Jockos
Well-known
I often found the 1m MFD to be a pain, and the focus shift is horrible as mentioned. Those are the reasons I sold mine.
The lens is kind of big and heavy, however this contributes to the excellent ergonomics; I've found no other lens that's nicer to focus.
The front element can be kind of intimidating to the subject - it's like staring into a black hole, it sucks in all light from the surroundings.
Sharpness at 1.1 will often be limited by your slow shutter speed, at 5.6 it gets pretty sharp and the bokeh is excellent, making it good for most types of photography. Barrel distortion might limit it's use for architecture.
f5.6
The lens is kind of big and heavy, however this contributes to the excellent ergonomics; I've found no other lens that's nicer to focus.
The front element can be kind of intimidating to the subject - it's like staring into a black hole, it sucks in all light from the surroundings.
Sharpness at 1.1 will often be limited by your slow shutter speed, at 5.6 it gets pretty sharp and the bokeh is excellent, making it good for most types of photography. Barrel distortion might limit it's use for architecture.
f5.6
Brian Legge
Veteran
CrisR, that was one of the shots which convinced me to buy the lens. Commentary about how soft the lens is almost scared me off but that and other images really show what it is capable of rendering.
klapka
Established
jalLee2001
jallee55
I have one and do not use it much at all any more.
I second some of the opinions above about taking the time to get to know the lens. I really never was able to focus that well in low light with the lens. It could have been the camera, my focusing ability, who knows. It is a heavy lens, I pretty much keep my lux on my camera now.
I second some of the opinions above about taking the time to get to know the lens. I really never was able to focus that well in low light with the lens. It could have been the camera, my focusing ability, who knows. It is a heavy lens, I pretty much keep my lux on my camera now.
santela
Established
I think enuf's been said here that I don't have anything new to add, but if you are gonna be in a bar, why not a 35/1.2? I mean, the 50/1.1 is great and all but you might find yourself not having enough space, and the minimum focus distance is at 1m (or was it 0.9m can't remember).
Brian Legge
Veteran
A quick one from my first roll. Wide open, something of a quick shot. Not the best technically but I'm happy with it.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/8509936050
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/8509936050
Lax Jought
Well-known
He looks like he's three seconds away from swiping you with that rolled up newspaper.
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
My opinion FWIW.
The only problem with the Nocton is that it doesn't cost more money.
The only problem with the Nocton is that it doesn't cost more money.
VidarFoto
Established
I just got this lens, still learning how to use it, but impressed so far.
I bought it to use in low light, winter is pretty long and dark here in Norway, and I hate flash. Also plan to use it for portraits. It is pretty big ,so for most of the time I will use my 50 Summicron.
Before I bought it I read the Ken Rockwell review. He didn´t like it...
Also found some positive reviews out there like this:
http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2010/08/ruminations-on-a-50mm-f1-1-nokton/
But the thing that made me decide to buy the 1.1 was all the great pictures I saw on Flickr and here on the RFF.
I bought it to use in low light, winter is pretty long and dark here in Norway, and I hate flash. Also plan to use it for portraits. It is pretty big ,so for most of the time I will use my 50 Summicron.
Before I bought it I read the Ken Rockwell review. He didn´t like it...
Also found some positive reviews out there like this:
http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2010/08/ruminations-on-a-50mm-f1-1-nokton/
But the thing that made me decide to buy the 1.1 was all the great pictures I saw on Flickr and here on the RFF.
thegman
Veteran
I'm sure you're quite right. For me though, compared to my Nokton 35mm f/1.4, less than a stop slower, it was enormous.
If I liked the the ultra-thin DOF thing, then the Nokton f/1.1 is a killer lens, for a price which is hard to resist. But really I bought it thinking I wanted a really fast lens, but in fact I didn't. I was just GASsing for something, and I ended up with it. The fact is, I'm far happier with my f/3.5 Elmar.
But I'm the wrong person to ask really, I don't "get" this ultra thin DOF craze, I don't really see why people like it, for me it's like that tilt/shift thing you can do to make cityscapes look miniature, it's cool the first time you see it, and after that you wonder why people like it so much.
abumac
Well-known
I had a Nokton for a while. At the same time I had the Summicron. At last I sold both to buy a new Summilux. And I am happy. But I have to recognize the Nokton is a really great lens. Look here http://mimpresion.blogspot.com.es/2010/02/rente-mit-67-nein-danke.html
peterm1
Veteran
My opinion FWIW.
The only problem with the Nocton is that it doesn't cost more money.
Hey Peter, my name is Peter and I am from Adelaide. Maybe its the name or location that makes us think alike, but I agree.
I think if it were three times the price people would hold it in much higher regard. Its a damn fine lens!
PS Do I know you? Not that Adelaide is all that small, but there is not a big Leica community here.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The size of this lens seems to be an issue for some people and I keep wondering just how big it is compared to a lens like my 50mm f1.2 Zuiko. Surely it can't be a lot bigger because it's 1.1 as against 1.2 ... is that incremental difference in speed reflected directly in a substantial difference in size?
I don't view my Zuiko as being a particularly big lens!
I don't view my Zuiko as being a particularly big lens!
KarlG
Established
Keith - I believe you also shoot a Nikon DSLR, right? The Nokton 1.1 is a similar size to my Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 (which, from memory, is slightly larger than the Nikon equivalent).