maddoc
... likes film again.
Some time since we had the last Noctilux-discussion thread here...
I am waiting for my copy to come back from service and then I will go out and take photos, spring has come and weather is fine here in Japan. 
Ororaro
Well-known
What you say is laughable. You turn things and quotes to your advantage but you forget that everything you say has 2 sides. Like your Canon f1.2 tests are supposed to be meaningful but Puts' aren't? Or are you trying to say that it's all about the photographer? If so, why are you pushing your Canon f1.2 to death and trying to make valid counter arguments whenever the Noctilux is mentioned?
Just buy a Noctilux and get over it... You'll be happier.
back alley
IMAGES
answer that question and you very well might destroy every photo forum on the net!
Ororaro
Well-known
Ororaro
Well-known
Mixing talent and gear is a common error and I can't believe you are trying to make a point with your irrelevant question. Who cares, really? No, really, who cares? I know who cares: The Gear freaks. The ones that I don't really want to be associated with. You really think any famous photographer gives a damn about what other people think about the gear they use?
The Noctilux is all and only about capturing images in all conditions. In this respect, it's the undisputed King. Can you really (really!) dispute this fact?
I am not being sarcastic and I can be a smart guy, too! Look: Many brilliant pictures in the PJ, Fine Art and documentation fields have been shot with cell phones... LOL
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The Noctilux is equivalent to a fully decked out Range Rover.
This baby will go anywhere,..but mainly to the supermarket.
This baby will go anywhere,..but mainly to the supermarket.
Ororaro
Well-known
No. You are playing mind games with yourself by thinking that.
Nobody ever said they need the Noctilux so they can improve their photography. And since you are not a psychiatrist, you can't authoritatively speak for those who want it just for the sake of owning and touching it.
Lust, why does it hurt you so much that people lust for the Noctilux? Seems to me you are creating those Noctilux Soap-operas and then you try to defeat them by showing pictures you made with a Canon. Again, it beats me.
People lust on 15,000$ motorcycles (peanuts) or on 50,000$ cars (relative peanuts when compared to the unobtainable 300,000$ sports cars) and there are the people who drive a rusty car, don't buy new shoes for a whole year, wear the same jeans over and over, eat Ramen so they can buy a Noctilux and there you are trying to analyze their bahaviour like if they we're nuts?
Krosya
Konicaze
Actually no, it will mainly go to a service station/dealer. Had one - never again!
Just like Canon or Hexanon vs Nocti - Toyota wins for me. It may not do ALL things as Range Rover/Noctilux does - but it's cheaper and what it does - it does well!
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I was offered a f1.2 Noctilux for 600 CAD in 1978.
I did not see the need for anything that fast and heavy.
I did not see the need for anything that fast and heavy.
kevin m
Veteran
At some point, Roger, price does matter. When an object becomes so valuable that one hesitates to use it for its intended purpose, then, in a practical sense, it becomes worthless. I think the Noctilux is there.
Ned is an exception to the rule. I admire his willingness to drag the thing out in all conditions and also the images he gets with it. So mazel tov! to Ned. But when this lens traded for $1,200 not so very long ago, a person would buy it, figure out it didn't suit his needs, then sell it. It happened so frequently it became sort of an inside joke among Leica users. But now that it's priced out of the reach of most, it's acquired a cult status all out of proportion to its performance.
If one likes it and is comfortable carrying the price of a good used car around the neck to take pictures, then have fun! But I think the photographic record amply demonstrates that most people who own the thing are too put off by the weight, slow handling and cost to do any interesting photography with it.
I'm not comparing the Canon 50/1.2 to the Noctilux at all, BTW. I just posted a few pics to show that the lens doesn't deserve its reputation as a poor performer. That's it!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,
I completely agree with the last point, about cult status, but looking at my favourite pictures shot with the Noctilux (attached), I'm half tempted to buy one just in the hope of getting more pics that I like as much. If I did much more photography of performing arts, I'd buy one like a shot.
It was always supposed to be a specialized lens, and it was always expensive new; the (formerly low) second-hand price reflected the fact that it really is an extremely specialized lens; and, of course, a much stronger dollar. At the $0.89 that a euro cost when Clinton left office, versus the $1.58+ it costs today, a $5,500 Noctilux falls to a bit under $3100: a price that any of us would be much happier to pay.
As well as the collapse of the dollar, the problem arose, I think, when more and more people bought it for reasons of what they perceived as prestige. There are, after all, plenty of photographers who (wisely) prefer to be judged on the price of their kit, or the on size of their front element, rather than on the quality of their pictures.
Is the Canon f/1.2 a poor performer? Well, you can't tell anything from pictures on the web, but of the two I've owned (one rebuilt by Optical Instruments Balham) and the others I've tried, I've never been impressed. Nor have any of my friends who own or owned them. This comes back to something I said elsewhere: when these lenses were a lot newer, they were also a lot less highly praised. I bought my first 50/1.2 almost 30 years ago, and so did some of my friends.
Over the years I've owned or used more than a dozen really fast lenses (f/1.5 or faster) apart from my Canons: 35/1.2 Nokton, 35/1.4 Summilux (pre-aspheric x2 -- one was stolen -- and aspheric), 50/1 Noctilux, 50/1.2 Nikkor, 50/1.5 Xenon, 50/1.5 Summarit, 50/1.5 Nokton (both old and new versions), 50/1.5 Sonnar, 55/1.4 Pentax, 58/1.4 Nikkor. I think I'd choose any of them except the Xenon, Summarit and (maybe) original Nokton over the Canon for use at full aperture unless I wanted low contrast and sharpness. I'd certainly sacrifice half a stop to use the f/1.4 and f/1.5 lenses instead.
EDIT: I should add that I fully accept that it is possible to make good pics with a Canon 50/1.2, or indeed any other lens, with the right subject and technique. That is true of any lens. I've just never found that the Canon suits a wide range of subjects -- nor that it is as good for those subjects as some of the other lenses I've had.
Cheers,
Roger
Attachments
Last edited:
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I am intrigued by the Noctilux. I've seen some 'nice' images from it, on various forums. On flickr, there's some nice work, especially by Tommy Oshima. I'm drawn to beautiful/plentiful bokeh. And, who couldn't use an extra stop or two?
But, then before plunking down the $2k (the price before i completely dismissed the idea), i did some simple assessing of the situation. I 'collect' web images. I see something online, i snag it, and put it into a folder, with a new title so that i can find and reference things. So, i looked at my favorite thousand images. Then, i looked at my bookshelves full of photography books. And, i can't find a single Noctilux picture. Yes, of course, i have saved Noct pictures/JPGs. I have lots of them. But, none are very significant to me. And, when i re-evaluated them, i realized i kept them only because i liked the effect of f1.0. My attraction was to an effect, and not to the actual photograph. Sorta like the LOMO with cross-processed film... NICE, but no one ever made a career from that. I'm not anxious to get to a gallery to see a wall full of it.
In all of my books, no one NEEDED f1.0. No one. Do i need it? Sometimes i think of it in the same terms as the dpreview crowd, about ISO 24,500 or whatever. All of a sudden, because one camera is capable of it, they're waiting to see what the next generation of their camera model will have as a top ISO. No one remembers that all the images in the books on their shelves were somehow accomplished between ISO 25 and 1600.
None of the above matters. It's still really just a matter of semantics. The term "need" has been substituted for "want" in our culture. And, it's still all relative. If i could have a Noctilux for under $1500, i probably would have one. Need or not. And, if, as i have been hoping, Voigtlander manages to make one soon, i'll probably buy it. Because awareness of stupidity does not constitute immunity to it.
But, then before plunking down the $2k (the price before i completely dismissed the idea), i did some simple assessing of the situation. I 'collect' web images. I see something online, i snag it, and put it into a folder, with a new title so that i can find and reference things. So, i looked at my favorite thousand images. Then, i looked at my bookshelves full of photography books. And, i can't find a single Noctilux picture. Yes, of course, i have saved Noct pictures/JPGs. I have lots of them. But, none are very significant to me. And, when i re-evaluated them, i realized i kept them only because i liked the effect of f1.0. My attraction was to an effect, and not to the actual photograph. Sorta like the LOMO with cross-processed film... NICE, but no one ever made a career from that. I'm not anxious to get to a gallery to see a wall full of it.
In all of my books, no one NEEDED f1.0. No one. Do i need it? Sometimes i think of it in the same terms as the dpreview crowd, about ISO 24,500 or whatever. All of a sudden, because one camera is capable of it, they're waiting to see what the next generation of their camera model will have as a top ISO. No one remembers that all the images in the books on their shelves were somehow accomplished between ISO 25 and 1600.
None of the above matters. It's still really just a matter of semantics. The term "need" has been substituted for "want" in our culture. And, it's still all relative. If i could have a Noctilux for under $1500, i probably would have one. Need or not. And, if, as i have been hoping, Voigtlander manages to make one soon, i'll probably buy it. Because awareness of stupidity does not constitute immunity to it.
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
Huh? Why not, as long as it's an "apples-to-apples" comparison?
FWIW, I'm sitting here looking at Summilux 50 prints and Canon 1.2 prints and, at equivalent apertures, they look remarkably similar. If anything, the Canon is BETTER at f1.4 than the Summilux. Less "weirdness" going on, to put it in technical terms.
All I can think of is that perhaps the Canon is very sensitive to assembly tolerances and that there's a good deal of sample-to-sample variation. In any event, my experience is that the lens doesn't deserve it's bad press. And anyone looking for a superspeed 50 might want to search out a good copy of the 50/1.2.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,
That was my point, really. You can't tell from a web pic what sort of apple it is.
Yes, I have often read on the web that there must be large sample-to-sample variations. It may well be true. All I'm saying is that the ones I've owned and used have not been impresssive, and that photographers I have known for years in the UK and USA have felt the same about theirs. As I say, many of us bought these lenses (and many others that are now very rare) when they were just second-hand and not-very-expensive lenses; the same way I got into Leicas.
This does not necessarily mean that I/they are right, and you are wrong, but nor does it necessarily mean that you are right and I/they are wrong.
Cheers,
Roger
Krosya
Konicaze
Roger,
I'm not sure from your post - what lens those pics above were taken with? But whichever it is - they seem to be not focused correctly/camera shake? Pictures I get from my Canon 50/1.2 are sharper wide open it seems. I know it's all web pics, so hard to judge, but still. I wouldn't claim that my Canon is as good as Noctilux, but it's not as soft as it sounds it should be from your post. Just my impression, I could be wrong.
I'm not sure from your post - what lens those pics above were taken with? But whichever it is - they seem to be not focused correctly/camera shake? Pictures I get from my Canon 50/1.2 are sharper wide open it seems. I know it's all web pics, so hard to judge, but still. I wouldn't claim that my Canon is as good as Noctilux, but it's not as soft as it sounds it should be from your post. Just my impression, I could be wrong.
angeloks
Well-known
Ok now, a 0.95 Noct with VR...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger,
I'm not sure from your post - what lens those pics above were taken with? But whichever it is - they seem to be not focused correctly/camera shake? Pictures I get from my Canon 50/1.2 are sharper wide open it seems. I know it's all web pics, so hard to judge, but still. I wouldn't claim that my Canon is as good as Noctilux, but it's not as soft as it sounds it should be from your post. Just my impression, I could be wrong.
Noctilux at full bore on M8. Oddly, the bigger they are, the sharper they seem. Points of focus: the head of the girl highest on the stairs, the beads on the young dancer's head-dress, the eyes of one of the girls beside the stage.
Don't get me wrong about the Canon. Plenty of people get plenty of good pictures from them. All I'm saying is that even more than Noctiluxes, people seem to over-praise them.
Cheers,
R.
kevin m
Veteran
I forget the name of this logical fallacy. It seems like piling on, though.
You're using words to describe your opinion about a lens, but I and others have posted pics that illustrate quite nicely, I feel, that your words aren't necessarily true, at least in the case of the lenses used here. Pics trump words when the subject is photography, don't they?
I don't shoot much at f1.2 with the Canon because I feel the lens draws too much attention to its signature at that aperture. I felt the same about the Summilux 50 at f1.4, and the Canon 50/1.5 at its max aperture.
With my Summilux 50, the "sweet spot" for me was between f1.7 and f4.0; with the Canon 50/1.2, it's between f1.4 and f4.0. The Canon, according to the prints I'm looking at, is better than the Leica at f1.4 and is equally resistant to flare in back-lighting conditions, which is more important to me than ultimate sharpness or contrast. YMMV.
I'll tell you what, I'm shooting at nothing but big apertures with this lens all this week, anything from wide open to f2.0, and I'll post the results when I get 'em.
kevin m
Veteran
You'd be hard-pressed to prove that point.
tomasis
Well-known
Roger said very good things, as usual.
Kevin, yeah one can to cheat getting a bit better picture a half stop lower with canon. But you forget the pretty much same reason for "users-rather-switch-to-summilux-from-notctilux" which is weigth issue. You get smaller and lightier lens like sonnar-c or summilux if you manage loss of a half stop. So this defeats the purpose having a lens with unusable f1.2 and praise perfomance of a half stop lower i.e. f1.4 of this same lens. At this point you had carry some unnecessary weight for your wrist more for that fair comparison
Hell, I'm really worth Noctilux lens. I shot quite regularly at ISO 1600, 1/15 and you imagine, I sometimes wish for faster times to freeze the movement without to need screwing already that painful iso for films. I have not tried Delta 3200, Fuji Neopan 1600 yet but I will try experiment developers for good Trix 3200 images (diafine etc). I would never get Noctilux for DOF purpose. There are nicer cheaper 90mm Summicron for same effects. It is what Ned said for long time ago. I think my night shooting depends on my character or/both probably easiness of getting "keepers" especially the legendary silver shines on the emulsion, haha. I don't usually like to wake up in early mornings and love to work at late nights
Kevin, yeah one can to cheat getting a bit better picture a half stop lower with canon. But you forget the pretty much same reason for "users-rather-switch-to-summilux-from-notctilux" which is weigth issue. You get smaller and lightier lens like sonnar-c or summilux if you manage loss of a half stop. So this defeats the purpose having a lens with unusable f1.2 and praise perfomance of a half stop lower i.e. f1.4 of this same lens. At this point you had carry some unnecessary weight for your wrist more for that fair comparison
Hell, I'm really worth Noctilux lens. I shot quite regularly at ISO 1600, 1/15 and you imagine, I sometimes wish for faster times to freeze the movement without to need screwing already that painful iso for films. I have not tried Delta 3200, Fuji Neopan 1600 yet but I will try experiment developers for good Trix 3200 images (diafine etc). I would never get Noctilux for DOF purpose. There are nicer cheaper 90mm Summicron for same effects. It is what Ned said for long time ago. I think my night shooting depends on my character or/both probably easiness of getting "keepers" especially the legendary silver shines on the emulsion, haha. I don't usually like to wake up in early mornings and love to work at late nights