Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Agree with both Peter and Pioneer. I own one and a Noctilux. They have different looks, but are both very useful lenses. I also have a Nikon 50/1.2 and my impression is that the Nockton on the M9 is a shade sharper than the 50/1.2 on the Nikon D3. But this is splitting hairs. In a low light situation you are going to have your image quality stressed by all kinds of factors. I happen to like how the Nockton renders -- FWIW I agree, in general about the bokeh of the Nockton, but it has never bothered me.
B-9
Devin Bro
Ide use the lens exclusively on my M3, I like the idea of having the lens and body matched. I will be sure to send Youxin an email, and add it to my budget. I'm no stranger to shallow dof, I love my 55/1.2 Nikkor. I think we've managed to sort heads from tails!
Thanks again everyone for the quick responses.
Greatly Appreciated!
Thanks again everyone for the quick responses.
Greatly Appreciated!
Lss
Well-known
It's a good lens. It is big, has focus shift and some field curvature. If you don't need the speed, there are simply many easier options for a general use 50mm lens.
mgilbuena
San Francisco Bay Area
The Voigtlander Color Skopar 35 f/2.5 and Nokton 50 f/1.1 were my first lenses purchased when I took the rangefinder dive. Paired with the Leica M4-P, the Nokton and I made magic together.
In low light, the scenes were magical. Shooting on Kodak Tri-X film, my real-world photography had a creamy glow and rendering that I simply had never seen before on my Nikon SLR kit. With Neopan 1600, I had a very high keep rate from my sister's wedding; many of the photographs are very special to me and my family.
For me, this lens represented an amazing value for performance. I did not fetishize Leica beyond what it was: well-built hardware with a great quality, small lens system.
I sold this lens.
When simultaneously learning sunny-16, rangefinder photography and using film after a 10 year hiatus (of which previously was only point-and-shoot work), back and front-focusing issues was not something else I cared to add to the mix. A summilux replaced the lens.
Later, I purchased a Leica M8 and thought to give the Nokton a second chance. Unfortunately, this lens also seemed to focus behind the subject. I did not have tolerance for the lack of spot-on focusing and returned it. With such a narrow depth-of-field at f/1.1, back-focusing meant in-focus ears, or hair.. but blurry eyes. I was spending too much in film development to waste negatives/scans on out-of-focus photos.
If someone told me these focusing problems were fixed, I would buy the lens immediately. If you have the patience to understand the lens and know how to compensate for the missed focus, get it. It's awesome.
Lately, I have gravitated away from being obsessed with shallow depth-of-field. Perhaps it's a mastering of my technique, or an evolution of my abilities as a photographer. I am strongly considering a kit (21-50-90) with an f/2.5 maximum aperture -- and one lens, an f/1.4, for those dark moments.
In low light, the scenes were magical. Shooting on Kodak Tri-X film, my real-world photography had a creamy glow and rendering that I simply had never seen before on my Nikon SLR kit. With Neopan 1600, I had a very high keep rate from my sister's wedding; many of the photographs are very special to me and my family.
For me, this lens represented an amazing value for performance. I did not fetishize Leica beyond what it was: well-built hardware with a great quality, small lens system.
I sold this lens.
When simultaneously learning sunny-16, rangefinder photography and using film after a 10 year hiatus (of which previously was only point-and-shoot work), back and front-focusing issues was not something else I cared to add to the mix. A summilux replaced the lens.
Later, I purchased a Leica M8 and thought to give the Nokton a second chance. Unfortunately, this lens also seemed to focus behind the subject. I did not have tolerance for the lack of spot-on focusing and returned it. With such a narrow depth-of-field at f/1.1, back-focusing meant in-focus ears, or hair.. but blurry eyes. I was spending too much in film development to waste negatives/scans on out-of-focus photos.
If someone told me these focusing problems were fixed, I would buy the lens immediately. If you have the patience to understand the lens and know how to compensate for the missed focus, get it. It's awesome.
Lately, I have gravitated away from being obsessed with shallow depth-of-field. Perhaps it's a mastering of my technique, or an evolution of my abilities as a photographer. I am strongly considering a kit (21-50-90) with an f/2.5 maximum aperture -- and one lens, an f/1.4, for those dark moments.
Attachments
brusby
Well-known
They can be fixed, and quite easily. To be clear, I'm referring not to focus shift in general, which probably is inherent in this design, but to the inability to focus accurately wide open. Just send the lens to be collimated at your preferred aperture. An absolute bargain at roughly $100 to $200 dollars when considering the cost of a Noctilux.
Vincent.G
Well-known
I would get this lens if I needed f1.1 aperture for low light shooting rather than subject isolation. From sample photos I have seen, it performs well wide open.
If I want better subject isolation or bokeh, I prefer to shoot with a 75 or 90 lens.
If I want better subject isolation or bokeh, I prefer to shoot with a 75 or 90 lens.
Lax Jought
Well-known
I recently bought this lens, the 50mm Nokton f/1.1.
Wide open at f/1.1 it is a little soft but I've noticed that it is not any softer than what I am getting from my non-L Canon glass in photos taken with my 7D. The images with the Nokton start to sharpen from F/1.4 onwards, quite sharp at F/2-2.8, and it is bitingly sharp by the time I get to around f/4 - 5.6 - 8.
Corner to corner sharpness is not bad either, it certainly performs much better than the 35mm Nokton f/1.4 in this respect.
The bokeh, I am finding it mostly quite pleasant and soft. On the odd occasion when the bokeh looks like it's rendered differently by the lens, the results are still quite acceptable as far as I am concerned.
What I really like from this lens is the contrast, I am getting great strong contrast.
Wide open at f/1.1 it is a little soft but I've noticed that it is not any softer than what I am getting from my non-L Canon glass in photos taken with my 7D. The images with the Nokton start to sharpen from F/1.4 onwards, quite sharp at F/2-2.8, and it is bitingly sharp by the time I get to around f/4 - 5.6 - 8.
Corner to corner sharpness is not bad either, it certainly performs much better than the 35mm Nokton f/1.4 in this respect.
The bokeh, I am finding it mostly quite pleasant and soft. On the odd occasion when the bokeh looks like it's rendered differently by the lens, the results are still quite acceptable as far as I am concerned.
What I really like from this lens is the contrast, I am getting great strong contrast.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Nokton 50mm f1.1 @ 1.1 with Kodak Double X moviestock in Rodinal stand development.
ANY super fast 50mm lens is tricky to use. Your depth of field is minimal and you better have a camera with a well aligned viewfinder - preferably matched to the lens (with test shots). As for focus shift - all super speed lens that I have tried have it, Noctiluxe'd, Hexanon 60f1.2 and the Nokton f1.1. You learn how to compensate for it - but you must be willing to spend the time with the lens and the camera. At one time I did a shoot-out between the Noctiux 50 f1.0, Noctilux 50 f0.95 and the Nokton 50 f1.1. If I did not keep exact notes - it was not easy to differentiate between them.
The 0.95 had better corner sharpness, the Nokton was better in the center (both at f1.1) - the old style F1.0 was third with softer corners and a bit "fuzziness" over-all.
Either of these lenses does what it sets out to do - allowing you to shoot under next to impossible situations and hand holding the camera. They are also lenses that are designed to be used wide-open - and stopped down to f2 and beyond, they are no better than "standard" 50's (f1.4 or f2.0).
There is a penalty with the speed - you can squeeze light through a small piece of glass and have it cover a 35mm frame - they are all big - but when you need it, you need it and thats the price you pay!
I suspect that a fair amount of the complains about these lenses are more user-error than lens design. I have shot with fast 50's for decades - and still screw up. These days I am using my 50f1.1 on either a Bessa R3M or a 0.85 M6 as both of these seem to give me the focus precision I want. With my ZM I have close focus shift (back focus about a 1/4" at 6 feet). One M2 works better with it than the others. Took a bit of film to figure it out too.
Lax Jought
Well-known
I had a very high keep rate from my sister's wedding; many of the photographs are very special to me and my family.
That is a great moment of connection you caught there on film. Great photo.
brusby
Well-known
Nokton vs Noctilux photos
Nokton vs Noctilux photos
Ok, just for fun I'll post a link to some photos taken with the Nokton f1.1 and some taken with the Noctilux f1 on the same M9P in case anyone would like to guess which photos were taken with which lens based solely upon image characteristics. The exif info probably says Noctilux for all of them.
All were shot wide open and hand held. Most of these were just test shots I did to check out the lenses shortly after receiving them.
I've done some post processing on all of these photos as I almost always do, so sorry if anyone wants unprocessed raw files. But frankly, it matters most to me how the images turn out in the end, and not how they look straight from the camera. Anyway, I'll leave that can of worms for another day.
They're numbered 1 thru 9 for easy identification.
Hope this link works:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brusby/8500210040/in/set-72157632837442804/
Nokton vs Noctilux photos
Ok, just for fun I'll post a link to some photos taken with the Nokton f1.1 and some taken with the Noctilux f1 on the same M9P in case anyone would like to guess which photos were taken with which lens based solely upon image characteristics. The exif info probably says Noctilux for all of them.
All were shot wide open and hand held. Most of these were just test shots I did to check out the lenses shortly after receiving them.
I've done some post processing on all of these photos as I almost always do, so sorry if anyone wants unprocessed raw files. But frankly, it matters most to me how the images turn out in the end, and not how they look straight from the camera. Anyway, I'll leave that can of worms for another day.
They're numbered 1 thru 9 for easy identification.
Hope this link works:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brusby/8500210040/in/set-72157632837442804/
B-9
Devin Bro
Tom! Thanks for your wisdom!
@Brusby: Thanks a bunch, your experience is greatly appreciated! Lovely photos btw.
@Brusby: Thanks a bunch, your experience is greatly appreciated! Lovely photos btw.
paradoxbox
Well-known
Is there anyone here who made a jump from a 1.4/1.5 like a Jupiter-3 to the Nokton? do you feel it was worth the change?
I'd guess around 90% of my photos are taken in extreme darkness, bars and night streets etc, exposures around F1.5 / 1/4 @ 3200 are common for me.
i am a little unhappy at the unsharpness and motion blur of my photos. I do love the portability of the J3 but at the same time I wonder if the extra speed of the Nokton 1.1 would actually make much of a difference..
I'd guess around 90% of my photos are taken in extreme darkness, bars and night streets etc, exposures around F1.5 / 1/4 @ 3200 are common for me.
i am a little unhappy at the unsharpness and motion blur of my photos. I do love the portability of the J3 but at the same time I wonder if the extra speed of the Nokton 1.1 would actually make much of a difference..
thegman
Veteran
I had one for a bit, but sold it. A few reasons really:
1) I couldn't accurately focus it. Whether it was my Zeiss Ikon's or Leica M6's range finder at fault or the lens, I don't know.
2) It's huge.
3) I actually don't need f/1.1 or anything like it. I don't like the ultra-thin DOF thing,
Worth a try, and maybe if it all worked great, I would have liked it, but I have no intention of getting an ultra fast lens again.
1) I couldn't accurately focus it. Whether it was my Zeiss Ikon's or Leica M6's range finder at fault or the lens, I don't know.
2) It's huge.
3) I actually don't need f/1.1 or anything like it. I don't like the ultra-thin DOF thing,
Worth a try, and maybe if it all worked great, I would have liked it, but I have no intention of getting an ultra fast lens again.
huge is relative.
The Voigtlander 50/1.1 is smaller than the f1 Leica Noctilux
and a LOT smaller than the f/.95 Noct
and tiny compared the 50/.95 SLR Magic lens.
Stephen
PineEar
photographer
I don't use my Nokton 50/1.1 very often and I have considered selling it, but I must admit it does have its uses!
CrisR
Well-known
I use mine a lot, it's my main portrait lens, and personally I've no problems with the bokeh. I also use a 50/2 planar. One is soft and atmospheric, the other sharp and punchy!
A Seasonal Smile by Cris Rose, on Flickr
A Seasonal Smile by Cris Rose, on Flickr
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
And I thought this was about a behind-the-scenes documentary on juicy details.
Ronald M
Veteran
Lax Jought
Well-known
There was a big all-night party event in the city last night, I took a number of photos with my M8.2 and the 50mm f/1.1 Nokton, all wide open:
