Mackinaw
Think Different
Krosya said:
He sure did. Check out his books on Picasso, one contains many pics taken with the Canon 50/1.2.
Jim B.
tomasis
Well-known
Is it fair to compare new and old lenses? $3000 difference is easily worth when you get the kind of pictures of Nocti as you cannot get that of any other lense. Canon makes less interesting images than Summarit does. Summarit costs $300 and is fair alternative to Canon IMHOKeith said:Roger is probably a harsher critic than most here and obviously has a wealth of experience but I don't see anything that makes me query my choice!
Noctilux ~ $5000.00 _____________ Canon ~ $300.00
I know there's things the Noctilux will do that the Canon won't ... but $4700.00 difference?
myoptic3
Well-known
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks one lens or another takes more interesting shots than another one is missing the point entirely, and is getting a little too close to equipment snobism. It's been said a thousand, thousand times, but here it is again. It's the photographer that makes the shot, not the camera (or lens, or amount of megapixels, or whatever). Trust me, no one but us anal types pays the slighest attention to the teeny, tiny things that we fuss over. Needlessly. People look at the image. A great shot taken w a Canon AE-1 and a 50 1.8 lens is better than a mediocore shot taken w/ a Leica/Zeiss/Contax taken w/ a mucho expensive poser lens. A lot of getting a good shot is exposure knowledge, having a great subject, being in the right place in the right time, imagination, and plain dumb luck, and luck will trump skill every time. I have spent a lot of money thinking that more expensive gear would improve my photography. It hasn't. Going out as often as I can and shooting w/ what I have will. As someone who also paints, can you imagine a group of painters squabbling over who has the best brushes? Or daring to state that better brushes will produce a better painting? No.
tomasis
Well-known
myoptic, here is thread about lenses, not how about making images. I mean from technical perspective when I say that one is less interesting from another. At another words, I'm talking about fingerprint. I can add another amazing alternatives which are Jupiter 3, Sonnar, Canon copy of Sonnar.
I suggest you to do the thing as you are suggesting: go outside Show me that you know what you're talking about but apparentely not since you wrote some long text here recently *wink wink* I'm also tired of the type of messages "go outside etc" when one miss the point of going in the forum on internet there it is going some technical talk , not photo gallery
I suggest you to do the thing as you are suggesting: go outside
Show me that you know what you're talking about but apparentely not since you wrote some long text here recently *wink wink* I'm also tired of the type of messages "go outside etc" when one miss the point of going in the forum on internet there it is going some technical talk , not photo galleryRoger Hicks
Veteran
I almost completely agree. Two exceptions:myoptic3 said:
There is a 'quality threshold'. Below it, better kit WILL give you better pics. Thus for example I'd rather have an f/1.8 Super-Takumar than an f/1.9 Meyer Primoplan. Above the threshold, skill matters more than kit -- but I'd still rather have a (new) Sonnar or a Noctilux than a Canon 1,2, because either makes it easier for me to get good pics (based on experience).
Second, really cheap, nasty brushes are bar stewards to control, and shed their thick, inflexible, splayed bristles. Good ones are easier to use, but as you say, beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter. Another example of the quality threshold.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
tomasis
Well-known
Roger Hicks said:
I agree, based on my experiences with real brushes when I smear oil paint
Krosya
Konicaze
tomasis said:
How EXACTLY do you define "interesting", to say that Canon makes less interesting images than Summarit?
Plus based on what I have seen, and this is my personal opinion, - images here on RFF that I have seen taken with Canon 50/1.2 are far better than ones with Summarit. Not based on a photographer's vision,as some are INTERESTING photos, but if only judged based on technical performance/drawing of the lens.
kevin m
Veteran
I just can't accept the argument that price doesn't matter. At some point, fiscal sanity must enter the equation. If you're a pro and you can write off any gear you like, or you have unlimited funds, then fine, buy all the ultra-expensive gear you like. But you're comparing a 40-plus year old lens that sells for $350 or so to a new lens that costs nearly $5,000. Is one better than the other? Sure. But fifteen times better? Really?
tomasis
Well-known
Krosya, I find Canon rendering at widest aperture as too soft that I find the aperture unusable but I like how this renders colors (is that so why colours appear as smearing?). I expected to see some character of this lens but I became disappointed. F1.2 sounded exotic but when I looked at pics and thought it is that you get what you pay for. This remind me much of Nikkor 50/1.8 when I compared this to Summicron. Not good at widest aperture but performs better when the aperture is down every stop. Summitar looks neither sharp but not yet quite soft probably thanks to half stop smaller aperture. I'm sure that Canon could perform nicely at f1.5 but when I look at lens size, weight, handling so any 50/1.4-1.5 appears to be better choice plus you can use the same shutter time with a bit underexposure. I just love Leica "glow" or as you want, coma, flare of Summitar as you love your Canon for softness
Kevin M, you can try accept that some buys Noctilux for its uniqueness no matter for price, Look how much do Rembrandt's works cost? Does one have to think mathematically if the picture must be 10000x times better if this costs some millions $$$? You need think about resale value too then all that suddenly appears not that expensive or absurd. Continue to enjoy of Canon 50/1.8
Kevin M, you can try accept that some buys Noctilux for its uniqueness no matter for price, Look how much do Rembrandt's works cost? Does one have to think mathematically if the picture must be 10000x times better if this costs some millions $$$? You need think about resale value too then all that suddenly appears not that expensive or absurd. Continue to enjoy of Canon 50/1.8
Last edited:
Peter Klein
Well-known
It may be true that the photographer makes the picture, but the lens draws the image. And different lenses have very different character. The smoothness or harshness of the background can have a profound effect on what feeling a picture evokes. And certainly the relative sharpness, contrast and color rendition of the subject do. Nobody would argue that an Impressionist's rendering of a field with a haystack "feels" the same as a realistic painting of the same scene. Likewise, you would feel very differently about pictures of the same haystack photographed with a Noctilux, a Canon 50/1.2 or a Summicron.
Following are four pictures of mine. I'll reveal the lenses in my next post:
1. I think the out of focus areas really detract from anotherwise nice shot here:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/roar.htm
2. Here's another where the way the lens draws really enhances the mood and gives a retro look that evokes childhood in an older time:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/16RabbitBoy.jpg
3. Here's another with a more modern "look":
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/karoline_draws.htm
4. My home page self-portrait is also deliberately a little retro:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/
Lenses do have character. And the way they draw does influence what you convey to the viewer. A lens will not turn a bad picture into a good picture. It has no effect on the instant you choose and how you frame your subject. But the right lens can make a good picture better. And in the case of a very fast lens, it can make the difference between getting a usable picture or not.
Fortunately, most 50mm lenses are relatively inexpensive. And with all the Internet ways of buying and selling, trying out a lens has very little cost. So I have more 50s than I probably "need." But every so often, I'm glad I have each and every one of them.
--Peter
Following are four pictures of mine. I'll reveal the lenses in my next post:
1. I think the out of focus areas really detract from anotherwise nice shot here:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/roar.htm
2. Here's another where the way the lens draws really enhances the mood and gives a retro look that evokes childhood in an older time:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/16RabbitBoy.jpg
3. Here's another with a more modern "look":
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/karoline_draws.htm
4. My home page self-portrait is also deliberately a little retro:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/
Lenses do have character. And the way they draw does influence what you convey to the viewer. A lens will not turn a bad picture into a good picture. It has no effect on the instant you choose and how you frame your subject. But the right lens can make a good picture better. And in the case of a very fast lens, it can make the difference between getting a usable picture or not.
Fortunately, most 50mm lenses are relatively inexpensive. And with all the Internet ways of buying and selling, trying out a lens has very little cost. So I have more 50s than I probably "need." But every so often, I'm glad I have each and every one of them.
--Peter
Peter Klein
Well-known
In my previous post, the lenses used are:
1. 85/2 Nikkor (Sonnar derivative)
2. 50/2 Jupiter-8 (Sonnar copy)
3. 50/2 Summicron
4. 50/2 Jupiter-8
--Peter
1. 85/2 Nikkor (Sonnar derivative)
2. 50/2 Jupiter-8 (Sonnar copy)
3. 50/2 Summicron
4. 50/2 Jupiter-8
--Peter
Krosya
Konicaze
tomasis said:
I wonder if you had a poor sample of this lens. As I look at some of the posted photos here, it's plenty sharp wide open with good colours and bokeh. Or maybe you used it with a camera that has a short RF base, like Bessa/RD1, and thats why it didn't focus correct? I don't have this lens, but I sure want to try one as photos I see taken with it are good from what I see and at the price of $300-400 USD - it's the best deal I can think of for such fast lens for RF.
Maybe you can post some of your results from this lens to see what is it you are talking about?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,kevin m said:I just can't accept the argument that price doesn't matter. At some point, fiscal sanity must enter the equation. If you're a pro and you can write off any gear you like, or you have unlimited funds, then fine, buy all the ultra-expensive gear you like. But you're comparing a 40-plus year old lens that sells for $350 or so to a new lens that costs nearly $5,000. Is one better than the other? Sure. But fifteen times better? Really?
Yes, but what is fiscal sanity? How badly do you need a new car or kitchen? How badly do you want a fast lens? One that performs well at f/1...?
Many people can't afford a Noctilux. I'm one of them but I have one on loan from a kind friend. I could just about buy one, if I flogged a load of other kit, but ahead of it in the queue are a 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar and a Thambar and a second MP, and I sure as hell can't afford all four. That's fiscal sanity for me. If my wife didn't want the Tri-Elmar (and believe me, I'd borrow it) and I didn't want a Thambar, and I couldn't justify a second body, then the Noctilux would be way up there.
The Sonnar is more expensive than the Canon 50/1.2, and slower, but I'd rather find the $1000 for a lens I really like -- one of my all-time favourites -- than $350 for a Canon 50/1,2. There's also the point that I've actually used 'em all, side by side, and I doubt many others have.
Cheers,
Roger
ferider
Veteran
Krosya,
it depends how one looks at a photo taken with it. The 1.2 generates
very noticably soft corners, also a perfectly calibrated lens. Also, it generates
OOF highlights in slight football/donut shapes - in the corners only again,
much like what people sometimes complain about with the 40/1.4.
It's not the perfect lens. But great for centered portraits, in my experience.
Much of the above you don't see when looking at 50/1.2 photos
taken with an RD1 or M8, of course, since corners get cropped.
I have also been wondering what influence an IR filter would have
on lens performance.
Roland.
it depends how one looks at a photo taken with it. The 1.2 generates
very noticably soft corners, also a perfectly calibrated lens. Also, it generates
OOF highlights in slight football/donut shapes - in the corners only again,
much like what people sometimes complain about with the 40/1.4.
It's not the perfect lens. But great for centered portraits, in my experience.
Much of the above you don't see when looking at 50/1.2 photos
taken with an RD1 or M8, of course, since corners get cropped.
I have also been wondering what influence an IR filter would have
on lens performance.
Roland.
Last edited:
photogdave
Shops local
It's a difficult lens to use, no question. Not an everyday lens but a nice one to have for certain occasions.
I think the two photos I linked to at the top of the thread show that the out of focus areas IN FRONT of the subject can be nice and smooth, as in the B&W image. The out of focus areas BEHIND the subject certainly turn into little donuts as you can see in the trees of the colour image, but I still think it adds a nice quality to certain kinds of photos.
Mama don't take my 50 1.2 away!
I think the two photos I linked to at the top of the thread show that the out of focus areas IN FRONT of the subject can be nice and smooth, as in the B&W image. The out of focus areas BEHIND the subject certainly turn into little donuts as you can see in the trees of the colour image, but I still think it adds a nice quality to certain kinds of photos.
Mama don't take my 50 1.2 away!
Peter Klein
Well-known
I get noticeably sharper pictures with an IR filter, whether in B&W or color. The IR component of the picture focuses at a different plane than the visible light, and it "smears" things a little. This is why on older lenses, there is a separate mark for focusing with IR film.
FWIW, Leica has published statments supporting the above.
OTOH, I've noted that in dim tungsten light, I can get about a half-stop more light without the IR filter. If that makes the difference between a hand-holdable speed and a motion-blurred picture, the motion blur might be more significant than the IR smearing.
Here is an example. Wide open with the 50/1.2
1. Full frame.
2. With IR filter
3. No filter
--Peter
FWIW, Leica has published statments supporting the above.
OTOH, I've noted that in dim tungsten light, I can get about a half-stop more light without the IR filter. If that makes the difference between a hand-holdable speed and a motion-blurred picture, the motion blur might be more significant than the IR smearing.
Here is an example. Wide open with the 50/1.2
1. Full frame.
2. With IR filter
3. No filter
--Peter
Attachments
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm not a Noctilux bagger and my comparison of the prices was aimed more at my own needs. The comment has been made here that the Canon is a little soft wide open and I see that as a plus for what I seek in a super fast lens. I love shooting low light portraits and to me sharpness in the final result is the least important feature. The mood the lens creates is far more relevant to me and if the final image qualities are created by a little flare and edge softness then I've chosen well.
If I was a highly acredited photog with an unlimited budget and sharpness wide open was what I was after ... I wouldn't hesitate to own a Noctilux. The fact that a $300.00 to $350.00 lens can perform my asking is good luck on my part and as I said, the criticisms that have been leveled at this lens regarding it's rendering at f1.2 are pluses to me.
ps ... I just thought I would add that these lens discussions are f***ing brilliant and definitely have the edge over 'bag threads!'
If I was a highly acredited photog with an unlimited budget and sharpness wide open was what I was after ... I wouldn't hesitate to own a Noctilux. The fact that a $300.00 to $350.00 lens can perform my asking is good luck on my part and as I said, the criticisms that have been leveled at this lens regarding it's rendering at f1.2 are pluses to me.
ps ... I just thought I would add that these lens discussions are f***ing brilliant and definitely have the edge over 'bag threads!'
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
I was fortunate to have tried out several super fast lenses for one of my lens tests, and that cured me off an GAS driven wish to get such lenses. Once you try out 25 lenses at the same time period, you realize after a short while that for what you do in photography, most likely you will not be able to justify certain lenses over what you already own.
I had my poor man's Canon 50/1.2 while RFF members sent me a Noctilux 50mm/1.0, a Nikkor 50mm/1.1, a Canon 50mm/0.95, ... etc.
I had my poor man's Canon 50/1.2 while RFF members sent me a Noctilux 50mm/1.0, a Nikkor 50mm/1.1, a Canon 50mm/0.95, ... etc.
Krosya
Konicaze
Raid,
Do you have a link to that fast 50 lens test?
I would sure like to check it out.
Do you have a link to that fast 50 lens test?
I would sure like to check it out.
Jungle Jim
Leica Fat Old Men's Club
Krosya,
Last year I did a controlled test on four of the 50's, the Canon 50mm f1.2, and the Leica Summitar, Summarit, and Summicron. The photos are pretty big and can be viewed here in the archives at:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21745
Last year I did a controlled test on four of the 50's, the Canon 50mm f1.2, and the Leica Summitar, Summarit, and Summicron. The photos are pretty big and can be viewed here in the archives at:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21745