58mm Noct-Nikkor First Photos

[Calzone]

Menos,

Since you are fortunate to own both a Noctilux as well as the Noct-Nikkor, could you mention the high points and advantages of each lens.

Both are great lenses; and, one day, I hope to also own a Noctilux also for its character and signiture.

I live in NYC BTW and intend on doing a lot of night shooting.

Cal

 

[menos]

Cal, I do not have enough experience with the Noct-Nikkor yet, to give a fair comparison, but I do have some first impressions, which I will sum up in short form:

Noctilux:
- more fine detail even wide open (fine hair, skin, eye lashes)
- less contrast all the way from f1 - stopped down (which might be the reason for perceivable more detail)
- nicer tones in BW (I guess, also contrast related - I like my lenses with a bit less contrast, to add later in PP)
- much more light falloff than the Noct-Nikkor
- heavier to the touch focussing, but at least as smooth, if not smoother than the Noct
- better aperture ring (feels a bit more inacurate, but is lighter to the touch and therefore easier to set and less likely to mess up)
- better aperture setting with accurate half stops (with the Noct, I always have to check and double check, which aperture I set - Nikon didn't design the Noct, to be set away from f1.2 or f1.4 I guess)

Noct-Nikkor:
- close focus, close focus and close focus (really, it is great, to be able, to shot up to 0.5m)
- it looks sharper at once, but it isn't - I guess it is the always greater contrast of the lens
- wonderful colors - in fact the first thing in a long, long time, that tickled me, to do color - they are just beautiful, rich, smooth
- better illumination across the frame (this is a good or bad, depending, whether one likes the signature of the Noctilux f1)
- lens character looks "more modern" (sharp, contrasty, more even illumination -> see Noctilux 0.95)
- much more difficult to focus, even with splitscreen (my subjective experience - the Noctilux on matched RF body is easier to work with , but I guess this is a RF vs. SLR thing)
- much harder, to shoot moving subjects (again RF vs. SLR - I find it easier, to match the RF in hasty, moving situations, than the ground glass)
- the Noct has all settings opposite to the Leica glass - if you are heavy into Leica, this is very irritating (aperture at the lens mount, not in front, aperture the other way around, even worse - focussing the other way around)
- the Noct has an absolutely marvelously beautiful light painting, the Noctilux doesn't (it is actually an optical defect, but makes digital photos at night look more like film with light wrapping around bright light sources in illuminated clouds)

Both lenses do not look very good at infinity - they are manageable, but I would not use them for any landscape. For me, both are the perfect street shooters at night in illuminated cityscapes.
The Noct-Nikkor is even more so usable as of the fantastic Nikon D700 and Nikon D3 - makes night into day, no shutter speed limitations or noise issues opposed to Leica.
The Noct gives in this sense more freedom than the Noctilux.

If measured by cost of investment, a Noct-Nikkor + Nikon D700 + focussing screen looks extremely tempting, opposed buying a Noctilux f1 V4 for a similar cost.

But in the end, one cannot compare them in a fair way, as these are very, very different lenses. I would not part with either lens after having them used a bit.
Both lenses just happen to be very fast optics in a roughly similar focal length ;-)

 

[Calzone]

For me, both are the perfect street shooters at night in illuminated cityscapes.

If measured by cost of investment, a Noct-Nikkor + Nikon D700 + focussing screen looks extremely tempting, opposed buying a Noctilux f1 V4 for a similar cost.

But in the end, one cannot compare them in a fair way, as these are very, very different lenses. I would not part with either lens after having them used a bit.
Both lenses just happen to be very fast optics in a roughly similar focal length ;-)

Thanks for your response. Very thoughtful. I live in NYC and I agree these two pieces of glass would be very useful here.

I can also see the wisdom of owning both because of the differences.

One thing I can say in particular, even though I don't own a Noctilux, is the VF on my F3 non-HP with my Noct-Nikkor is brighter than the rangefinder on my M6 with MP upgrade, and under dim lighting conditions it offers more contrast that may be helpful in accurate focusing.

Thanks again.

Cal

 

[menos]

Cal, this is true - with SLRs with such fine, huge viewfinders as the F3HP, the view through the lens gives a brilliant image with all the detail and complete lack of issues as rangefinder whiteout or flare of the RF, etc (these are low light issues, that mostly do not occur during brighter light).

I have issues though with manually focussing a SLR in quickly moving scenes opposed to the very intuitive and sure focussing of a Rangefinder.
Somehow, I get more keepers with the M8.2 + Noctilux opposed to the Noct on the D3.

It might well be my lack of experience, focussing a fast lens on the lacking focus screen of the D3.
I don't use the electronic rangefinder, as it is very imprecise and slow to use - using the electronic RF in the D3 almost feels like focussing through the RF window of a Leica M and then reverting to an external viewfinder to frame the shot, so much I am distracted by moving my eye and concentration between image and LCD display ;-)

 

[leicashot]

A brilliant lens with nicer rendering than the Leica f/1 Noct IMHO. The combo of this and the D3s will enable the user to achieve much better results in super low light than that of the M9/0.95 combo. 0.95 at ISO 2500 VS 1.2 at ISO 12,800 - hmm

 

[Calzone]

Cal, this is true - with SLRs with such fine, huge viewfinders as the F3HP, the view through the lens gives a brilliant image with all the detail and complete lack of issues as rangefinder whiteout or flare of the RF, etc (these are low light issues, that mostly do not occur during brighter light).

I have issues though with manually focussing a SLR in quickly moving scenes opposed to the very intuitive and sure focussing of a Rangefinder.
Somehow, I get more keepers with the M8.2 + Noctilux opposed to the Noct on the D3.

It might well be my lack of experience, focussing a fast lens on the lacking focus screen of the D3.
I don't use the electronic rangefinder, as it is very imprecise and slow to use - using the electronic RF in the D3 almost feels like focussing through the RF window of a Leica M and then reverting to an external viewfinder to frame the shot, so much I am distracted by moving my eye and concentration between image and LCD display ;-)

No need to apologize, but it is great to hear from someone who has a lot of great gear to be so humble.

I am the opposite of you as far as RF vs SLR. Nikon SLR's remain easier to focus for me. Only since the credit crisis did I experience Leica and rangefinders and even more recently Rollei TLR's, but I have shot Nikon pro cameras for over three decades. Also focusing on ground glass with TLR's seems natural for me, as long as there's enough light to provide contrast.

I remain an analog photographer, but a Nikon D3 with this lens seems to be the evolutionary step for me, if I ever go digital. I almost always shoot B&W and I'm going to explore Fuji Arcos and Neopan 1600 with Diafine.

You are a lucky guy BTW.

Cal

 

[squinza]

Really fantastic photoes! They have a really unique atmosphere. And for sure, you can handle such a lens very well!

 

[menos]

A brilliant lens with nicer rendering than the Leica f/1 Noct IMHO. The combo of this and the D3s will enable the user to achieve much better results in super low light than that of the M9/0.95 combo. 0.95 at ISO 2500 VS 1.2 at ISO 12,800 - hmm

I agree - this lens and a D3 is pure magic in the night (never tried the nightvisionesque D3s though ).

I like mostly the colors of it, and the sharpness wide open and the contrast, which is "there" but not excessive, and, and…

But I am not decided yet, if one or the other has a nicer rendering. The Noct definitely looks "cleaner", more modern, which is a great feat, thinking about it's 1977 heritage - great design!

BUT THERE IS A CATCH - AAAARRRRGGGH!
I had the lens on a tripod the first time now and wanted to do some wide open night shots with far, far away lights.
And what did I find? MY SAMPLE IS NOT COLLIMATED TO INFINITY AAARRRGGHHH.
It is a mint lens, no scratches, no bumps, pristine glass, great fit and feel, but it can't reach infinity on the D3.

I have ordered myself a repair and service manual reprint from the US and will see, how things look :-(
I don't plan to give the lens back - it's too sweet and works perfectly at my usual range - it just ain't for geeky things like astro photography or panorama stitching ;-) The front focus is hidden from about f5.6, but very apparent wide open with beautiful infinity bokeh 😛

No need to apologize, but it is great to hear from someone who has a lot of great gear to be so humble.

I am the opposite of you as far as RF vs SLR. Nikon SLR's remain easier to focus for me. Only since the credit crisis did I experience Leica and rangefinders and even more recently Rollei TLR's, but I have shot Nikon pro cameras for over three decades. Also focusing on ground glass with TLR's seems natural for me, as long as there's enough light to provide contrast.

I remain an analog photographer, but a Nikon D3 with this lens seems to be the evolutionary step for me, if I ever go digital. I almost always shoot B&W and I'm going to explore Fuji Arcos and Neopan 1600 with Diafine.

You are a lucky guy BTW.

Cal

When people, who got things get tacky, something serious is wrong with 'em ;-) The one reason, why I learn things is to throw all wrong proudness over board and be frank, curious and cool - oh and listing Bob Marley helps too (just studying "Survival" - what a great album!) ;-)

Cal, I don't do photography long (about 3 years now, after I got hooked).
I loved SLRs, but got turned around to RF cameras since I bought a used Leica M6. Since then, I really struggle with operating SLRs - the D3 especially so with all the distracting controls and settings.

The Leica M is perfect - love the simplicity of straight forward controls.
Picking up a D3 or even a nice D700 (less bulky) should be good these days, where Nikon seems to announce one or the other new thing.

Really fantastic photoes! They have a really unique atmosphere. And for sure, you can handle such a lens very well!

Thank you certainly, much appreciated. I have to counter though, that I am far from "being there" with the Noct - love this little thing alot already though ;-)

 

[Calzone]

I loved SLRs, but got turned around to RF cameras since I bought a used Leica M6. Since then, I really struggle with operating SLRs - the D3 especially so with all the distracting controls and settings.

The Leica M is perfect - love the simplicity of straight forward controls.
Picking up a D3 or even a nice D700 (less bulky) should be good these days, where Nikon seems to announce one or the other new thing.

Dirk,

You might find that getting a F3 or F2AS removes all that complexity and clutter that accompanies a DSLR. In many ways a Nikon F3 or F2AS is like a Leica M6: basic and no frills.

I have much respect for digital, but for me I have yet to master all the possibilities with analog, so why start a second learning curve.

Getting back to film with a more basic camera maybe refreshing. "Less is more."

Cal

 

[menos]

Yes Cal, a F3 HP will definitely find it's way to me - sooner or later.
Some weeks ago, I got a nice deal on a F5 - love that machine, but in fact it is the D3 of film cameras.
I got it for my Nikon AF glass, which works nicely.

I have a FM3a as well - actually this little camera started me into getting a Leica M6 for tryouts (this was before the M9 was announced, so I got a nice deal on lenses and the M6).

I shot some rolls with the FM3a and the Noct, which are not developed yet. I like the little camera (it is actually not really bigger than a Leica M), but it is awful for left eye shooters (always poking my eye) and I don't like the needle meter anymore, since using the LED meters of the Leica - I guess, a FM2n is on the agenda for getting a LED meter ;-)

The FM cameras also have a quite small viewfinder, which I don't like too much.
It's an endless game I guess ;-)

 

[Calzone]

JU-JU (Tung) is a RFF'er I know from the New York Meet-Ups, and he is a left eye shooter who also owns a version 2 Noctilux. Trying to be helpful, I mounted Tung's Noctilux on my M6 equipt with a TA Rapidwinder, TA Rapidgrip and Leica 1.40X Magnifier which creates a veiwfinder just over 100% (0.72X 1.4=100.8). Within a week or so Tung bought a Leicavit, Luigi half case with grip and a Leica 1.40X magnifier.

I like the added stability offered by the added weight, and overall the balance is better, especially with my 75 Lux. I'm a right eye shooter BTW, and I believe a heavy camera is a steady camera, but YMMV.

The F2AS is more like a Leica M6 than any F3: LED meter, full mechanical and the battery is for the meter only. The F2AS meter is sensitive down to -2EV and as far as sensitivity is concered is unbeatable!!! The metering patch is 60/40 centerweighted to a 12mm circle centered in the veiwfinder. I have found the self timer, when used inconjunction with the bulb setting, eliminates the need for a cable release. For many, a F2AS with a Noct-Nikkor is a low light hand held dream rig. The shutter speeds are stepless which is an advantage for shooting wide open.

WARNING: A F2 is a severly overbuilt mechanical camera, built like a tank, and is very-very heavy (About as heavy as a F3 with motordrive WITHOUT batteries). Not a small camera.

The F3 has a LCD readout that gets illuminated via a not so ergonomic switch, but offers aperture priority exposure (more on this later). In manual mode the shutter speeds are not stepless like the F2AS BTW, but in theory in aperture priority mode they are infinately variable. The metering patch is more center weighted at 80/20 around a 12mm centered circle than the F2AS 60/40. I find this to be a big advantage BTW and in practice is like having a spot meter built into your camera.

As a camera body a F3 is small, compact and very light, but a F3 without a MD-4 is like half a camera. The F3 was especially designed with a different kinda overbuild and was upgraded to be used with a MD-4 motordrive. Ball bearings smooth the film transport for high firing rates.

A ergonomic grip is also another enhancement, and when combined with a AH-4 hand strap a very balanced rig results where the added weight is no handicap. The result is a very stable platform for hand held available light. In my opinion the balance and weight negate any mirror slap making a F3 rigged this way as vibration free as a Rangefinder. The electrical trigger on the motordive also negates the need for any soft release is another big bonus. The electronic shutter, like a M7, is less noisy and smoother than a mechanical shutter. This rig is a very fast shooter and the back I have allows me to reliably remove and reload partially exposed rolls of film.

Disclaimer: A F3 with motordrive is loud in operation. Rigged as above I'm surprise the NYC police allow me to walk around with a deadly weapon in clear sight, especially when carrying using the hand strap. (The clear message is oversized brass knuckles where one blow would totaly cave in someone's head.) IMHO a Nikon F3 is the most durable camera Nikon ever made.

I read a post where the owner of a F3 took moonlite exposures on SLIDES using auto mode with his camera set up on a tripod. He claimed to trip the shutter and would got to sleep, waking ocassionally to see if the shutter had closed so that he could advance the film and make another exposure. He claims to have gotten "perfect exposures." I'm going to check this out further this weekend. Whatever happened to reciprocy failure???

Eventually I'll likely get a F2AS, but right now I'm totally broke.

Cal