New Nokton: compensating for something!?

Why do people buy anything more than a bicycle? I mean, one could travel perfectly fine on a bicycle for a LOT cheaper and it does much the same job as a car...

f.95/f1/f1.1/f1.2 lenses ARE special, they're usually designed to be niche market produce for specific people who want or need the capabilities and characteristics that come with them.

I personally wonder why the hell anyone would ever buy a Morgan car. Wooden chassis, 1920s technology, crappy handling etc etc. But I'd never say to a Morgan owner that he made the wrong choice or that he's "compensating" or crazy.

If you don't need anything faster than f1.4, thats good! You won't have to spend special money for special lenses.
 
Congratulations! With this thread we can have another 100 posts about this lens before the first is even shipped 😉
One stop makes a difference for many shots. I use an f2/35 biogon and planar 2/45 about 90% of the time. There have been countless opportunities lost that one or in the case of this lens two stops would have saved. That said I'm not likely to buy one. A hex should arrive today or thursday. That will finish the fast 50 quest for my lifetime. The crafting of this lens and, the pricepoint it will be sold deserve endless praise. It's a shame that so many companies abondoned the RF format with the dawn of the SLR. Deacades later having Mr K inject inthusiasm back into the platform with offerings like this and others is exciting.
 
As an aside ... digital DOF

As an aside ... digital DOF

BTW, I'd prefer to stay with fast lenses in this thread, rather than get side tracked into digital DOF - here's an article I wrote on DOF and rangefinders, which hopefully makes it all clear: http://www.richcutler.co.uk/r-d1/r-d1_02.htm

PS: I'm still not convinced by most of the replies...

Also, I didn't say what was the point of fast lenses per se (my two favourite lenses are the 35mm and 50mm Summilux pre-asphs, though I rarely use them wide open) but, rather, that the advantages of f1 compared with f1.4 are minimal...

I still think that an f1 lens is a white elephant...
 
yanidel said:
Well, so far we haven't see a sample to prove that point 😉
The one posted above by Krosya had to be taken with a tripod, even at F1.2, it does show some blur.
Click to expand...

that just means his f/1.2 lens wasn't fast enough, where an f/.95 lens might have been. there are plenty of examples where f/1.2 provided an advantage over f/1.4, that's why these super-fast lenses were created in the first place. it's the same advantage that an f/1.4 lens gives you over an f/1.8 lens. i have many photos in my flickr photostream where f/1.2 gave me an advantage over f/1.4, mostly due to mirror slap on an slr. at f/1.4, the shutter speed would've been between 1/15 and 1/30, a range i am personally not comfortable with, where f/1.2 gave me shutter speeds of 1/30 to 1/45, a range i can consistently get sharp results with.
 
i admit to being excited simply because it's a new lens and it's for rangefinders. i may get to play with one eventually when they start selling on the used market. looking at my lens kit, it is very clear that fast in not my thing. i look at my 50/1.5 sonnar as a specialty lens and 50 is very far from my favourite focal length. i used to think about the 35/1.2 but eventually decided against it. i don't need fast, hell, i went from 35/2 to 35/2.8 to have a smaller lens and quite frankly, i never felt hard done by and barely noticed the decrease in speed.
but that's me.
 
whickus said:
that just means his f/1.2 lens wasn't fast enough, where an f/.95 lens might have been. there are plenty of examples where f/1.2 provided an advantage over f/1.4, that's why these super-fast lenses were created in the first place. it's the same advantage that an f/1.4 lens gives you over an f/1.8 lens. i have many photos in my flickr photostream where f/1.2 gave me an advantage over f/1.4, mostly due to mirror slap on an slr. at f/1.4, the shutter speed would've been between 1/15 and 1/30, a range i am personally not comfortable with, where f/1.2 gave me shutter speeds of 1/30 to 1/45, a range i can consistently get sharp results with.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I am not convinced 😉 There are so many other reasons why I will miss a shot before blaming it on not having a 1.2 on instead of 1.4. These are bad anticipation, inaccurate focus, M8 freezing (sigh), not switched on (double sigh) or simply a scene not unfolding like I expected too...
So sincerely, I rather work on my technique and skills to get many more keepers than buy a 1/2 of a stop advantage lens in the hope that it will save one or two shots.
 
I for one would love to add a 50/1.1 to my RF arsenal... why? If 1.4 is good enough, I'd just stick to my SLR. I use a rangefinder for its (relatively) small size and for its fast lenses otherwise impossible or hella expensive with an SLR... Also, the minor differences mean a lot to those most critical of their own work. Sure the difference is minimal, but sometimes that difference separates you being satisfied with your work or not. For pros, the minor difference can mean a huge payday, or none at all... IMHO.
 
These super fast lenses wide open are like an Italian twin cam engine with dual side draft carbs ... get them up near the redline and they take on a whole new character! 😛
 
thinkfloyd said:
IFor pros, the minor difference can mean a huge payday, or none at all... IMHO.
Click to expand...
And how many of these pros do use the Noctilux as standard lens nowadays ?
Let's be realistic, if it is for professional work low light, I guess 99% of pros will switch to the 5D, D700, D3 ... and so on.
 
thinkfloyd said:
I use a rangefinder for its (relatively) small size.
Click to expand...

The only thing that makes a rangefinder appreciably smaller than many of its SLR brethren (compare a rangefinder with an Olympus OM1 or the current Olympus E-450) is the lens - sticking a honking great f1 lens on your rangefinder takes away that advantage!
 
Double Negative said:
Why does anyone have to "justify" (or rationalize) wanting a fast lens anyway? Sometimes it's "just because." 😉
Click to expand...
That's fine. I suspect that most Noctilux owners bought one not because they needed that lens for their type of photography and nothing else would do but just "because" - but there's a lot of spurious justification out there...

I like low-light photography (see http://www.bhcc-online.org/gallery/v/RichC/ARPS/ - admittedly some are taken with a tripod, but some aren't) but, as Yanidel says, max aperture is way down the list of things I need to worry about when tking a photo...
 
Last edited:
RichC said:
The only thing that makes a rangefinder appreciably smaller than many of its SLR brethren (compare a rangefinder with an Olympus OM1 or the current Olympus E-450) is the lens - sticking a honking great f1 lens on your rangefinder takes away that advantage!
Click to expand...

It is not only the lens make RF smaller (generally). SLRs need more space for mirror flip and the viewfinder.
 
yanidel said:
And how many of these pros do use the Noctilux as standard lens nowadays ?
Let's be realistic, if it is for professional work low light, I guess 99% of pros will switch to the 5D, D700, D3 ... and so on.
Click to expand...

Sorry... when I said pros, I didn't mean those kinds... I mean the artists (fine art photographers) who sell their work 🙂
 
RichC said:
The only thing that makes a rangefinder appreciably smaller than many of its SLR brethren (compare a rangefinder with an Olympus OM1 or the current Olympus E-450) is the lens - sticking a honking great f1 lens on your rangefinder takes away that advantage!
Click to expand...

I know, which was why the continuation of my comment also talked about the fast glass unavailable for SLR's... but yeah, I do agree with some of your points. In fact, I embrace it! Staves of the feeling of fast glass GAS and makes me appreciate my current 1.4's 🙂
 
Most of user don't need a Noctilux, but they always want to try. The Noctilux is too expensive for most of them, so the CV50 1.1 comes.

I guess many people will buy the lens as thinking of get 90% of a Noctilux with 1/4 money --- a really good deal. Then will leave the lens rest on their shelves.
 
Srono said:
It is not only the lens make RF smaller (generally). SLRs need more space for mirror flip and the viewfinder.
Click to expand...
Comparing my Nikkormat and Leica M8 sitting on my desk, the Nikon's humpy prism bit isn't exactly large - both cameras will take up about the same amount of bag space, ignoring the lens...
 
I think one reason some people like fast lenses (and I'm one of those people), is those lenses usually have a unique signature. Just look at Noctilux, Canon 50/1.2 and 0.95, CV 35/1.2. It's subjective, I know, but I just hate simple, boring lenses that you cant tell one from another based on their signature. If I did - I'd just have a simple P&S camera. I prefer things that can deliver different results. But thats me. 😉
 
thinkfloyd said:
Sorry... when I said pros, I didn't mean those kinds... I mean the artists (fine art photographers) who sell their work 🙂
Click to expand...
which are of course a huge majority of the pros that make a good living out of it 🙂 But you just said it, artistic ... sharpness isn't probably the top priority in artistic work IMO nor is it the characteristic of many of the best pictures of the famous.
Even Leica states indirectly that the Noctilux is an artisitic tool before mentioning it's low light ability... (taken for Leica website):

"The extremely shallow depth of field (DOF) at open aperture produces portraits and detailed studies of unequalled aesthetic effect. Even when just slightly stopped down, the result is outstanding image quality, comparable to the LEICA SUMMILUX-M 50 mm f/1.4 ASPH, which is considered the best standard lens ever produced. When used in available light photography, the lens exceeds the perception of the human eye. Even the light from one candle can be sufficient for handheld photography."

Aesthetics ... to me is the reason to be of the Noctilux and this new CV1.1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom