alex7075
Newbie
Lord Fluff said:
Very interesting, because on that page from Jonathan Wienke it results that one should intentionally front-focus when the camera is tilted, while with the Noctilux the field curvature is so severe that one should actually back-focus.
With my posts and thanks to the help of you all, I am trying to better understand the characteristics of this lens, because if you get the perfect focus where you want it, the Noctilux is really amazing. Then, it'll be time to practice and shoot. I will post some pictures as soon as possible!
Ned, TJV, Lord Fluff: thanks for your answer!
maddoc: I can't see the photograph you posted.
Have a good day!
maddoc
... likes film again.
alex7075 said:
I edited my last post here and I can see the photo now. Don`t know what happened.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Caught a glimpse ...
Caught a glimpse ...
Leica M4-P Fuji Super Presto (1600PR) @ 1250 Noctilux at f/1.0
Caught a glimpse ...
Leica M4-P Fuji Super Presto (1600PR) @ 1250 Noctilux at f/1.0
chikne
Well-known
Dear noctilux owners,
I have a question that I hope you'd be able to answer =)
It's been well documented that the lens only delivers f1 in the very centre of the image. Though what exactly does it mean?
It is clear that there is light falloff the further we look away from the centre, but does this mean that where the lens is loosing a stop of light it will also produce an extra stop in depth of field?
The question is a bit confusing, I hope you will be able to make sense of it. Let me know if you can't and I will rephrase it.
Thanks
I have a question that I hope you'd be able to answer =)
It's been well documented that the lens only delivers f1 in the very centre of the image. Though what exactly does it mean?
It is clear that there is light falloff the further we look away from the centre, but does this mean that where the lens is loosing a stop of light it will also produce an extra stop in depth of field?
The question is a bit confusing, I hope you will be able to make sense of it. Let me know if you can't and I will rephrase it.
Thanks
Ororaro
Well-known
It is tough to calculate but I think it is safe to assume that if a Neutral density filter doesn't add depth of field, the same goes for the vignetting.
It is important to differentiate falloff and vignetting. Vignetting designs a physical obstacle while falloff is more of a loss of light while it's transmitted to the film/sensor, mostly because it is bent on the sides and straight in the center. in this regard, if it is vignetting we are talking about, I believe it is safe to expect a gain in DOF. If it is falloff we are talking about, it is safe to expect no gain in DOF.
In the end, since there is a pinch of field curvature addeed to the whole mix, it is impossible for me to answer this question with accuracy. But I can safely say the blend of all these things do create a great lens.
It is important to differentiate falloff and vignetting. Vignetting designs a physical obstacle while falloff is more of a loss of light while it's transmitted to the film/sensor, mostly because it is bent on the sides and straight in the center. in this regard, if it is vignetting we are talking about, I believe it is safe to expect a gain in DOF. If it is falloff we are talking about, it is safe to expect no gain in DOF.
In the end, since there is a pinch of field curvature addeed to the whole mix, it is impossible for me to answer this question with accuracy. But I can safely say the blend of all these things do create a great lens.
tomasis
Well-known
I checked the content of LFI 02/2008 (pdf file only content). There is an article about Noctilux and I saw Ned's name figured 
Anyone can scan the article to pdf file to publish? I'd don't mind wait a few months due copyright etc.
Congrats, canadian photographer
Anyone can scan the article to pdf file to publish? I'd don't mind wait a few months due copyright etc.
Congrats, canadian photographer
maddoc
... likes film again.
tomasis, thanks for the info ! Ned, congrats !!!
Ororaro
Well-known
Thanks for mentioning. What a surprise! I can't expres how thankful I am to the Magazine.
LFI is a great, modern magazine with outstanding content. I surfed through the website many times and I was floored by the outstanding Quality photography showcased.
Please subscribe to the Magazine if you still haven't as it's becoming a rare breed in this internet age.
Regards
LFI is a great, modern magazine with outstanding content. I surfed through the website many times and I was floored by the outstanding Quality photography showcased.
Please subscribe to the Magazine if you still haven't as it's becoming a rare breed in this internet age.
Regards
Last edited:
irq506
just curious
Ive wanted a Noctilux for a while now, mainly because it is what it is, but now that Ive seen these images, Im not so impressed anymore which is a bit disappointing. I think its probably that Ive achieved such stellar results with my own crop of lenses that Im spoiled now.
Ive had my eye on a 35 Summilux also, so Ill be on track for that even more now.
I often wonder what a Noctilux would be like on an M8 with its inherent lack of depth of field and that crop factor business... does anyone have any images from such of combination?
Ive had my eye on a 35 Summilux also, so Ill be on track for that even more now.
I often wonder what a Noctilux would be like on an M8 with its inherent lack of depth of field and that crop factor business... does anyone have any images from such of combination?
Ororaro
Well-known
Irq, some posters have shown some Amazing photographs.
Lord Fluff
Established
The ones with the dark corners are on an M8 - the ones with the really dark corners are on film
irq506
just curious
Some of the ones MikeL put up on the first page, I thought were really dissapointing, the swirly business is a let down because I get that same thing on a cheapa*s 40 Nokton, and the contrast control isnt as hot as I was expecting but I had never thought about that before seeing these images, and I guess its not an ASPH lens and that would also have some bearing on how it renders colors.
I have a ASPH 35 Summicron and I have used my friends 35 ASPH Summilux plenty, the 'cron is outstanding, the 'lux is stellar, his 50 ASPH 'lux is also stellar and I aspire to own a lux 35 followed by a Biogon 21 and a 50 ASPH 'lux. The rendering and saturation signature from these lenses have, set precedence for what I want to see in my slides. (I am part of a small group of Seattle leica users who all shoot slides and have regular shows, the reason we shoot slides is because of the discipline, you get one chance that thats it, its the shortest route from acquisition to output, you get one chance to get the image exactly as you want it, and it is the one with the least control and yet has IMO the finest satisfaction value). With this in mind, I have become very critical about how I want the images to look straight from camera.
I hope I have not offended anyone here, this is just my personal requirement for optical perfection.
I have a ASPH 35 Summicron and I have used my friends 35 ASPH Summilux plenty, the 'cron is outstanding, the 'lux is stellar, his 50 ASPH 'lux is also stellar and I aspire to own a lux 35 followed by a Biogon 21 and a 50 ASPH 'lux. The rendering and saturation signature from these lenses have, set precedence for what I want to see in my slides. (I am part of a small group of Seattle leica users who all shoot slides and have regular shows, the reason we shoot slides is because of the discipline, you get one chance that thats it, its the shortest route from acquisition to output, you get one chance to get the image exactly as you want it, and it is the one with the least control and yet has IMO the finest satisfaction value). With this in mind, I have become very critical about how I want the images to look straight from camera.
I hope I have not offended anyone here, this is just my personal requirement for optical perfection.
irq506
just curious
BTW Ned, I LOVE your children pictures on your website, just absolutely fantastic.
maddoc
... likes film again.
irq506 said:
If you like the way, the modern ASPH lenses from Leica (and also Zeiss glass) renders, then the Noctilux might be not the best choice for you. From my - limited - experience, the Noctilux has a very unique way of rendering and the contrast is not that high. Also, OOF rendering is sometimes critical to judge, for example with a lot of high-lights or small branches in the background, many lenses seems to produce a unpleasant bokeh.
Anyhow, from what I have seen in this thread so far, Ned's photos show best what the Noctilux is capable of. Looking forward to see more photos
cheers,
maddoc
Ororaro
Well-known
irq506 said:
Thanks!
Well, kids are such an easy subject it's not hard to come up with fantastic pictures of them. They basically jump at the camera and scream "Me! Me! Me!"
Ororaro
Well-known
maddoc said:... this lens seems to be usable at f-stops smaller than 1.0
Well exactly! That's the whole point of paying such money for this lens: Using it at f1.0 and at f8.0 with no loss of sharpness. Try shooting landscapes! I know I never hesitate!
semrich
Well-known
Paulbe
Well-known
maddoc--I'm still shivering form the ice photo--very nice and thanks!
Paul
Paul
