Leica 50/0.95 Noctilux ASPH lens?

Turtle said:
What I am getting at is the issue of selecting an image so that they can use a particular piece of kit rather than select the kit to take the image they want. I could not care less if people do that, but it sounds pretty lame when it is used to 'justify' the use of, say, a Noctilux, when there is no apparent point to it (other than to use the special kit and then tell everyone how you took a shot in a darkened shed of a paint tin). There can be a lot of snobbery involved with high end kit. I am very happy for people to own ultra expensive kit and play with it, but don't particularly want to hear lame justifications for 'needing it' when 'I want it because I want to own this beautiful mechanical marvel/rare item' would have been more honest. I have kit because I want it, like it, felt like it - fine.

Yes, I do have opinions on photography and I am sure I am not the only one who has seen outrageously expensive kit being used for novelty value 'just because it can do XYZ...and hammering that sole function' rather than to achieve a creative end. It is nobody's job to determine what is 'pointless' or not, but I am perfectly entitled to form my own opinions wherever i wish. I happen to hold the same view about some LF/ULF contact printers who are fixated with a particular process and IMO produce awful, dreary, unimaginative images after endlessly debating the merits of their own variation on ABC Pyro. Just my opinion of course....
Click to expand...
I fully see your argument, but what is the dividing line between a 'lame justification' and a reason?

If you are constantly running out of light -- as I do, quite often -- then a Noctilux may make eminent sense. If you can afford it. Alas, I cannot.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Fred,

We are still at cross purposes here. I find it hard not to read your original post as a flat statement of universal truth that any good photographer can take pictures with a Canon that are as good as, or better than, those the same photographer can take with the Noctilux.

Certainly I do not find this true in my own case. I have taken more good pictures with the Noctilux in a couple of years than I have taken with 50/1.2 Canons in thirty -- and I am sure there are many others who have used both lenses and will agree with me. I do not claim this as a universal truth; I merely state that it is, in some cases, true.

Secondly, there is an enormous difference between liking the results that a given lens delivers, and having what you describe as an equipment-based approach to photography. I like some of my pictures more than others; I have had more good pictures with some lenses than with others; and therefore I favour those lenses. No other variable has changed significantly -- certainly, not my skill -- so I should be a fool not to ascribe part of the improvement to the lens.

By the same token, I don't look at admiringly at someone else's picture and think, "Oh, gosh, a Noctilux shot." Instead I think, "I like that." Normally, after all, I won't know what equipment was used: it is only on forums like this (or in other places frequented by amateur photographers) that people bother to post such information. I've certainly never put such details on any of my exhibition pictures.

When I look at a picture I admire, I may well try to work out how it was done, and equipment is indeed a part of this -- along with lighting, composition, subject matter and technique. Composition is almost invariably the most important aspect, usually followed by subject matter; but equally, the others have their part. Otherwise, after all, there would be no reason to use anything other than a Box Brownie.

In other words, I don't really give a toss what equipment other people use. My choice of equipment is based on what, as a matter of solid experience, gives me better pictures; tempered, alas, by what I can afford, and by my assessment of whether I'll get enough good pictures to justify the expenditure. This sort of cost/benefit analysis explains why I've just bought a Thambar and not a Noctilux.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

yay! you can really write too :D
 
tomasis said:
it was ironical remark. If some believe that thin dof photos is great photography, I will not try to argue with them. For me, it is cheap trick to enhance the dramatic view of the object. Of course ( seriously speaking) there are no absolute rules which you cannot bend (who are you trying to prove? yourself?) It is just my opinion that photographer would work harder than relying on some easy tricks :)
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the Noct's "thin DOF" is too often used as a gimmick. I've posted that elsewhere. But, thin DOF, in and of itself, is not inherently gimmicky. There are people who do nice things with f1. Not to mention shallow DOF with increasingly larger formats. A Hassy 110/f2 is a fantastic lens. I love 4x5 and 8x10's 'dimensionality.' But, that wasn't my point. I didn't think the post/remark was in jest, and i've seen too many similar posts on other forums (dpreview?), where people actually want to limit a manufacturer's offerings because specific features don't fit their particular tastes. And, there's always a thread by some mope who hopes a particular camera is NOT upgraded because he's content with the model he has already and thinks everyone else should be, as well.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
I don't disagree that the Noct's "thin DOF" is too often used as a gimmick. I've posted that elsewhere. But, thin DOF, in and of itself, is not inherently gimmicky. There are people who do nice things with f1. Not to mention shallow DOF with increasingly larger formats. A Hassy 110/f2 is a fantastic lens. I love 4x5 and 8x10's 'dimensionality.' But, that wasn't my point. I didn't think the post/remark was in jest, and i've seen too many similar posts on other forums (dpreview?), where people actually want to limit a manufacturer's offerings because specific features don't fit their particular tastes. And, there's always a thread by some mope who hopes a particular camera is NOT upgraded because he's content with the model he has already and thinks everyone else should be, as well.
Click to expand...

What I would write if you dont believe my joke? You even care more to spend time in Dpreview and get some waste in the head?

I mean that I never think that I have to get that thin dof possible as I open up to max aperture and try get closest distance as I can to achieve the effects even shutter time is 1/250-1/10 000 or so.

When I take shoots at low light, I was limited too often even if ISO and slow times are maximized. ISO1600-3200, times 1/8-1/15 was not sometimes enough for me so naturally I would use F1 and select the composition by adjusting focus. The outcome I have to accept even I would love more dof.

But to complain that new Noctilux doesnt have 0,7meter. It is quite a new high of Leica Comedy!! So I felt Im entitled to have some opinions on that matter. If you feel to see me as a mope, I welcome that :) Those guys who want good quality of ultra thin dof, should have some use of 4x5" and tripod.
 
Last edited:
All superspeed lenses (faster than f1.4) are novelty items, no matter who makes them. If you need the speed, or simply like the signature, then you should be shooting them near full-aperture, because once you stop down past the f2.8-f4.0 range, most 50mm lenses look more alike than not. It doesn't make much sense to live with the bulk, the slow focusing and - particularly in the case of the Noctilux - the expense of a superspeed lens to shoot it stoppped down, because as general purpose lenses, all superspeed 50's lose one of the chief advantages of the RF world, compact size.

Leaving emotion out of it (if that's at all possible on this forum :D) the biggest attribute of the current Noctilux relative to the Canon 50/1.2 at full-aperture is that it's noticeably sharper on center. The trade off is that the Canon has sharper corners and no tendency to vignette heavily. All things being equal, I prefer the look of the Noctilux wide open, as in the dark locations I generally use a superspeed lens, the dark corners wouldn't matter.

But the Canon is no slouch, and it certainly isn't the "dog" lens rumored on the internet. At full-aperture, I find it's signature - like all other superspeeds I've tried, including the Noctilux and Summilux 50 - can be a bit "weird" at close focus distance. The sweet spot distance wide-open seems to be in the 6-8 ft. range. There, the swirly "weirdness" is gone, and, as the picture I'm attaching (hopefully) illustrates, the lens is "sharp enough." Maybe not for landscape work, but certainly for people photography.

I know this is a touchy subject, but hopefully we can keep the personal invective to a minimum, don't imagine insult where none is intended, and we can pick up some useful information. :)

2856014859_d846807228_o.jpg


Canon 50/1.2, wide-open, 7 ft. focus. Epson R-D1 iso 200.
 
LEt me guess that Krosya will come with Canon 50/1.2 shot here :) Post some Canon shots here in Noctilux thread, yeah!!
 
Sorry, Tomasis, but we're all quite aware of each others opinions on this subject, aren't we? It would be nice if we could actually exchange something besides snide comments for once. :)
 
I hate pissing contest too.... Especially when it's a Noctilux thread. I love my Noctilux.

But tomasis, I believe it's "KM-25" you were talking about, not Krosya, that has posted "fake Nocti-shots" in my thread but fooled not even one person here.

As for the 0.95 Noctilux, it's out of my reach. The current one is my limit. Yet I AM looking forward to great shots by this new lens! It's always exciting to see new tools coming into this world. Price is something we don't think about, unless we want to OWN one.
 
I'll chime in that I think shooting lenses only wide open is a silly thing to insist upon. There are plenty of times I want the depth of field f11 will bring, but happen to have only an f1.4 or f2.0 lens with me. Either will bring the necessary depth of field to the image. I certainly wouldn't feel the need to switch from a Summilux to an Elmar-M if I was going to make an image at f 2.8- nor would I expect anyone else would. If I had a Noctilux and wanted the depth of field I'd certainly use it at f11. Slow focus or not it would certainly be faster than changing lenses. From what I've read and seen it seems a good performer stopped down.

Some of us do see the difference in signature between lenses- I think the Elmar-M is a good example, for there is a real 3-dimensional quality this lens can bring to the image that isn't the same for the Summilux or Summicron, whether one shoots it at 2.8 or 8. I've not seen prints from a Noctilux to have a clear mental image of exactly what this lens can do, and so don't want to compare it in this example, but I don't doubt there is a difference to be seen between it and other 50's even at f4 or f8. I admit that looking at jpegs doesn't do it for me- I've not enough frame of reference on screen after so many years of working on paper.

And of course final product will have a lot of say in what lens will work. A large print of a textured surface must certainly have different needs in a lens than a portrait, as does final print size vs internet display. The swirly weirdness some lenses produce can be wonderful or it can induce sea-sickness- again depending on subject, medium and final size. I got the pre-ASPH 50 Summilux just for this look. To say signature doesn't matter out one side of the mouth then complain about signature out the other doesn't jive. To attempt to come up with any clear right answer here is just not possible. There are too many variables beyond taste to contend with, and as always- what works for one of us is certain not to work for another.
 
Last edited:
kevin m said:
All superspeed lenses (faster than f1.4) are novelty items, no matter who makes them. If you need the speed, or simply like the signature, then you should be shooting them near full-aperture, because once you stop down past the f2.8-f4.0 range, most 50mm lenses look more alike than not. It doesn't make much sense to live with the bulk, the slow focusing and - particularly in the case of the Noctilux - the expense of a superspeed lens to shoot it stoppped down, because as general purpose lenses, all superspeed 50's lose one of the chief advantages of the RF world, compact size.
Click to expand...

i disagree with you that the lenses lose their own signature when stopped down. a lot of them, yes, but the Noctilux is not one of them. it changes, but still retains it's character. i find it's OOF areas more pleasing than the others, even when stopped down.

that said, i've been looking into getting a Canon f/.95 because that is all i can afford and i certainly don't find the lens a dog. i want speed for speed, not novelty, as France can get awfully dark in winter. i need the speed because i'm still recovering from a broken elbow and it's easier for me to hand-hold a heavy lens and body than it is for me to prevent shutter-shake when using lower speeds.

and i admit i love compact sizes, but i've found for longer lenses (it's 75mm on my R-D1) that i'm willing to put up with some extra bulk. it's the big wide ones where i shoot from the hip that drives me mad.
 
Im not trying to piss anybody but I feel that we are not holding the topic of the thread so I allowed me to post the pic here. Just now at the moment, Cron is my high super speed lens (forget Jupiter 3 which I have). It has everything, sharper than Canon. I can imagine that 50cron at 0,7m can be quite same as another lens F1.4 at 1 meter regarding dof except signature of course.

Summicron 50mm 0,7m iso 3200 fake Trix grain

_EPS1939.jpg


It is interesting that bokeh sometimes feel swirly. I hope it is due object because at general I consider Cron bokeh as quite smooth. Of course the photo is not a master piece, not a level of Bresson :D
 
cam said:
i disagree with you that the lenses lose their own signature when stopped down. a lot of them, yes, but the Noctilux is not one of them. it changes, but still retains it's character. i find it's OOF areas more pleasing than the others, even when stopped down.

that said, i've been looking into getting a Canon f/.95 because that is all i can afford and i certainly don't find the lens a dog. i want speed for speed, not novelty, as France can get awfully dark in winter. i need the speed because i'm still recovering from a broken elbow and it's easier for me to hand-hold a heavy lens and body than it is for me to prevent shutter-shake when using lower speeds.

and i admit i love compact sizes, but i've found for longer lenses (it's 75mm on my R-D1) that i'm willing to put up with some extra bulk. it's the big wide ones where i shoot from the hip that drives me mad.
Click to expand...

The .95 is a good compromise IMO, if it is accurately focused.

It is definately sharp enough on center (at least one famous head to head test shows it sharper than a particular Noctilux), it is a fabulous color lens - especially with a higher contrast film, and the vignetting is negligible. On the downside - it is huge, difficult to mount and unmount on anything other than a Canon body (carry a popsicle stick), blocks a large portion of the finder and RF patch on a R-D1, the coma is obvious wide open, the curvature of field is also significant, and it has localized flaring on highlights provide a very "unique" glow.

But that said, I would doubt that most viewers, exclusive of gearhead internet photogs :), would notice the difference in any single photograph. And if they did see a difference, I would bet it would be a toss tossup as to which compromise design they would prefer.

Given your use of an RD1, I would also suggest a hard look at the CV 35/1.2.
 
Last edited:
cam said:
yes, you are saying that over and over and over -- yet you are clearly NOT listening one iota to what Roger is saying. he never stated that the Noctilux signature is preferred by everyone. he said that he, himself, preferred the Noctilux signature.

and i happen to agree with him. me, personally, and i am not speaking of the collective whole of everybody.
Click to expand...

Dear Cam,

I hope you will forgive me for highlighting part of your post above. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying; and the rest of your post also exactly reflects my appreciation.

As for Kevin's dismissal of faster-than-f.1.4 lenses as 'novelty items', this is about as supportable than Fred's assertion. Exactly the same was said about f/2 lenses.... f/1.5.... It's the old "I don't need it, therefore nobody does."

There is an immense difference between a 'novelty item' and a specialist tool, and even though it's true that the difference in out-of-focus areas diminishes (but does not disappear) as a lens is stopped down, it is a complete non sequitur to say that you should always shoot fast lenses wide open. Why should you always shoot any lens wide open, if there are good reasons for stopping down?

For many years -- a couple of decades, in fact -- I used 50mm lenses very little. That's why I kept the Canon f/1.2 when I sold my Summicron. At f/5.6, the Canon is not much inferior to the Summicron for my purposes. At f/4, f/2.8 and f/2 is is steadily more inferior. Then at f/1.4 and f/1.2 there's not much contest.

ADDENDUM (Edit): Once more, for the record, I do not maintain that the Noctilux is perfect, nor the answer to a maiden's prayer, nor even a universal lens. I am well aware of its compromises and shortcomings. But I do maintain that for those who like it, it's a very fine lens, and not like any other. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. But why sneer at others who do like it or do buy it? And why deny its unique qualities?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
i disagree with you that the lenses lose their own signature when stopped down. a lot of them, yes, but the Noctilux is not one of them. it changes, but still retains it's character. i find it's OOF areas more pleasing than the others, even when stopped down.
Click to expand...

The Noctilux is not immune to the laws of optics. All superspeed lenses lose the majority of their unique signatures when stopped down, as their aberrations are tamed a bit. I only tested the Noctilux briefly but found that to be the case. The sweet spot for the pre-asph. Summilux 50 that I shot with extensively was f4.0 and below, and I kept an 8x ND filter with me to keep it in its sweet spot. Above that, it was hard work to tell it apart from the Summicron 50.
 
As for Kevin's dismissal of faster-than-f.1.4 lenses as 'novelty items', this is about as supportable than Fred's assertion. Exactly the same was said about f/2 lenses.... f/1.5.... It's the old "I don't need it, therefore nobody does."
Click to expand...

Did you actually read what I wrote, or do you just automatically disagree with everyone who holds a viewpoint contrary to your own? Nice that you finish with a bit of the old straw man, too. What a lazy rhetorical device that is.

Did I "dismiss" anything? I said if you're not going to use it wide open, then you might as well own a slower lens. A lens that will be lighter, smaller, quicker handling, better-corrected, and much cheaper to boot. I then posted a pic with my superspeed lens of choice taken in what I think is its sweet spot. I do need it (or think I do) and posted a pic to demonstrate it. How the heck is that "dismissive?" :confused:

Well, I tried. I see the usual suspects are trotting out the usual stuff. I'll leave you to it. Post a pic that illustrates your position if you can.
 
But why sneer at others who do like it or do buy it? And why deny its unique qualities?
Click to expand...

Why fan the flames with generalizations like this? Who's sneering, exactly? Please reference the exact post and not what you "feel" somebody said.
I, for one, pointed out the Noctilux's unique optical qualities and contrasted them to the superspeed lens I choose to own. Stick to the facts, please, Roger.
 
Dear Kevin,

You wrote that all lenses of f/1.4 or faster are novelty items. Whether you regard that as dismissive is a matter of opinion. Most people with a reasonable understanding of the English language would, I suspect, take my side.

'Straw man' seems to be one of your favourite accusations whenever anyone disagrees with you, using any words other than exactly those you used. Perhaps, instead of lazily repeating the same old phrase, you would care to point out the flaw in my suggesting that what you are saying that this is the old 'I don't need it...' argument.

Of course good pictures can be taken with almost any lens. Does this mean that everyone can (or should) use the same lens? Of course not. Does it mean that one lens -- your favourite, mine, anyone else's -- is ideal for all pictures? Again, of course not.

All I am saying is that many photographers like the Noctilux. Some of those who like it can afford it. Why do these two assertions trouble you so much? And why do you keep using the word 'hype' to belittle people who like the lens?

As for posted pictures, well, there's always my web-site.

Edit: as for 'fanning the flames', the phrase 'the pot calling the kettle black' springs to mind. I think I'll put you back on ignore. It will make life easier for both of us.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
kevin m said:
Post a pic that illustrates your position if you can.
Click to expand...

We hope we dont need throw out pictures as weapons. I suggest that you learn to read texts better. To see pictures proves nothing. It was not my intention to throwing a picture as a weapon neither.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom