$25 and a $3800 lens

F1

F1

But you do need a tripod if its very dim in the room and want to test the capabilities of the lens at F1 in a very dim enviornment. I shot the same thing at F1, F1.4, F2 and F2.8, then at F5.6 just to test the lens.
 
Quantum said:
Unfortunately this example has not abated my mild case of Noctilust. The Nocti photo hints at the famous dreamy, creamy clarity of this lens. While the role of lighting, pose, and expression is a bit difficult to sort out, I was struck by the eyes in the Nocti photo. The eyes are bright blue marbles, round and full of life. In the Oly photo, the eyes are flat and a bit lifeless. My sense from viewing many other images is that the Nocti can render a subject in a rather special way. Sharpness? Only one of many things that makes a photo appealing.

Great first post Quantum! I totally second your argument.
Some slight differences are worth billions of $. Flaubert have supposedly said “Le bon Dieu est dans le detail” ; God is in the detail. That's true. The rendition of the look makes the difference between good portraits and genuine portraits; and between good lenses and outstanding lenses. And sharpness? Do you need a razor sharp lens for a good portrait? Do you need to see every spot on the skin? That’s silly. As a matter of fact, there are three questions you should first ask:
- do you need a lens as fast as a Noctilux?
- do you have the money to get one?
- would you be satisfied with a Zuiko 1.2/50 if you could get a Noctilux?
If you don’t need the lens (personally I don’t even need a 1.5/50), if you don't have the money (for instance, I can't afford a Noctilux, even a scratched one!), and if you don’t see the difference between the Nocti and the Zuiko in this case, you should stop photography), then you would be a fool if you spent 3800$ for a Nocti.
But those who say that the Noctluxi is not such a great lens, would rush to buy one if they had the money.
My two cents as you guys say 😉
Best,
Marc
 
Back
Top Bottom