Lord Fluff
Established
Ok, while I try to scrape together the £2000 plus that these now command, is there any lens that comes close but for a more sensible price?
Thanks all
Thanks all
telenous
Well-known
Summilux 50mm f/1.4 E43, type I&II. You 'll save a bundle, you 'll lose a stop.
Last edited:
sleepyhead
Well-known
sakebalboa
Member
doesn't the nokton 35mm f1.2 on an m8 or r-d1 come close?
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
ErikFive said:
I'm especially fond of the Canon 50 f1.2. Hard to beat the performance for the price.
ferider
Veteran
What do you want to use it for ? Portraits ? Street ? You like the signature ?
chikne
Well-known
Lord Fluff said:
I dream very often about this lens. Though, I am pretty sure that if the noct had Voigtlander written on it, the qualities which it gets praised for would be seen as defects instead...
kevin m
Veteran
Too true. When you pay $5,000 for a lens, it's flaws are "character;" when you pay $500 for a lens, it's flaws are just flaws. 
borismach
Established
kevin m said:Too true. When you pay $5,000 for a lens, it's flaws are "character;" when you pay $500 for a lens, it's flaws are just flaws.
No! For lens of $500, its character is dfinitely a flaw.
bm
borismach
Established
telenous said:
I concur.
bm
Lord Fluff
Established
yes, yes and especially yesferider said:
Lord Fluff
Established
lovely, but not an ideal candidate if they are so raresleepyhead said:
amin_sabet
Established
kevin m said:Too true. When you pay $5,000 for a lens, it's flaws are "character;" when you pay $500 for a lens, it's flaws are just flaws.
Nicely put
.visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
If it's the signature you like, then perhaps the new Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar is the ticket. Lots of "signature" small and easy to handle with a small price tag. It is definitely my next lens.
Krosya
Konicaze
Can't wait to see what Ned would have to say about this.
Also, I wonder if people that use Noctilux would post some BAD examples of the photos. After all, not every photo that is made with this lens is great, right? How often, for example, they miss focus and ruin a photo. Or it didn't deliver as expected? How many photos are actually "keepers" from a roll?
Also, I wonder if people that use Noctilux would post some BAD examples of the photos. After all, not every photo that is made with this lens is great, right? How often, for example, they miss focus and ruin a photo. Or it didn't deliver as expected? How many photos are actually "keepers" from a roll?
akptc
Shoot first, think later
I second Canon 50/1.2 which I found perfect for lowlight people shots, especially on the RD1.
d30gaijin
Noctilusting
My vote goes to the 35mm f/1.2 Nokton. A fabulous lens in a better focal length than the 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux at a fraction of the cost. It's a half stop slower but allows a half stop gain in hand holdability thanks to the shorter focal length. I used to want a Noctilux until I got the 35/1.2 Nokton. I now lust for the "lux" no more.
pphuang
brain drain...
Krosya said:Can't wait to see what Ned would have to say about this.
Also, I wonder if people that use Noctilux would post some BAD examples of the photos. After all, not every photo that is made with this lens is great, right? How often, for example, they miss focus and ruin a photo. Or it didn't deliver as expected? How many photos are actually "keepers" from a roll?
"Bad" can be quite subjective - "blurry" can be good or bad, depending on the subject matter or the intent. My percent winners are the same, regardless of lens or camera or film or digital.
I shoot with the noct, and I will tell you that its the photographer, not the lens, that makes a bad picture...
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
rogue_designer said:
Strange......I recently got one-on a '7' body, and could not get rid of the damn thing fast enough!, no nothing wrong with the glass or the focussing, but after a lifelong love afair with superb Nikkors, I had to agree with most reviewer's comments, - 'less than satisfactory'.....'nothing special', still....'one man's meat.........'
, I'll now retire to the fall-out shelter! - Cheers, Dave
ferider
Veteran
Krosya said:Can't wait to see what Ned would have to say about this.
Also, I wonder if people that use Noctilux would post some BAD examples of the photos. After all, not every photo that is made with this lens is great, right? How often, for example, they miss focus and ruin a photo. Or it didn't deliver as expected? How many photos are actually "keepers" from a roll?
Check out http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/pool/tags/LeicaNoctilux50mmf1.0 if you want to see good and bad (in terms of signature, not photo).
There are few RF lenses that have as much coma and vignetting as the Noctilux. Nauseating if you look at some of the photos too long. And let's not talk about focus shift
Amazing what a high price and brand can do to subjective value If you like the shallow DOF or hand-holdability, there are other alternatives.
Ned, what do you think ?
Last edited: