Cannot afford Noctilux

While there is probably nothing that can compete with the Noct, as far as signature, quality , etc, .... If you are looking for a fast 50 - there are some others - 50/1.2 and 60/1.2 Hexanons - very rare, go for about $1800-2200 if you can find one. Also, there are older LTM Canons from 0.95 to f 1.4. Not sure how fast Nokkor get, I know there is 1.4. But there maybe a faster one, but should be very rare too. There is a CV 35/1.2. I know it's a 35mm lens but still - pratty fast and has great qualities and goes for $800 or so.
Maybe someone knows other options.
 
If you cannot afford an f1 Noctilux look into fast film and slow shutter speeds with an f1.4 or similar.

At night, also, underexpose from the meter because it's dark out there and you want dark night not gray.
 
Although it is not a substitute for a Noctilux, I really like my Canon 50/1.2. It is definitely no all-purpose lens. But for certain kinds of portrait work or for very shallow DOF effects, I really like the results that this lens produces. And the price (somewhere around $350) is a fraction of what you would pay for a Noctilux.
 
If you want shallower dof, you can go for a longer focal length fast lens. It can be a cheaper older version. Or an slr lens.
DOF goes down quickly with increasing focal length.

If you want the magic effect of noctilux other than the shallow DOF, the magic Leica glow that cannot be achieved with the canon f/0.95 or longer fast lenses, well, that's just mumbo jumbo in my oppinion and serves only to justify the $ spent on a noctilux by insecure buyers - to themselves.

The 58mm f/1.2 Rokkor in Minolta MC mount (manual focus slr) produces excellent background bokeh, very shallow DOF, and sharp enough for normal shooting (maybe not brick walls or USAF test charts).
 
I'd suggest an OM1 with 50 1.2 (lastest version). The whole kit will cost ~$500. Tommy Oshima and others in the flickr Noctilux group use this kit too (check out "tinyeyes"), the caveat of course, being daylight shots with ND filters...kinda hard to see through that SLR lens, but people do it.
 
Last edited:
I'd say there are a couple of lenses worth considering:

- Zeiss 50/1.5 C Sonnar if you are after a soft and melted butter bokeh - an example here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=866800228&context=set-72157600939299824&size=l

CV 35/1.2 Nokton, an example here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1162469875&context=set-72157601420806061&size=l

Or, if you want to stick to Leica glass, the 75/1.4 Summilux is highly praised for its rendering wide open.

Keep it in mind, that in order to really exploit the C Sonnar at full aperture, you will have to send the lens to Zeiss to have them recalibrate it for optimum focus wide open, when it sells, it is optimized for f2.8, and then it looks like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=860204669&size=l
 
Has anyone posted any direct comparison shots between the Noctilux and the Canon f0.95 recently? With modern technology the Leica would have to be a better renderer than the Canon ... but how much better?

There's a Canon f0.95 for sale in the Classifieds for around $1300.00 dollars and it has a beautiful 7sZ rangefinder attached to it! :D
 
Last edited:
Never Satisfied said:
Regardless, there is no substitute for a Noctilux. Andrew
Click to expand...

Unless you actually want to use the lens for your living.

I tried a friend's Nocti for a day, indeed, it is fast and has a unique look when used wide open. But all in all, it is not very practical. For effect, I find the Canon 85 1.2 on my 5D to be much more of a money maker, much sharper wide open with an incredible look in terms of bokeh. Or, I find my 50 lux Asph to be by *far* more versatile, easier to focus on moving objects and still gives a great look without being too big on the tiny M's.

I know people laud this lens as the second coming, but I never see any really professional images with impact made with it, just pixel or bokeh peeping shots of kids, cats and beer glasses.

The 50 1.0 Noctilux seems to be a lens that people like to fondle, brag about or play with than actually use to make images with social or advertorial impact.

Show me a great published documentary, advertising or fine art shot with it and I might change my opinion. For now, All I see is a $5,500 bragging right or eye candy lens, nothing more...
 
Last edited:
drjoke said:
What are cheaper alternatives? This person's gallery makes me really want a Noctilux, but it's probably the most expensive lens out there.

If I spec my Sonnar to 1.5, will that help make the effect closer? Are there some lenses that will look like this, or is Noctilux the only one.

http://flickr.com/search/?q=noctilux&w=17958048@N00
Click to expand...
Can't get to that flickr page through the firewall here, but most people in the thread think you're after speed. If that is the case there are some very good suggestions above and there is also faster film. If you are after the Noctilux' swirly OOF there is no substitute as Andrew points out.
 
Wow this guy's pretty cocky..

http://flickr.com/photos/moaan/280742367/

god's equipment? pffftt.


My thoughts on the Noct? It pretty much makes the image for the photographer. In other words, one can be a lesser of a photographer but can take images with the Noct that will have a greater "WOW" factor than you normally would simply due to the lens' characteristics and not the photographer's skill. I'm not bad mouthing all the Noct photogs out there though since a good photographer though can take the lens even further.
 
Last edited:
Hi Jon

Hi Jon

Don't mean to hijack the Nocti thread, but I'm curious about your underexposure ideas with film, as I've sometimes had to post process underexposed color print film. even if 1 stop underexposed.

What films do you find you can get by with underexposing to get blacks, and not speckles from underexposing that sometimes come out with drugstore developed color print film?

Thanks.

ClaremontPhoto said:
If you cannot afford an f1 Noctilux look into fast film and slow shutter speeds with an f1.4 or similar.

At night, also, underexpose from the meter because it's dark out there and you want dark night not gray.
Click to expand...
 
i think he means by "underespose from the meter" to jusat adjust for the error of the meter. Meters try to make everything 13% gray. The black night, esp. with strong contrasty highlighted objects, is not 13% gray.
 
If only CV were to add about $1000 to the 35mm f1.2, it would become coveted and sell like hotcakes. A lot more galleries on Flickr as well. It's a really nice lens.
 
ywenz said:
Wow this guy's pretty cocky..

http://flickr.com/photos/moaan/280742367/

god's equipment? pffftt.
Click to expand...

And he is not very good in terms of being a powerful shooter. I looked through every image and all I found was lens test eye-candy, much of it static, dead center. That is all I ever see from this lens.

I think this whole phenomenon might even be a Leica thing. The gear is so good, people get so caught up in what the lenses are doing, they forget to make a great image and expect the gear to pick up the slack to justify bragging rights for the price tag of their purchase.

I think the key is to go out and make an image that even if it were made on an old K-1000 with a Vivitar 50, it would rock. Then if it so happens you made that image with an MP and a Leica 50, all the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom