euro.yes, the price weighs against the 50. But not too heavily.

SafariBob wrote:well, you could always stop down the 50mmYes but if you don't plan on shooting at f/1, why make the extra expense?The handling is also very different. The 50 1.0 is big on an M, and has considerable viewfinder blocking, especially with the hood installed.good point, but it’s not that bad from what I can tell.It's very significant.I also find it borderline-acceptable as walkaround on the M.Better at what, or better for what?well, for one, it seems a lot sharper wide open. It also sports the equivalent of 1 stop shallower dof.I don't have any issues with the 40 1.2 wide open. The DOF is a bit more delicate: 50mm wil have shallower DOF than 40mm at identical aperture and shooting distance. However, the mfd of the 50 1.0 is 0.9m and of the 40 1.2 0.5m.If it's not the right focal length for you, it's probably not the better lensmaybe it could be argued that they are not so completely different that one may not consider bothTrue, but to me, the 50 1.0 is more a specialty-lens.I also prefer the 40mm for general purpose, so the 50 1.0 did not replace the 40 1.2; it's rather a very nice addition to it.this is my sense too. But I find the samples significantly more exciting with the 50.Yeah of course, when all things line up well, the rendering of the 50 1.0 is incredible. But it's not that easy to get good looking shots at f/1.As a compromise between the 2, there's also the widely acclaimed Nokton 50 1.2.imo, and for my usage, the 40 1.2 is clearly better than the 50 1.2Then I think it's probably also better than the 50 1.0.*EDIT* there's also the price-difference: When I purchased the lenses, the 40 1.2 was 1000 euro new, the 50 1.0 was 1750 euro.yes, the price weighs against the 50. But not too heavily.Think what you want, a large and more expensive specialty-lens with unique rendering (50 1.0) or a great allround superfast lens (40 or 50 1.2) without any specific downsides?Admittedly, if I had to part with the 50 1.0 or the 40 1.2, it would be a very tough choice. So maybe best if you get both

Admittedly, if I had to part with the 50 1.0 or the 40 1.2, it would be a very tough choice. So maybe best if you get boththats my thinking too

The 50 1.0 is a newer lens and better corrected wide open.On an M camera consider a 1-meter minimal distance, as the 0.9m focus was off. the 10cm made the difference between being able to nail focus and not.the CV 50 f1 is smaller and lighter than Noctilux 0.95, but leica has the edge on constant and sharpness.