$25 and a $3800 lens

[dreammoose]

Not all lenses are created equal, even with the same label.

Not all lenses are created equal, even with the same label.

A brief crossover post from the Olympus list.

The Zuiko 50/1.4 was made for almost 30 years and there were several versions, ranging from so-so to excellent.

The same is true of the 50/1.8.

I believe something similar is true of some Leica lenses, except, of course, that the quality ranged from only excellent to astonishingly great. 🙂

Moose

 

[adayoncedawned]

I don't think he said they were exactly the same, the quote was "not that far off"

Yes, there is a difference, but I concur not $3800 worth of difference

Sure, I understand that. I made a point of sharing my observation because no one had yet said anything to that effect.

Also, as someone has now already commented. A used noct (in comparison to a used zuiko) is nowhere near a $3800 difference. I realize he's comparing the cost that he paid - fine.

But to weigh the 'worth' as you state it is not an objective scale. Take a Subaru WRX STi and a Porsche 911. The WRX is going to give the Porsche a run for it's money, but is it worth twice the price? One could say that the Porsche has more mystique and soul than the WRX, but to compare the worth is really up to the driver. It is a question of value, and you will find all over the world that people will line up to pay double, triple or quadruple the cost for a 10% increase in performance for any sort of item you can think of.

For those extra percentiles, one must pay a premium. I think that the way some people behave when they take something very seriously is to endeavor for excellence, which by definition is to be better than the rest. Having those percentiles on your side is a part of that difference.

Hmm. I'd say it's undeniably indefinite.

JC

Hmm, you must be surfing the net on your cell phone? Hehe.

 

[sherm]

Steve:

Of all the shots I gotta say that the Cron is da bomb.

Razor Freakin sharp!!!

And yes like our dearly departed Frank G. I'm a sharpness FREAK

Scott

 

[Quantum]

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.

 

[jshelly]

For those extra percentiles, one must pay a premium. I think that the way some people behave when they take something very seriously is to endeavor for excellence, which by definition is to be better than the rest. Having those percentiles on your side is a part of that difference.

I understand your point, but $50.00? You have to admit that's pretty impressive.

 

[shaaktiman]

Wow, that's a $50 lens?

Leica lenses are a great example of the law of diminishing returns. At 5.6 I can see a difference between my 50 cron and my Minolta 50 (dating from my pre-RF days of course) in many respects, but is it a $1200 difference? Not to many. The $300 AF Minolta lens is an excellent lens. But the kind of people who invest in Leica glass are the kind who will shell out for that extra 10% boost in quality, even if it triples the price. Once you hit a certain point in quality any improvements are only to be had at great cost.

But there's one more thing. Had you bought the Zuiko new you probably would not have paid only $50 for it. But had you paid a premium to buy it new, and the time came when you had to sell both lenses (God forbid, I know) you'd probably be happier with the value held by the Leica lens. I know that I am less afraid to buy a used Leica lens, jus to try it out for a year or two knowing that I'll likely be able to sell it for the same price when I am done.

 

[SteveRD1]

The Zuiko

The Zuiko

The Zuiko lens cost me $25 - It was $50 for a nice condition OM-1 and the 50 1.4 lens. Got it from craigslist locally.

Anyway, yea, the Noct did render the eyes (exactly what i focused on) perfectly at F1 no less. The Zuiko at 1.4 was also focused on the eyes but is a bit flatter.

BUT $25 vs $3800 - Ouch!

Anyway, I still love the Noctilux and will be keeping it. I have 3 rolls shot with it and couldnt of taken some with any other lens. This was just something I did for fun, and was surprised at the quality of the $25 Zuiko!

 

[adayoncedawned]

I understand your point, but $50.00? You have to admit that's pretty impressive.

It doesn't really come as a surprise to me at all and is hence not incredibly impressive since I've used extremely cheap cameras quite extensively including the Minolta 7SII and the Yashica Lynx 14E both of which I acquired for less than $50.

To muse; here's a shot I printed from my Lynx which cost me a fat $30: (see below)

I guess having begun my photography experience on a pathetic budget, maybe I have a somewhat different perspective than some photographers who haven't used cheap gear but it seems rather strange to me that anyone should be surprised that a camera which doesn't bear a multi-thousand dollar price tag and isn't the latest and greatest, aspherical element bearing lens, can make great photographs.

I mean... Digging through some family keepsakes a couple weeks ago I came across a photograph of a great great uncle of mine that was made very nearly a hundred years ago and I swear, in the center it was just as clear and sharp as any photograph that I have ever printed from Zeiss or Leica glass. In fact I was feeling jelousy (and deep admiration) just to hold it in my hands.

 

[ampguy]

I don't see this $3800 eye rendering benefit. Could we perhaps have photos with similar expressions and then compare?

 

[telenous]

I prefer the Noctilux photo. The difference here with the Zuiko is admittedly not that great. And perhaps any difference is in that slightly shady 'now you see it now you don't' region (although I like to think that I see some difference). But comparing these similar photos is rather unjust for the Noctilux. Remember, this is a lens that goes as wide as f/1 and it can be used on a rangefinder. There will be cases (not always!) where the Noctilux will take photos while every other lens will fail. And there will be cases where the Noctilux will create a certain 'mood' that is impossible for any other lens to create. That's because it is both an f/1 lens and a rangefinder lens. Now, the Zuiko, as good a lens as it may be, it is neither f/1 nor for rangefinders. Does that justify the price differential? Well, that's between a man and his pocket (or, worse, between a man and his significant other).

Steve, I 've seen some of your photos with the Noctilux. Some of them could never have been made 'like that' with any other lens. Enjoy the Noctilux and post some more for us to enjoy too 🙂

 

[David Murphy]

In my experience the Zuiko 50/1.8 has very good optics, but mediocre mechanical build quality. My experience with the 50/1.4 Zuiko is that it has fewer mechanical issues. Many of the 50/1.8's develop fungus and aperture problems.

Olympus OM pundits say the OM system normal lens that is a real winner is the 40mm F2.8 pancake. Olympus forgot to make very many of them so they sometimes sell for $500 or more.

 

[tom_f77]

Really we need to see a comparison between the noc and the 50/1.2 zuiko. Send me the noctilux and I will perform this comparison for the benefit of all...

Tom

PS at 40cm I think the zuiko would win!

 

[jshelly]

I guess having begun my photography experience on a pathetic budget, maybe I have a somewhat different perspective than some photographers who haven't used cheap gear but it seems rather strange to me that anyone should be surprised that a camera which doesn't bear a multi-thousand dollar price tag and isn't the latest and greatest, aspherical element bearing lens, can make great photographs.

I mean... Digging through some family keepsakes a couple weeks ago I came across a photograph of a great great uncle of mine that was made very nearly a hundred years ago and I swear, in the center it was just as clear and sharp as any photograph that I have ever printed from Zeiss or Leica glass. In fact I was feeling jelousy (and deep admiration) just to hold it in my hands.

Well said,

It's hard not to get caught up in the "the more money this equipment costs it should produce better results mindset.

It would be great to have a gallery where all of the photos are taken with equiment that costs less then $100, now that's something I would love to see!

 

[KM-25]

Nice thread, I think further shooting would reveal the color and contrast better from the Noct.

A bit off topic, I just got my 50 1.4 Aspheric and it is a bit stiff in the focus. How long does it take Leica to turn it around and do they have a pro service like NPS or CPS?

Cheers,

Chrome

 

[Roger S.]

I prefer the Noctilux photo. The difference here with the Zuiko is admittedly not that great.

I think the difference is just more separation of the subject from background by the aperture (f1 is pretty neat). If you had stood back with a slightly longer lens (think cheap 70-210 zoom) you could get a similar effect.

The second shot just looks like the Olympus lens is not in focus. Also, was it shot on a tripod? Stopped down it should be pretty close to the Leica for a small web jpeg (maybe not on corner sharpness, resistance to flare, etc).

All my equipment is dirt cheap- Canonet, Minolta X-700, and I think it's an untold secret about photography- you can get great results for not a lot of money if you don't care about automation and following the latest trends.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

As other said Noktilux is faster and a RF can be shot with slower time, this make a difference. Still the price of lenses is not really related to their performance.

I don't like Noctilux pictures (never owned one, I am speaking of what I saw, but what I saw were real prints, not stuff posted on the Internet) but the lens is expensive because of its name and possibly because of the quality of its construction (still a well made lens which take bad picture, even if they are taken in almost darkness is not of much help in my opinion).

A Noct-Nikkor is supposendly just a tad slower and it costs about one forth of the Noctilux on eBay but in my humble opinion is much better than the Noctilux (pity it doesn't exist for the Nikon RF).

A screw-mount Zunow 50mm f1.1 is terrible but is as pricey as the Noct-Nikkor because it is "collectible" (I also don't have it but I had the chance to see a few pictures taken with it).

A 55mm f1.2 Zuiko is also just a bit slower and it goes for almost nothing on eBay only based on a few bad reviews you can read (I have one of them and it is a great lens, possibly a bit soft wide open but still very good and in my opinion better of both the Noctilux and the Zunow).

I guess than all other fast lenses which I don't know (Noctons, Canon 0.95 et cettera) have their price a lot for the name or the myth around them and not so much for their performances.

Giella lea Fapmu

 

[tom_f77]

Agree with what Giella said wrt to 55/1.2. The newer 50/1.2 is even
better, more compact, and not radioactive (the glass doesn't yellow
over time).

Roland.

The 50/1.2 is great. This was from my test roll with it; I hadn't really thought about what it meant to be able to focus all over the screen at 40cm until then...

Tom

 

[SteveRD1]

Well, the Noct is pretty sweet regardless (new image)

Well, the Noct is pretty sweet regardless (new image)

Just took this today of a buddy. F1, it was very DIM in the room, and it may appear there was a source of light but there was not. Tripod, F1 - FP4

 

[Andrew3511]

I've owned 3 Zuiko standard lenses. My 50mmf1.4 was for many years my main lens and it's a good lens. I had a 55mm f1.2 for a while. It was soft and lacking in contrast wide open and a lot heavier than the 1.4, also reputedly radioactive. But it gave the focussing screen the 1:1 image size that meant you could use the camera with both eyes open. I still have the f1.4 and f1.8. Both are fine for most work but unfortunately now I have 50mm Summicron and Summilux they are gathering dust as they are in the 2nd rank by comparison both for sharpness and size. Contrast is probably a little better but the definition is not so good.

When I bought my 1st Leica I thought it felt familiar in the hand so put it back-to-back with the OM1 and weighed both with the 50mm attached. The base plates are exactly the same size, the bodies the same height and they weigh almost exactly the same. Not too surprising as the design brief for the OM series was to produce an SLR with some of the handling characteristics of the Leica M.

The Noctilux is a big beast of a lens but to get that narrow depth of field...

I'd better start saving!

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Just took this today of a buddy. F1, it was very DIM in the room, and it may appear there was a source of light but there was not. Tripod, F1 - FP4

Tripod? I am afraid with a tripod you don't need an f1 lens...

Giella lea Fapmu