Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
I also feel that when posting such a high caliber review/test you should at least get your "its" and "it's" sorted out.
back alley
IMAGES
i wish i could just ban picky people...i can't believe some of the 'complaints' listed here...
flyalf
Well-known
and for free, Its hard to understand the bashing on the net.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There may be a certain amount of envy for anyone who can get their hands on that lot.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I used to have a Noctilux 1/50. Nice lens, but I sold it and switched to a Summilux for several reasons.
- It was too big and heavy for everyday use.
- The focus throw was very long, making it difficult to react quickly
- DOF at f1 and 1m was about 1cm. If you and your subject did not synchronize your breathing the highlight on their pupil would be out of focus. I also refuse to stop drinking coffee. I found f1 to be most usable with the talent being at least 2m away.
- The Noct basically does not flare, even under extreme circumstances, which can make the images it produces look somewhat sterile.
- The bokeh was unpredictable. It ranged from liquid to schizophrenic. Somehow it reminded be of the signature of a Sonnar, which can also be erratic. I prefer the bokeh of the .95 Noct, which appears to be more predictable
I found the 50 Lux to offer a perfect balance of sharpness, tonality, size and speed.
I sometimes miss the Noct. It was unique, but unless I hit the lottery it's too expensive a piece of gear to use on that rare occasion, where its qualities are called for.
I've considered a few more affordable alternatives, notably the Sonnar-C 1.5/50, the Nikkor 1.2/55 and 58mm and the new Nocton 1.1/50
- It was too big and heavy for everyday use.
- The focus throw was very long, making it difficult to react quickly
- DOF at f1 and 1m was about 1cm. If you and your subject did not synchronize your breathing the highlight on their pupil would be out of focus. I also refuse to stop drinking coffee. I found f1 to be most usable with the talent being at least 2m away.
- The Noct basically does not flare, even under extreme circumstances, which can make the images it produces look somewhat sterile.
- The bokeh was unpredictable. It ranged from liquid to schizophrenic. Somehow it reminded be of the signature of a Sonnar, which can also be erratic. I prefer the bokeh of the .95 Noct, which appears to be more predictable
I found the 50 Lux to offer a perfect balance of sharpness, tonality, size and speed.
I sometimes miss the Noct. It was unique, but unless I hit the lottery it's too expensive a piece of gear to use on that rare occasion, where its qualities are called for.
I've considered a few more affordable alternatives, notably the Sonnar-C 1.5/50, the Nikkor 1.2/55 and 58mm and the new Nocton 1.1/50
raid
Dad Photographer
I agree with you Roger.
There is no doubt that these lenses are beautiful and impressive.
Ah Raid, you have nice stuff... don't sweat it!
menos
Veteran
Thanks to Kristian for sharing this. Some of the used gear probably will never end up in most people's hands, so it's fantastic to see, what these lenses look like (and who the f cares about laboratory approved rigging - seriously be grateful for what you got to see and stop moaning this and that).
Vince, I can't help with the Nokton, as I didn't shoot one long enough to get a opinion on it's imaging but I do have a 50/1 v4 and an older v2 50 Summilux and can tell you, that they share a lot of similarities in rendering @ƒ1.4 and ƒ2.
If the budget isn't covering a Noctilux, a v2 Summilux (in any of it's many guises) is a fantastic lens, to use instead.
As I commented - similarities.
You won't get the shallow DOF, if that's what you're after, you won't get the 1 stop more light (with the Mono though I find, that ƒ1.4 lenses really allow to shoot in the deep night, where the Noctilux was my most used low light lens on the M8 and M9).
You won't get the look with strong vignetting, as any of the ƒ1 Noctilux lenses will give (and no, this specific look cannot be done in post processing, one can only ape it, if that's, what is wanted, but it will never look the same).
The files though have remarkable similarities in detail and rendering, especially around ƒ2.
You won't get the very smooth background rendering with the Summilux - it somehow seems more distracting @ ƒ1.4 (which is, where I don't like the v2 Summilux lens actually - the v2 Summilux really, really sings @ ƒ2, where I just adore it).
Vince, I can't help with the Nokton, as I didn't shoot one long enough to get a opinion on it's imaging but I do have a 50/1 v4 and an older v2 50 Summilux and can tell you, that they share a lot of similarities in rendering @ƒ1.4 and ƒ2.
If the budget isn't covering a Noctilux, a v2 Summilux (in any of it's many guises) is a fantastic lens, to use instead.
As I commented - similarities.
You won't get the shallow DOF, if that's what you're after, you won't get the 1 stop more light (with the Mono though I find, that ƒ1.4 lenses really allow to shoot in the deep night, where the Noctilux was my most used low light lens on the M8 and M9).
You won't get the look with strong vignetting, as any of the ƒ1 Noctilux lenses will give (and no, this specific look cannot be done in post processing, one can only ape it, if that's, what is wanted, but it will never look the same).
The files though have remarkable similarities in detail and rendering, especially around ƒ2.
You won't get the very smooth background rendering with the Summilux - it somehow seems more distracting @ ƒ1.4 (which is, where I don't like the v2 Summilux lens actually - the v2 Summilux really, really sings @ ƒ2, where I just adore it).
C_R
Established
"There is a persistant opinion, reproduced in almost all publications, that the Noctilux has only special qualities at full aperture and is not useable at smaller apertures. That is definitely not true. The original Noctilux 1,2/50mm (the one with the aspherical surfaces) recorded image outlines with medium to high contrast, but lost out in the recording of fine image details. When stopping down the image quality did not improve very much. It might be possible that these characteristics have been projected into the new Noctilux-M 1.0/50 because the name is the same. The latter lens however is a quantum leap better than its illustrious predecessor."
Erwin Puts on the Noct 1.0
The Noct 1.0 is underrated in Kristians comparison, IMO. It is large and heavy, but not a one-stop lens.
This one was f:2.8 (1/4000 ISO 320, MM), I had to stop down (no ND filter)
100% crop
Stopped down to f:5.6 it is still really sharp (1/1000 sec, ISO 320)
100% crop
What drives me nuts sometimes is the field curvature, making it very hard to compose sometimes.
Carsten
Flickr
Erwin Puts on the Noct 1.0
The Noct 1.0 is underrated in Kristians comparison, IMO. It is large and heavy, but not a one-stop lens.
This one was f:2.8 (1/4000 ISO 320, MM), I had to stop down (no ND filter)
100% crop
Stopped down to f:5.6 it is still really sharp (1/1000 sec, ISO 320)
100% crop
What drives me nuts sometimes is the field curvature, making it very hard to compose sometimes.
Carsten
Flickr
ian_watts
Ian Watts
What, no SLR Magic lens in the mix?
raid
Dad Photographer
Yes, I have wonderful "stuff". I do not miss having the exotic lenses, such as a 60/1.2 Konica or a 50/1.2 Leica lens. I still have my 75/1.4 Lux and 35/1.4 Lux and 50/2 Summicron and other "lower cost items", as compared with the prices of the ultra fast lenses shown in this thread.
Most of the times, I prefer using f 8.0 anyways.
MikeL
Go Fish
Carsten, my experience aligns with Erwin Puts on the f1.2. Those that understand optics could explain it better, but stuff in the background had a swirl that didn't progress in a uniform way across the frame. Neither did resolution. It was plenty sharp (for me) in the center 1/3 at f1.2, but if your subject was outside that area, resolution dropped off quickly. The f1 noctilux has a similar problem with curvature of field, but it seemed more uniform and workable to me.
cam
the need for speed
i believe Carsten was defending the f/1, not disagreeing with what Puts said about the f/1.2.
i thought he was trying to illustrate that it was not a one-trick pony, but maybe i'm wrong?
as for the curvature of field, that's one of the reasons i love it
ferider
Veteran
A couple of comments:
1) Kristian's shots are out of focus. And the DOF of fast 50s being "so thin" is a poor excuse. Normal short teles (85 or 90/2) have a thinner DOF and are harder to focus, and many of us use these routinely. Since using digital, he could chimp, had a model that he could ask to move, etc., not exactly a "decisive shot" scenario ....
2)
Agree. I'm a firm believer that the fast Mandler lenses are made for general purpose medium to far distance, journalistic type shooting. Even though everybody talks about wide open bokeh at close focus when "testing" them, in these conditions, they all develop swirly bokeh, veiling flare, etc. Dirk: the strength of the Summilux v2 at f1.4 is contrast, center resolution and lack of coma at far distances ....
3) Want a fast lens for hand holding in available light ? Get the 35/1.2. Beats anything Kristian tested due to the wider FOV. DOF is easier to handle, too.
4) Want to get close for portraits, etc ? Use a 75/1.4 with 0.7m min. focus. Wine bottles, etc., help
5) Mike: I still cann't believe you didn't let me play with your 50/1.2. Found that old shot of you using the 50/1 ....
Shot with a slow 21/4, BTW
Roland.
1) Kristian's shots are out of focus. And the DOF of fast 50s being "so thin" is a poor excuse. Normal short teles (85 or 90/2) have a thinner DOF and are harder to focus, and many of us use these routinely. Since using digital, he could chimp, had a model that he could ask to move, etc., not exactly a "decisive shot" scenario ....
2)
Agree. I'm a firm believer that the fast Mandler lenses are made for general purpose medium to far distance, journalistic type shooting. Even though everybody talks about wide open bokeh at close focus when "testing" them, in these conditions, they all develop swirly bokeh, veiling flare, etc. Dirk: the strength of the Summilux v2 at f1.4 is contrast, center resolution and lack of coma at far distances ....
3) Want a fast lens for hand holding in available light ? Get the 35/1.2. Beats anything Kristian tested due to the wider FOV. DOF is easier to handle, too.
4) Want to get close for portraits, etc ? Use a 75/1.4 with 0.7m min. focus. Wine bottles, etc., help
5) Mike: I still cann't believe you didn't let me play with your 50/1.2. Found that old shot of you using the 50/1 ....
Shot with a slow 21/4, BTW
Roland.
C_R
Established
The patches are shdows from the trees LHS, in front light with dodging and upped contrast for the foreground and house area. I liked the kind of surreal look. Just wanted to show the sharpness around f:2.8.
Carsten
Carsten
C_R
Established
MikeL
Go Fish
I emailed you, but you wouldn't trade me your Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 for it!
And that photo was taken when a used noctilux was over-priced at $2000.
cam
the need for speed
part of the fun
seriously, it adds a certain je ne sais quoi to an image that i adore... plus, i really can pretty much predict what will be in focus as i've used the lens so much. fast focusing moving objects in low light and obviously subpar handholding skills, make field of curvature the least of my worries.
btw, love the lens at f/2.8 as well -- especially at nearest focusing.
leicashot
Well-known
Wow, it's been a while since I've been here, and nice to see people are enjoying it. I know it's not the greatest article but I did the best with the time I had, I can assure you. Would have loved to do some night work too. Cheers guys