Kristian Dowling Compares fast normals on Steve Huff

Vince Lupo said:
Does anyone here own the Nokton and uses it on an M9 or Monochrom?
Regardless of its more affordable price, is it a good lens?
Click to expand...
Just on M8/R-D1 and a bit on film. It's a good lens where speed may be needed, but there are much better lenses for general use.

The Nokton exhibits focus shift and noticeable field curvature, there are aberrations resulting in colour seepage, glow/halos, and there is flare. It vignettes some even on M8. And it's a big lens. On the other hand, there are no distortion problems. The resolution is certainly passable, suffers more at close focus. Borders are soft at larger apertures (1.1-1.4), but the overall image quality improves a lot when slightly stopping down (and we are stopping down from 1.1 here, not from 2.0-2.8 like with many other lenses).

If I had full frame digital M, I would be using this lens more (and then, if not satisfied possibly sell it). With crop, it's very much a specialty lens for me and in that sense quite a pricey lens to have. But I do like it enough to keep it.
 
from the article:
Unlike it’s older brother it was designed with modern lens design, optimized for excellent sharpness and contrast at wide apertures. This lens was made famous by street photographer Yanick Delafoge http://www.yanidel.net. I always say “pictures sell lenses” and Yanick’s amazing street pictures from his travels around the world have single handedly raised the value of this lens from $3k to $7k+ in a matter of a few years. According to Yanick, this lens is the sharpest standard lens at f/1.4, and from my own experience owning this lens, I would be confident agreeing with him.
Click to expand...

Remember where you learnt about it first: at RFF!
Yanidel was/is a member here and his terrific article with photos on the L-Hexanon 1.2/60mm with the M8 caused quite a stir with interested RFF members when it was published.

Man, I wish I had dug deeper and bought me a 60mm when they still were three grand...
 
The outlook from his terrace fits his lens setup (photo 1)

*g*

I am not sure I would buy these lenses even if I could afford them. Well, actually I can afford maybe one of them, but why would I...

This is maybe just me, but I do not really see the point in lenses like that, when there are decent 1.2 and 1.1 alternatives out there for 10% to 5% of these prices. But then, it is a hobby and I have friends who think I am crazy for spending more than € 500,-- on a camera (body only, that does not even come with a big zoom).

all relative 🙂
 
thanks for the link!

Some years ago I had the possibility to place some of them side by side, but sorry, no comparison pics available.

5026431595_a3be4a0f4d_o.jpg
 
A kind friend lent me an f/1 Noctilux for a year, and I greatly enjoyed it. And I had a 50/1.2 Canon, fully overhauled by Balham Optical, but I gave it away (the same friend, as a 60th birthday present).

From my review of the f/1, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps king.html (the 'we' is my wife Frances and me)

The Noctilux is a wonderful lens, and as we have already said, if we could afford one without thinking about it, we would buy one like a shot. If we did a lot of the kind of photography for which the Noctilux is ideal -- the performing arts, in particular -- we would grit our teeth and find the money: it's expensive, but as a tool of that particular trade, it's extremely useful. But as neither of these conditions applies, we really don't think we're missing all that much by not having one -- which is not the same as saying we wouldn't like one.

As it is, I find my 1,5/50 C-Sonnar an all but universal lens, and it's seldom I miss the extra stop or half stop. 'Seldom' is nothing like the same as 'never', but equally, I have tried all three (and I also have a 35 Summilux) so at least I've some idea of what I' talking about. Put it this way: I had a choice of a Thambar and the Noctilux, and bought the Thambar (they were about the same money at the time, and I could only afford one). I do not regret the choice, not least because I buy lenses to use, not as investments.

Cheers,

R.
 
furcafe said:
Pretty much true for all of these super high-speed lenses. But if you need the speed, you need it.
Click to expand...
+1

as it is i've hit walls shooting f/1 @2500 on the M9, even under-exposing, when shooting in dark bars here. i would have been sunk with an f/1.4 or f/1.5.

when you need it, you really do need it.
 
cam said:
+1

as it is i've hit walls shooting f/1 @2500 on the M9, even under-exposing, when shooting in dark bars here. i would have been sunk with an f/1.4 or f/1.5.

when you need it, you really do need it.
Click to expand...
Dear Cam,

What shutter speed do you regard as 'hitting a wall'? 1/30? 1/15? 1/8...?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Cam,

What shutter speed do you regard as 'hitting a wall'? 1/30? 1/15? 1/8...?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
just discussing one night as an example: the lowest i saw in a quick gander was 1/6 (which is beyond my hand-holding capabilities, especially in crowds)... the lighting varies, depending if i'm doing "stage" shots of whoever was performing (no extra lighting -- just chairs on a higher level) or if i'm trying to capture the crown and/or the dancers.

obviously, especially with the dancers, i never got sharp sharp sharp because, even handheld, it was impossible to freeze the moments. (even the quieter moments i captured were difficult because of the noise @2500) instead, i went more for the feeling and got some nice shots indeed. but clearly, this was a situation where the camera was at its limit.

the others i was shooting with had cameras that went up to much higher ISOs and they took advantage of it... on the M9, there isn't that choice. without an f/1, i would have been very unhappy indeed.

i have no regret that i kept my Noctilux instead of selling it to fund that lovely Thambar you found me. but i also respect your decision to chose the Thambar as you're not nearly as insane as i am to shoot in the dark 😀

eta: to answer your question, though (sorry), below 1/30 is pushing it... for what i was shooting, i would much rather have been able to shoot 1/60 at the very least, with 1/125 or 1/250 when i was shooting the dancers.
 
The photos in that article look mostly out of focus, and the photographer acknowledges that he didn't have time to try second shots. Besides the Konica f1.2 second version (which probably was optimised to focus wide open with the camera and that has the deepest DOF of them all), they all look like the shots I used to get from a Nokton f1.1, quite soft and swirly.
And as someone said, when you need the speed, you need it. Living in Norway, the dark season is about 6 months... my shutter speed is set on 1/15 most of the time, f1.4 (the Nokton 35mm f1.2).
 
cam said:
just discussing one night as an example: the lowest i saw in a quick gander was 1/6 (which is beyond my hand-holding capabilities, especially in crowds)... the lighting varies, depending if i'm doing "stage" shots of whoever was performing (no extra lighting -- just chairs on a higher level) or if i'm trying to capture the crown and/or the dancers.

obviously, especially with the dancers, i never got sharp sharp sharp because, even handheld, it was impossible to freeze the moments. (even the quieter moments i captured were difficult because of the noise @2500) instead, i went more for the feeling and got some nice shots indeed. but clearly, this was a situation where the camera was at its limit.

the others i was shooting with had cameras that went up to much higher ISOs and they took advantage of it... on the M9, there isn't that choice. without an f/1, i would have been very unhappy indeed.

i have no regret that i kept my Noctilux instead of selling it to fund that lovely Thambar you found me. but i also respect your decision to chose the Thambar as you're not nearly as insane as i am to shoot in the dark 😀

eta: to answer your question, though (sorry), below 1/30 is pushing it... for what i was shooting, i would much rather have been able to shoot 1/60 at the very least, with 1/125 or 1/250 when i was shooting the dancers.
Click to expand...
Dear Cam,

Thanks very much. I'm intrigued, because I have quite a lot of books and magazines from the 1930s, and I've long wondered how they coped with slow lenses (f/1.5 was super-speed) and slow films (the equivalent of ISO 200 was super-fast). Thy seem to have achieved it in two ways: bracing their arms on tables and the like, and either choosing very static subjects (as in Hollywood portraits, though for different reasons) or putting up with some subject motion.

Of course we don't know for sure what their hit rate was but unless they were lying, it seems to have been quite high.

Cheers,

R.
 
A while back, I had an f1.0 Noctilux. I LOVED that lens and used it a lot. Then a few years ago, I was offered $5500 for it when I only had paid $1750 originally. Well, as much as I loved that lens and used it a lot, I sold it and bought a few other lenses that have since rounded out my focal range. Do I miss it, hell yea, but I am now enjoying my 75mm Summilux, 135 f3.4 APO, 35mm Summilux (old), and 50 Planar. Oh, most of those lenses have also risen in value, but they are all keepers, save the 35mm.

One man's opinion,

Joel
 
Indeed, & you can't make a slow lens any faster. This is why I'm more excited about seeing improved high ISO performance from the new digital M than anything else. 1 disappointment w/the digital bodies is that the meters aren't as sensitive as on the M6 TTL, M7, & MP.

I also shoot in many dark bars, clubs, & performance venues. My personal handholding "wall" without external support (leaning against a column, resting arms on chair or table, etc.) is between 1/4th & 1/8th.

cam said:
+1

as it is i've hit walls shooting f/1 @2500 on the M9, even under-exposing, when shooting in dark bars here. i would have been sunk with an f/1.4 or f/1.5.

when you need it, you really do need it.
Click to expand...
 
Therefore in this article I will focus my attention to three main factors:
• Bokeh – the way the out of focus areas look and feel.
• Sharpness and contrast around the focus point.
• Signature/Character – the way the lens renders/draws.
• Color – shifting from warm to cold depending on the lens design, coatings used and age of lens.

Does anyone else find that humorous?

(3 main factors yet he lists 4) 🙂
 
JSU said:
I have made a good many images in restaurants and bars resting a Leica on a wine or water glass, even using a beer bottle for a rest can be helpful, if the table is essentially stable. I regularly go to 1/4 second with a Leica with the realization that the keeper rate is compromised and offset by making many, many more shots.

One of my oldest pieces of gear is a Leica table-top tripod with a Leica large ball and socket head. This compact rig is indispensable for work in tight confined areas and traveling somewhat light. I may be fooling myself, but I find it helpful even bracing the tripod on my chest and collar bones, particularly if I can get my back against a wall or chair back.

For performers and dancers, there is no substitute for shutter speed.
Click to expand...
interesting. thank you!

i doubt it have helped me in that situation, but there are a lot of dark bars that i like to shoot in...

(and, by the way, i do envy you your Hexanon, especially for the close-focusing aspect... i also think if i would have thought longer and harder about it if i had been shooting FF at the time as 35/60 is such a lovely combo... now i just can't afford it.)
 
despite some legitimate factual gripes, lenses not being calibrated, etc., i still appreciate Kristian's effort and the fact that he put it up.

he is an excellent photographer and the photos were much more interesting than looking at brick walls, bowls of fruit, etc. and it's very rare to get a chance to compare these lenses against each other.

it would have been more useful for many if he had compared less expensive and/or slightly slower alternatives, but he didn't have those at hand.

it actually reinforced what i think about the various lenses, having at one time or another a chance to shoot them all and compare them with my own gear and my own type of shooting... that said, my conclusions are not the same as his, nor may yours be -- but that's his prerogative, he wrote the review.
 
1joel1 said:
Therefore in this article I will focus my attention to three main factors:
• Bokeh – the way the out of focus areas look and feel.
• Sharpness and contrast around the focus point.
• Signature/Character – the way the lens renders/draws.
• Color – shifting from warm to cold depending on the lens design, coatings used and age of lens.

Does anyone else find that humorous?

(3 main factors yet he lists 4) 🙂
Click to expand...

Apart from the humor factor 3/4...
Color shift :
In digital times of manual white balance (you all do it, right !??) this should be a totally mute point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom