shortstop
Well-known
Very nice effect. I like the last photo.
CrisR
Well-known
Thank you. It's not a bad lens, I've had a lot of fun with it, but these days I'd happily swap a stop of light for a boost in sharpness.
Here's another shot from that session
Anna Mullin / Sneaky Raccoon - Portrait Session by Cris Rose, on Flickr
Here's another shot from that session
Anna Mullin / Sneaky Raccoon - Portrait Session by Cris Rose, on Flickr
Erik van Straten
Veteran
CrisR;2334687the look is soft compared to my Planar and as I'm now very much moved over to the Zeiss lenses and their crispness said:Strange, I get sharper results fom it, on film however. Maybe examples differ. Mine is sharper than a Noctilux f/1.0, but the dept of field is of course very shallow.
Leica M3, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400.
Erik.
CrisR
Well-known
Yes, but I'm comparing it to a 50/2 Planar
Erik van Straten
Veteran
You can't compare an f/1.1 lens with an f/2 lens - two different worlds - but you mean you like an f/2 lens, the Planar, better.
Erik.
CrisR
Well-known
What I said, was, in the post just above, that since using the Zeiss lenses, I prefer a sharper, more modern look than the Nokton 1.1 gives.
I also said, just above, that therefore I shoot it at f1.4 to improve its performance, as wide open is not to my taste.
I then said that if I'm shooting it as if it were an f1.4 lens, there's no point me carrying the extra bulk. I also said I would be happy to trade an extra stop of light (f1.1 to f1.5) for better performance.
I then pointed out that this naturally leads me to the conclusion that the Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH is the ideal lens fr me, as that can, and does, perform excellently when compared to the 50/2 Planar that I consider to be my reference lens for image performance.
I finished off stating that the 50 Lux is outside my purchasing power fr the next 12-18 months, so in the mean time I would happily trade the f1.1 for the more modern look of the current f1.5
If you got from that, that I was comparing an f2 lens with an f1 lens, then I'm not sure I can break down my reasoning any further, though I hope others will understand my reflection on my experiences and why, as a result, I might choose the 1.5 over the 1.1 - aka, the main quandary of the thread.
I also said, just above, that therefore I shoot it at f1.4 to improve its performance, as wide open is not to my taste.
I then said that if I'm shooting it as if it were an f1.4 lens, there's no point me carrying the extra bulk. I also said I would be happy to trade an extra stop of light (f1.1 to f1.5) for better performance.
I then pointed out that this naturally leads me to the conclusion that the Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH is the ideal lens fr me, as that can, and does, perform excellently when compared to the 50/2 Planar that I consider to be my reference lens for image performance.
I finished off stating that the 50 Lux is outside my purchasing power fr the next 12-18 months, so in the mean time I would happily trade the f1.1 for the more modern look of the current f1.5
If you got from that, that I was comparing an f2 lens with an f1 lens, then I'm not sure I can break down my reasoning any further, though I hope others will understand my reflection on my experiences and why, as a result, I might choose the 1.5 over the 1.1 - aka, the main quandary of the thread.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
As an alternative to Nokton 1.1, you might also look at the 50mm f1.1 Sonnetar?
CrisR
Well-known
If I remember previous comparisons, the Nokton f1.1 has superior performance to the Sonnetar in all aspects? The Sonnetar is smaller tho.
Pioneer
Veteran
I do enjoy the 50/1.1, it is actually quite a good lens. I had Don optimize mine for the M9 so I mostly use it there, or on the ZI.
I do own the Nokton 50/1.5 but I don't use it a lot, not because it isn't good, it is very good. But for my walk around lens I prefer the ZM Planar (which is a lot better), and the 50/1.1 is my preferred low light lens. Besides, there are a lot of good options at 50/1.4 or 1.5 so the competition is much tougher. At that aperture speed I much prefer my ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 because of that len's character.
But, to be honest, it all comes down to personal preference. They are both very, very good lenses. Just remember, at 1.1, and even 1.5, DOF is very shallow. A tripod, or at the very least, a monopod, is good insurance against missed focus. If you are shooting handheld you are better of with the ZM Planar or the Leica Summicron IMHO. Your success rate will be much higher so you will almost certainly be happier.
I do own the Nokton 50/1.5 but I don't use it a lot, not because it isn't good, it is very good. But for my walk around lens I prefer the ZM Planar (which is a lot better), and the 50/1.1 is my preferred low light lens. Besides, there are a lot of good options at 50/1.4 or 1.5 so the competition is much tougher. At that aperture speed I much prefer my ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 because of that len's character.
But, to be honest, it all comes down to personal preference. They are both very, very good lenses. Just remember, at 1.1, and even 1.5, DOF is very shallow. A tripod, or at the very least, a monopod, is good insurance against missed focus. If you are shooting handheld you are better of with the ZM Planar or the Leica Summicron IMHO. Your success rate will be much higher so you will almost certainly be happier.