These are some test images I made for my own purposes. I was specifically looking at central sharpness of the Voigtlander 40mm Nokton 1.4 at various large apertures when mounted on the Nikon Z7.
I took two series of test shots, one at close-ish distance and the other at mid-far distance.
As you can see, @ f/1.4 there is a definite softness and “glow”, but resolution is actually quite good. By f/2, the lens takes on a more modern contrasty look, which improves @ f/2.5, and then very slightly again @ f/2.8.
Depending on the look I’d want, I could see myself shooting at each of these apertures, but for a general-purpose look f/2 is probably the best compromise; @ f/2.5, the sharpness is already beyond anything I’d need for portraiture.
(focus is on the number “30”)
(focus is on the word “LIFETIME”)
As “dreamy” as the shots @ f/1.4 appear, they can easily be made to approximate the ones @ f/2, if contrast and sharpness are added during post processing:
(as stated in the introduction, the resolution is all there)
Transforming the “LIFETIME” image @ f/1.4 to a more modern rendering is a little more tricky, because there is more “glow” present, but — again — adding contrast and sharpness helps.
BY THE WAY, the Voigtlander 40/1.4 Nokton I have is the single-coated (SC) version. The multi-coated (MC) version may behave differently, as it is purported to render with more contrast, have less propensity to flare, etc. However, having owned it in the past I can’t recall seeing a difference, though admittedly I’ve never done a side-by-side comparison.
I hope you found this useful.
2 thoughts on “Test Shots: Nikon Z + Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4.”
That’s a good comparison. I agree on you thoughts about post processing and sharpening. I definitely prefer the 1.4 aperture after sharpening. I think all that stuff just comes down to personal preference. I’m still finding the Nikon 50mm 1.8 to be an incredible performer.
Yes, that’s the “problem”… the 50/1.8S is so good that most other lenses fall short in comparison.