Tell me not to buy a 35mm Nokton

"Does that name indicate you are owner of 48 Noktons? :eek:
Do you want to have them all and nobody else should use that fine lens?"

Hardly, I'm forty-eight years old. And I'm a big fan of my Nokton 50/1.5 :)
 
Sorry - I'm currently out on a five-day residential school trip and this is the first time I've managed to get to a computer!

I wasn't shooting XP-2 at this wedding; I'd checked the light and an ISO of 800 was enough to give me 1/60th at f/2 so I exposed Delta 3200 at 800 and instructed the lab accordingly. My mention of XP-2 was merely based on the idea that, if I could open up one more stop then I'd be able to shoot an ISO400 film at box speed.

Maybe Delta 3200 @ 800 was a mistake; I'd heard that exposing and developing it at lower ISO was a good call, but it really didn't work for me! I'll post an example or two when I get home.

I've calmed down a bit now (it's amazing what spending a day getting rained on in Wales with 30-odd 12 year olds can do for you); maybe I don't need that much speed, and faster film with a different exposure and/or developer is the way to go instead. I know the M3 has no 35 or 40 framelines, of course; I'd be happy enough using the VF to frame. My comment of an M3 being a good choice was based purely on EBL given the low DoF of either a 35, 40 or 50 Nokton.

I'd probably keep the 50 'cron anyway, so given that I can live with using the VF, I'd tend towards a 35 or 40 Nokton for the extra width (both in terms of more FL options and more handholdability).

The main reason I pulled the shoot off, btw, was the K10D and M42-mount 50/1.4...

Cheers for the input. I may yet say 'sod it' and get a 35mm Nokton, but at least now I've thought about it more carefully!

Jamie
 
NB23 said:
Quite frankly, this is tiring. Trying to create a myth that lens A or lens B is faster and better then the Noctilux because it has a wider angle of field or closer focus is like saying a lada is as good as a Mercedes because "see, they both have 4 wheels!".
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, Ned: I did not say this. I was responding to the opposite, the OP asked about the Nokton and was told that the Leica Lada is so much better than the CV Mercedes :p

Of course comparing Nokton and Noctilux is apples with oranges. If you shoot 50mm, 35 just won't do.

But "faster" the Noctilux is not.

Somebody owns an f1, is happy, all the power to him/her. Not my business. The truth is in the pudding, like your photos.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
there is no reason to use a Noctilux for doing "weddings"...:rolleyes:...today the films are quit good and you need a sharp picture not only of one hair...:p...
you can do all the jobs with a normal Summiron (or other good Lenses with f 2 )..

regards,
Jan

...I do my job now for 20 years, and never get problems with "light"...


Regards,
Jan

I do not Weddings, only if somebody "well known" ask me to do..but it is technical all the same "little clubs".."comercial portraits" or "Street"....;)
 
NB23 said:
I don't want to be argumentative but you'll have to explain how come the 35 1.2 is faster then the Noctilux...
Click to expand...

because the noctilux is 50mm and its known that 50mm's are all cheaters and liars?
 
foto_fool said:
The only wedding I have done recently was on a rainy day last April - not a lot of light to work with. I shot Efke 400 and Fomapan 400 with a 35mm Summilux ASPH on the M6 and the results were very good IMHO - the bride and groom liked them as well.
84020016sm-vi.jpg
Click to expand...

That is a wonderful shot John. Wish I had similar ones from my own wedding. Everything on your end was just right, but its also worth pointing out the obvious, that the lens held up its end of the deal under challenging conditions :).
 
NB23 said:
I don't want to be argumentative but you'll have to explain how come the 35 1.2 is faster then the Noctilux...
Click to expand...
You know, Ned, I realize that you're emotionally invested in this lens, and to an extent you have some justification for that because you produce some good images using it. But if someone makes any kind of remark about the Noctilux in any thread, you can be relied on 100% to jump into the fray defending it as if it were your lifeblood. Now here you're starting to argue lexical definitions of the word "fast". So what, if you mean the relation between entrance pupil and focal length, and Roland means depth of field for the same scene, which will obviously be from a different distance given the different focal lengths? An argument which is entirely based on having different definitions of the problem is rarely a productive endeavour. If you spent your time just enjoying that according to your definition, your Noctilux is faster than a mere 35 Nokton, and then using your time to take pictures instead of defending its honour writing text on the Internet, it would sem a lot more productive to me. Last time you told me to "stop spreading bullshіt" about the Noctilux in a thread where I hadn't said anything about it at all. Is it really necessary to be so generally argumentative about it?

Philipp
 
Thanks Amin. The 35mm Summilux ASPH is a really great lens. In the shot above most of the light came from the candles on the tables - the overhead and incidental lighting in the reception hall was pretty dim. DOF was a little better than I expected and the OOF areas don't distract. I'm happy with the overall texture. Telewatt likes his shots with more cotrast, but the tonal range here is exactly what I hoped to achieve. Fortepan 400 in Xtol.
 
So this is an example of what I got from the 50mm 'cron with Delta 3200 @ 800. I can't seem to get much detail from it; the grain is rather ugly and intrusive. This is why I was thinking of trying to expose XP-2 at box speed next time, necessitating a faster lens.

I know this is oversharpened, btw. I need some time to tweak the post-processing, but I've just discovered my school is going through OFSTED next week!

I'm currently leaning towards a 40mm Nokton...
 

Attachments

  • email 11 for RFF.jpg
    email 11 for RFF.jpg
    206.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
buy a pre Asph 35mm Summilux instead of the 35mm f1.4 Nokton if you got to have the Leica mojo thing going.
you will lose hardly any money if you decide to sell the Lux in the future.
 
Jamie - that looks like much of what I have done with Delta 3200 as well. Some of my stuff has been much worse in terms of grain, especially if I have left the film in the camera for a long time.

Follow this link to four snapshots that IMO show better what Delta 3200 is capable of. These were shot at box speed and developed in Ilfotec DDX for the recommended time.

The 40/1.4 Nokton will be a good lens for you. You may be able to pick one up for cheap in a month or so, after the new 35/1.4 Nokton starts shipping ;). Maybe try HP5+ in Diafine/Emofin?
 
Jamie,

Your wedding photo does also look very similar to what I have been getting with my Ilford 3200, in terms of overall "look", although I haven't scanned any of mine. Very similar results with the TMax3200 at the same (800-1000 ISO). It -is- very coarse grainy film, no doubt about it. I have standardized with Ilford DDX.

There are lots of choices in F1.4 lenses, which is a good thing. I tend to alternate between my f1.5 Nokton, and Canon F1.2 with Fuji Neopan 1600, currently for inside rangefinder available light. The 1.4 Nokton is also a great lens, as many here will tell you.

For shooting wedding formals, I would recommend a medium format, on a tripod, with a flash. I used to normally carry three Hasselblads to a wedding, two portable with small attached softboxes for beautiful close-up light, and one for shooting on a tripod, during the ceremony. And also carried a rangefinder for making small, B&W prints.
 
Thanks for continued input, guys.

Foto_Fool: nice to see that what I was getting is reasonably par for the course. What I learn from this is that I just don't like Delta 3200 that much, and therefore I do indeed need more speed!

Nokton48 - My usual kit is the Arax MLU with 6x6 back for posed shots, M3 for B&W grabs and K10d for indoor colour.

I'm leaning back towards the 35mm Nokton. I like its look more than I do the 40mm Nokton, and (already having a 50mm 'cron) I think the 35 Nokton will give me more options (modern vs old-stye rendition) than the suggested 35mm 'lux. So is anyone selling their 35mm f/1.2 in order to replace with the new 35 f/1.4? I'd be interested...

Cheers
Jamie
 
i have the 35 Nokton on an R2A and shoot with 3200 BW Kodak film and it is a great combination. i also have the CV21 which i use on the same configuration and let the R2A do all the work. but i focus only with DOF marks on the lens barrel. mainly i use this for street night work. not for weddings. weddings are boring for me so i would use a boring camera, maybe a DSLR. i have one somewhere.....
 
Not a lot, really :rolleyes:

I want a 35mm Nokton... much more than I want a 40mm Nokton or the new 35mm f/1.4 version. Why oh why did I have to be shooting this next wedding a week or so before the 35mm f/1.4 comes out and depresses the f/1.2 price?
 
I had a 35mm Nokton and after spending a couple days last month pouring over contact sheets I've decided that it was the only lens that I regret selling.

Considering how many lenses I've gone through I don't think that's a bad ratio.
It was great on the M8 but I really loved it on film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom