Since the last one was from stills, here are two frames of Nokton video. They are from the same sequence, shot within a second of each other at ISO 1250, 1/50 at 24H factory settings (back in June).

The darker one is at f2.8, the lighter one at f0.95. This may help give you an idea of the bokeh, CA, sharpness, etc.

I tried to pick one of the sharper frames from the sequence for each aperture and the focus point did not change between them (though the content definitely did).

I shot this music video entirely with the Voigtlander 25mm, It's a superb lens. Focus feels so smooth. Lens very Robust. Great DOF. Such a fast lens!

@beeldlab I like how relaxed, effortless and authentic you made that video. So many shooters these days go too aggressive or contrived on a music video, even with relaxing music like that.

But this music video really feels like it follows the music. So kudos from the peanut gallery. :)

@Alexauwa

I used ND filters more to get the depth of field I wanted than the sharpness.

If I find time, I'll use my 24-70mm L series at 24mm with the filter and give you an update.

I haven't used a Voigtlander 50mm f1.1 and I didn't try using ND filters on the Nokton f0.95 specifically, since I didn't have a step-up ring at the time I rented it and my ND filters were all 77mm.

However, based on my experience with other lenses, I would say that using an ND filter works well as long as a couple criteria are met. (Feel free to skip all this if you've already used ND filters much because there isn't much new I have to offer, just the basics. :)

1) Lens length. A 25mm lens like the Nokton should work fine with a variety of ND filters, but with wide-angle or telephoto the situation gets a lot dicier. I wouldn't use the vari-ND on my 100-400mm L series lens I have because the loss of resolution is very noticeable, especially towards the telephoto end.

2) There is variation among filter brands but it doesn't always scale with price. Several users said they got similar performance between two similar ND filters marketed under the Lightcraft and Polaroid brands, even though the former was twice the price of the latter.

3) Some users say they have gotten much better performance out of fixed ND filters as opposed to variable ones. The downside is convenience as compared to a Vari-ND (and you'll see how much stacking you get into in a moment).

You'll want to think about how much light you'll have in most of your shots before you buy an ND: at last check, B&H (as one example) had over 100 ND filters listed for a 52mm thread (which is the size you'd want if you were getting it just for the Nokton instead of sharing with larger lenses). If I wanted to maintain the exposure in the f16 shot but shoot it at 1/50 instead of 1/160 to get a 180 degree shutter at 24 or 25 fps, then I would need my filters to get my exposure -1 2/3 stops.

I could get that by putting on a polarizer without reaching for an ND. But if I wanted to shoot at f5.6, then I would need my exposure a further -3 stops. So in total, that would be a reduction of -5 2/3 (with -6 stops generally being more practical to acquire).

A common ND filter might be indicated as ND8, ND8X or 0.9 ND and only reduce by two stops of light, so you would need to stack two of them. But here you'd be better off getting a 6-stop filter (variously called "ND64", "ND64x" or "1.8 ND") because less stacking means less chance of vignetting. Those seem to be starting at around $50 these days. Spring for multi-coated if offered at the strength you need as you will have to add and remove these filters pretty frequently.

Many variable ND filters will give you 6 stops or more of light reduction on the heavy end and they let you quickly dial in the amount you need without constantly swapping filters. That's why I went with one for my video work.

If you want a vari-ND and spend a lot of money, the word is that you should go with the Heliopan and not the Singh. I was cheap when I got my first one and when with the Polaroid Vari-ND (which was about a tenth of the price of the Heliopan). There are a lot of advantages that the Heliopan has, so in this case the price difference for the Heliopan would be justified if you could afford it.

Anyway, my main complaint after getting the Polaroid was that it got dirty really easily and vignetted the edges of my 10-22mm EF-S lens. I didn't mind the color shift. I didn't do a lot of sharpness comparison tests at 25mm range - just the extremes, mainly. It won't help you with sharpness at the telephoto end, no matter what apertures you're dealing with (and this is true of many vari-ND filters, though I can't speak for all of them).

@Alexauwa Here's the vignetting issue I mentioned on a 10mm wide angle lens. This shoot back in May used the 77mm Polaroid Vari-ND at a strong setting to get the exposure time down to 1/4 second at f11. The Vari-ND was placed on top of the UV filter, before I realized I needed to remove the UV filter to reduce this kind of problem.

@thepalalias would you be able to put of comparison shots of both the VC and Panny f2.0? I think most people are looking to shoot with these fast lenses at wide apertures and at f16, it doesn't really speak to most people even though I was somewhat shocked to see the VC do so poorly.

Not the ideal for what you might be looking for, but here's two pictures shot more wide open. Unfortunately, I don't remember how wide open the Nokton was - just that it was f1.7 or wider. The 20mm pancake is at f1.7.

@thepalalias thanks for putting up more pictures. The VC does seem to edge out the Panny at the wider apertures. It's good to know this because at f16, it's actually horrible! :@

thanks for keep posting samples!

@thepalalias Should F16 be the sharpest apature if there is enough light?

@Alexauwa F13 and F16 are best avoided in terms of sharpness. Here's another example that's more tightly focused. These tiny crops are taken from the bottom edge, near the center.

This time, starting with the F8.0 and continuing to F16.

The last picture is the full shot at f4.0.

@Alexuwa No problem. :)

You realize that shooting at .95 gives you about 1.2 ft of acceptable depth of field for objects 10 feet away? EVERYTHING else will be soft.