KM-25
Well-known
Pherdinand said:
I think you mean 18% gray or mid-tone on the zonal or chromatic scale.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
18%...13%...a long history of duiscussion
that's what i mean, anyway.
And i agree with you on those images. Rather boring shots for me. A "spectacular bokeh" behind an arrow on a lamp pole, or behind a fence, does not necessarily make a "spectacular shot".:yawn:
that's what i mean, anyway.
And i agree with you on those images. Rather boring shots for me. A "spectacular bokeh" behind an arrow on a lamp pole, or behind a fence, does not necessarily make a "spectacular shot".:yawn:
thomasw_
Well-known
ywenz said:
I think that the flaw with this reasoning is that it could be applied to any lens once the aperature/shutter speed have been set. Or is there something "more" the noctilux does that you haven't described and I am overlooking?
ywenz
Veteran
thomasw_ said:
Huh? Yeah any lens that has f/1.0 aperture can give you similar look of the Noct, and people will goo goo gaga over the bokeh.. but how many 1.0 lenses are out there?
peter_n
Veteran
I think the look of it comes from the aberrations in the glass in that particular lens, not just the fact that it opens to f1.0.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
I paid $300 or so for my LTM Canon 50 f1.2. It's an excellent performer. It exhibits enough speed, shallow D.O.F., sharpness, and nice bokeh to do everything I want a super speed lens to do. It's also good enough to shoot stoped down to around f8, which makes it a decent all-around performer in a pinch.
Someone I used to work for had a couple of Noctiluxes (!), and lent me one for a few months; so I'm familiar enough with it. Yes, the f1 Noct is mathematically a bit faster, and it may be a bit better lens- but the Canon 1.2 is so good that I don't suffer from Noctilux GAS- and I don't even have to look at my bank balance for that to be true.
Now, if means and convenience made owning a Noctilux easy, I might have one. But I know it would be less about performance and more about pride of ownership. Bottom line is, there are (a few) other lenses with this kind of extreme low light/very shallow D.O.F. capability, most of which are more affordable.
Someone I used to work for had a couple of Noctiluxes (!), and lent me one for a few months; so I'm familiar enough with it. Yes, the f1 Noct is mathematically a bit faster, and it may be a bit better lens- but the Canon 1.2 is so good that I don't suffer from Noctilux GAS- and I don't even have to look at my bank balance for that to be true.
Now, if means and convenience made owning a Noctilux easy, I might have one. But I know it would be less about performance and more about pride of ownership. Bottom line is, there are (a few) other lenses with this kind of extreme low light/very shallow D.O.F. capability, most of which are more affordable.
boilerdoc2
Well-known
Great lens, too expensive - especially new!!! Find something similar (Canon 1.2) at far less price. I wish Voigtlander made something ~80/1.4. That would be the berries!
Steve
Steve
spyder2000
Dim Bulb
I don't usually play the fastest lens game but something about the Noctilux hooked me long ago. I've bought them, used them, sold them, and bought another. Working with number 4 now. I need professional help.
peter_n
Veteran
Are the newer ones more expensive than the older ones? Since they are all supposed to be optically identical you would think there wouldn't be too much difference in price.
georgef
Well-known
there is allways the CV 40 1.4...shallower DOF than the 35 1.2 due to the added 5mm length. Great lens, and IMHO way more useful all around then the noct.
I dont know if you primarily shoot film or digital or post process, but I have seen people immitate the LEICA colour "feel" very succesfully.
I dont know if you primarily shoot film or digital or post process, but I have seen people immitate the LEICA colour "feel" very succesfully.
Nando
Well-known
ywenz said:
The equipment in the photograph belongs to Tommy Oshima and not his own. "God" was in reference to Oshima and not himself. I'm definitely a fan of Oshima's work. It seems like Moaan is a friend or colleague of Oshima and this God reference is probably a hyperbole or perhaps an inner joke.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
In my honest opinion, If you can't afford the noctilux now you should just wait and not try to substitute something. The Noct has the reputation it has because it's a very unique big fast lens and you wont really be happy unless you own an actual Noctilux. You can come close with some lenses but if it's what you really want just wait until it's possible.
MikeL
Go Fish
It might be hard where you live, but I'd highly recommend trying before you buy. If you are used to a shorter focus throw, or you have a tendency to get carpal tunnel in your wrist, you might find the noct not worth it. It's a nice tool in the right hands (e.g. Ned's used it well), but trying it out before buying might stop 'the wants'.
furcafe
Veteran
Well, the overly centered thing is a problem for many RF users, not just Leicaphiles.
As far as folks not being able to see a good photo for the forest of lenses, that's an issue for many amateur owners of high-end gear, not just Leica owners, e.g., I've seen plenty of photo dorks who use high-powered Canon dSLRs like the 1Ds, Mk III just to take pictures of flowers & cats. I agree that what makes a good image has little to do w/equipment.
As far as folks not being able to see a good photo for the forest of lenses, that's an issue for many amateur owners of high-end gear, not just Leica owners, e.g., I've seen plenty of photo dorks who use high-powered Canon dSLRs like the 1Ds, Mk III just to take pictures of flowers & cats. I agree that what makes a good image has little to do w/equipment.
KM-25 said:
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
There are a few, but they're all expensive, e.g., the discontinued Canon EOS 50/1.
ywenz said:
Last edited:
SteveM(PA)
Poser
furcafe said:
I think people also tend to center their subjects because it is exactly what others are telling them not to do. We're all bombarded with advertorial(ization?) so I would hope everybody isn't seeking to do that stuff in their unpaid leisure time. The look, for me, is one of simply having some fun, trying to make sense of surroundings, focusing on one little thing and considering it for a moment, leaving everything else in the background. Sort of the spirit of "Lost in Translation"...Tokyo...everything completely crazy, with only little shards of things making any sense at all. Or maybe "lomography" that's slowed down (slowmography?), and really expensive, with a really sharp center.
Go Phils!
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
And huge. And heavy.furcafe said:
This was one of the things that made me push away from SLRs for most of my camera work. I'd long gravitated to max-aperture glass back then, ostensibly for the benefit of shooting, hand-held, with lower-speed films (I rarely shot with anything above ISO 200), but principally for the sake of a brighter TTL view. This was, of course, an even bigger deal with zooms.
Switching to RFs freed me from that bugbear. Plus, the added handheld stability due to the lack of That Flipping Mirror meant that absolute maximum aperture was no longer quite the Holy Grail I'd made it for a while; now, as long as it's no slower than f/2.8, I can deal. Even with a two-body, three-lens-plus-flash setup, the load is so comparitively easy on my shoulders and back that I've almost felt like a new man in the last few years.
I've played–briefly–with a late-model Nocti on a Hexar. Impressive heft, but too much of a reminder of why I quit SLRs. I'd easily settle for an f/1.4 or 1.5 if I felt that much of a need for speed. But f/2, on a rangefinder, with modern films, can do one hell of a lot.
- Barrett
ampguy
Veteran
ok
ok
got it, thanks.
ok
got it, thanks.
Pherdinand said:18%...13%...a long history of duiscussion
that's what i mean, anyway.
And i agree with you on those images. Rather boring shots for me. A "spectacular bokeh" behind an arrow on a lamp pole, or behind a fence, does not necessarily make a "spectacular shot".:yawn:
David Murphy
Veteran
drjoke said:
The Canon 50mm F1.2 in LTM has some following. I just bought one locally and I'll be able to pass my own judgment on it soon - it's certainly pretty to look at! The cheapest way to go with a fast fifty is with an SLR lens. The Canon's (FL, FD) are the least expensive. Nikons, Olympus, Pentax and others have 50-58mm F1.2 lenses. Prices range from about $80 up to hundreds used. I've read posts that claim the Konica 50/1.2 SLR lens (I think that's the focal length) is the "best" performing 50/1.2 ever made -- I don't know, but that rep gets them good money whenever they come up for sale, which is not too often (I dislike Konica SLR bodies). I think Canon made (or makes) an EF mount 50/1.1 --- very expensive, probably great though.
The best fast fifty SLR lens I've used so far has been the Canon FL 55mm F1.2 because I can afford it! It has respectible sharpness at F1.2 (a tad soft, but nice and razor sharp stopped down!). I've also used the earlier Canon FL 58mm F1.2, an extremely impressive lens to handle, but not acceptably sharp at F1.2. I can only imagine how good the later 50/1.2 FD Canon's must be!
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
I bet I could have had fun with a Nocti here, but my lowly 50 1.4 ASPH wide open will just have to do...shot this evening as stock.
I just want to see some real world, outstanding work that is published with the Noct, not just eye candy.
I just want to see some real world, outstanding work that is published with the Noct, not just eye candy.