deepwhite
Well-known
@ deep_white: Rendition of textures and details in nearly darkness is what makes the Noctilux special.
Exactly.
Recently I tried several modified lenses (Kinoptik, Dallmeyer, Angenieux, Cooke, Kern, etc.); as good as they all can be in broad daylight or indoor, I found that I got a lot of boring near-totally-dark night shots. Later I realized that it was because I'd been using them like I used the Noctilux.
And they are not the Noctilux.
------
One shot from a roll of expired neopan 1600. Can't tell the difference with the non-expired ones.
[Twin Bulb Babies]
The vignetting of the Noctilux forms a "mother figure" around the frame of this photo, making the two bulbs look like two "twin bulb babies" in the womb.
maddoc
... likes film again.
"Grateful Dead" was one of the first Psychedelic Rock bands in the end of the 60s and LSD played some important role ...
maddoc
... likes film again.
Some recent Noct photos ...
in color
and BW
in color
and BW
clayne
shoot film or die
So without trying to incite a riot - I would say that people paying multiple thousands of dollars for this lens really need a reality check. There are so many lenses that offer the same level of quality, special qualities, DOF effects, etc. that I see absolutely zero reason to ever consider a Noctilux. I also find it amazing that people are dismissing the obvious softness as a positive trait they've been looking for.
Let's get real: it's an antiquated lens design with serious optical design flaws. Yes it goes to f/1.0, but that's not a huge amount of light next to f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses from other manufacturers which beat it down in almost every way.
Ultra shallow DOF shots are a photographic cop-out. Some, dare I say a lot of us, are actually fairly tired of looking at them. When used as the predominant "feature", it's eye candy at best.
Let's get real: it's an antiquated lens design with serious optical design flaws. Yes it goes to f/1.0, but that's not a huge amount of light next to f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses from other manufacturers which beat it down in almost every way.
Ultra shallow DOF shots are a photographic cop-out. Some, dare I say a lot of us, are actually fairly tired of looking at them. When used as the predominant "feature", it's eye candy at best.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, but your blatant bashing doesn't add anything new to what have been repeated over and over here at RFF and elsewhere. It is you who needs a reality check ...
Cheers,
Gabor
maddoc
... likes film again.
... "reality check" in color
clayne
shoot film or die
Thanks for sharing your opinion, but your blatant bashing doesn't add anything new to what have been repeated over and over here at RFF and elsewhere. It is you who needs a reality check ...
Cheers,
Gabor
Because 100s saying the same thing must be the ones smoking something, right?
I'm not trying to bash the lens I'm just saying that at the multiple-thousand dollar range it is insanely overpriced.
The above shot, while nice, doesn't reality check me at all. You do look at other non-Noctilux photographs, right?
maddoc
... likes film again.
Sure, the Noct is overpriced (albeit prices came down recently about 25 %) but so are other items tagged "Leica". I bought it for it's unique rendering and I - personal opinion - like it for the way it is. I do look at photos taken with other lenses, the Hexanon 50 / 1.2 comes close, the Takumar 50 / 1.2 also. The Hexanon in 30 % cheaper (eBay) and the Takumar doesn't fit a M-Leica.
MikeL
Go Fish
Wow, what an original thought. Thanks for sharing. You are really smart.
Keep the photos coming.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
A response to all that judge photos here
A response to all that judge photos here
I continue to be mystified by one aspect of RFF (and any other photo website that posts pictures). How can you possibly judge the character of a lens, or compare lenses, by looking at low-res uploaded files that open to about 3 by 5 inches?? I often look at the images here and places like Flickr to look for different performance characteristics of lenses... for fun. But using that information to make purchase decisions is pretty dicey... there's not enough information in those web pics.
I very much appreciate the WORDS of photographers here that attempt to describe the benefits of certain equipment. And I truly enjoy perusing the pictures posted here. But I just cannot understand how anyone can say "oooooh, that's an INCREDIBLE lens" by looking at the images posted here. There's simply not nearly enough information in those uploads to judge much of anything.
I certainly can understand someone here SAYING they're getting fabulous results with, say, a Noctilux. But to expect me to believe that its any better than any other lens is crazy if the only thing I'm given to judge with are the pictures here. I've seen Holga photos that are just as exciting, creamy, colorful... etc.. I suspect that the Noctilux can indeed do things a Holga lens can't, but I wouldn't bet my life on it if the only thing I was given to judge were web images.
I'll continue to suggest that the only way I'll be able to see the true characteristics of a lens is to see a big print on a wall. Or the words of someone else that's looking at comparison big prints on a wall and telling what they look like. Maybe the web will be able to approximate that someday... then we can make sound judgements.
A response to all that judge photos here
I continue to be mystified by one aspect of RFF (and any other photo website that posts pictures). How can you possibly judge the character of a lens, or compare lenses, by looking at low-res uploaded files that open to about 3 by 5 inches?? I often look at the images here and places like Flickr to look for different performance characteristics of lenses... for fun. But using that information to make purchase decisions is pretty dicey... there's not enough information in those web pics.
I very much appreciate the WORDS of photographers here that attempt to describe the benefits of certain equipment. And I truly enjoy perusing the pictures posted here. But I just cannot understand how anyone can say "oooooh, that's an INCREDIBLE lens" by looking at the images posted here. There's simply not nearly enough information in those uploads to judge much of anything.
I certainly can understand someone here SAYING they're getting fabulous results with, say, a Noctilux. But to expect me to believe that its any better than any other lens is crazy if the only thing I'm given to judge with are the pictures here. I've seen Holga photos that are just as exciting, creamy, colorful... etc.. I suspect that the Noctilux can indeed do things a Holga lens can't, but I wouldn't bet my life on it if the only thing I was given to judge were web images.
I'll continue to suggest that the only way I'll be able to see the true characteristics of a lens is to see a big print on a wall. Or the words of someone else that's looking at comparison big prints on a wall and telling what they look like. Maybe the web will be able to approximate that someday... then we can make sound judgements.
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, while what you say holds some water, keep in mind - thats how YOU look at things. If for you there is not enough info in web pics - fine, noone says that you have to agree, or even make your descision to get or not to get a lens.
That said, while I perfectly understand that I can't see "Everything" in a web pic, I do see some thing I need to see. Such as signature of the lens (not sure if you mean the same thing when you say- "the character of a lens"). How it renders out of focus areas. Yes, I may not get a full idea of lens' sharpness, or complete ranges of tonality, but it gives me some idea. Your example with Holga doesnt make the case, as Holga can produce great images as well. Different than, lets say - Summicron, but great nevertheless. That depends on viewer's taste and photographer's skill.
So, yes, while ideally it may be better to see a large print over the net pics, but good luck finding all the large prints from every lens that you may be intereted in, sitting in your chair and all in 15 minutes. Yet you can do it on the web. Compromise? - sure, but one I'm willing to deal with.
That said, while I perfectly understand that I can't see "Everything" in a web pic, I do see some thing I need to see. Such as signature of the lens (not sure if you mean the same thing when you say- "the character of a lens"). How it renders out of focus areas. Yes, I may not get a full idea of lens' sharpness, or complete ranges of tonality, but it gives me some idea. Your example with Holga doesnt make the case, as Holga can produce great images as well. Different than, lets say - Summicron, but great nevertheless. That depends on viewer's taste and photographer's skill.
So, yes, while ideally it may be better to see a large print over the net pics, but good luck finding all the large prints from every lens that you may be intereted in, sitting in your chair and all in 15 minutes.
Yet you can do it on the web. Compromise? - sure, but one I'm willing to deal with.deepwhite
Well-known
Wow! What's happened during my sleep? (I'm in the GMT+8 zone.)
------
@clayne - I think Krosya's got the point here.
We use the tool that inspires us. Period.
(And that's why even you don't see the difference from a web JPG, we, the ones that took those photos with our Nocs, know how it affects the way we take photos, and could not have done it with most other lenses.)
So it's a Noc for Noc lovers, and a Holga for Holga lovers.
We find our muses, each to his own, and then move on in our creation paths.
------
You said the Noc is only "an antiquated lens design with serious optical design flaws." Well, say that to the Holga lovers. I've heard someone throwing his Holga to the ground again and again, only because his Holga did not have "light leakage" which all other Holgas have.
And, believe it or not, many ASPH lenses are "flawed" to my purpose.
The funniest thing is that, is there ever a lens that can be called "flaw-less" so far?
------
I admit that I wish the Nocs were much cheaper. The same as I wish the Dallmeyer Super-Sixes, the Kinoptiks, the Cookes, and all other similar lenses were as inexpensive as they used to be, before the "hype".
Yet they are not.
And I want a Noc.
So I buy one and go on with my life.
And the point is that I'm happy. Even when you're saying that my purchase is nonsense in your eyes.
------
I realize that you don't want to start a war. Me neither. So please read what we Noc-lovers say, and see if you can understand. If not, alas.
------
@clayne - I think Krosya's got the point here.
We use the tool that inspires us. Period.
(And that's why even you don't see the difference from a web JPG, we, the ones that took those photos with our Nocs, know how it affects the way we take photos, and could not have done it with most other lenses.)
So it's a Noc for Noc lovers, and a Holga for Holga lovers.
We find our muses, each to his own, and then move on in our creation paths.
------
You said the Noc is only "an antiquated lens design with serious optical design flaws." Well, say that to the Holga lovers. I've heard someone throwing his Holga to the ground again and again, only because his Holga did not have "light leakage" which all other Holgas have.
And, believe it or not, many ASPH lenses are "flawed" to my purpose.
The funniest thing is that, is there ever a lens that can be called "flaw-less" so far?
------
I admit that I wish the Nocs were much cheaper. The same as I wish the Dallmeyer Super-Sixes, the Kinoptiks, the Cookes, and all other similar lenses were as inexpensive as they used to be, before the "hype".
Yet they are not.
And I want a Noc.
So I buy one and go on with my life.
And the point is that I'm happy. Even when you're saying that my purchase is nonsense in your eyes.
------
I realize that you don't want to start a war. Me neither. So please read what we Noc-lovers say, and see if you can understand. If not, alas.
Last edited:
deepwhite
Well-known
More photos from the expired neopan1600 roll.
[Three Worlds]
[Two Worlds]
[Another World]
[Three Worlds]
[Two Worlds]
[Another World]
dave lackey
Veteran
Ummmm....
What is it about forums with so-called photographers?
As a photographer, an image I enjoy is an image that matters only to me. It is all subjective and photographers are supposed to understand that. So, why do forums continue to have such criticism from fellow photographrs. Why are some people so emotional about someone else enjoying certain images or certain equipment?
I certainly cannot afford a Noctilux. I cannot even make the rent this month.
But, I admire the resulting images posted by the Noctilux users and I am happy that they can experience the lens, regardless of price. No jealousy here because of someone's financial status.
So, come on, folks, photography is subjective, and who are we to criticize someone else? Not me.
What is it about forums with so-called photographers?
As a photographer, an image I enjoy is an image that matters only to me. It is all subjective and photographers are supposed to understand that. So, why do forums continue to have such criticism from fellow photographrs. Why are some people so emotional about someone else enjoying certain images or certain equipment?
I certainly cannot afford a Noctilux. I cannot even make the rent this month.
But, I admire the resulting images posted by the Noctilux users and I am happy that they can experience the lens, regardless of price. No jealousy here because of someone's financial status.
So, come on, folks, photography is subjective, and who are we to criticize someone else? Not me.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Krosya,
I agree with your points. I intended my post to reflect a similar opinion that certainly SOME information can be gleaned from web pictures; maybe I didn't write that well enough.
However, I must say that, for example, the pictures posted at the beginning of deepwhite's thread don't offer to my eye anything that would suggest they were taken with a $5000 lens. I suspect that they could just as easily been taken with a $500 lens and looked exactly the same, or certainly just as pleasing to the most discerning eye.. don't you think?
I'd also add that it seems interesting to me that a 'blind test' of one lens vs. another is rarely offered here. I mean the kind of test that would show, say, the same landscape photo, or a portrait, or a bokeh shot, taken with say a Noctilux, a Summicron, a Voigtlander, a Zeiss... etc.. This kind of thing can be most informative. Like the 50mm tests that Raid did for us... but with a broader array of subject matter. I understand the difficulties in doing such a thing (gathering all the lenses, taking the time to conduct the test in a controlled fashion, etc.). And in the end, all you can show for your efforts are little teeny web pics!
I agree with your points. I intended my post to reflect a similar opinion that certainly SOME information can be gleaned from web pictures; maybe I didn't write that well enough.
However, I must say that, for example, the pictures posted at the beginning of deepwhite's thread don't offer to my eye anything that would suggest they were taken with a $5000 lens. I suspect that they could just as easily been taken with a $500 lens and looked exactly the same, or certainly just as pleasing to the most discerning eye.. don't you think?
I'd also add that it seems interesting to me that a 'blind test' of one lens vs. another is rarely offered here. I mean the kind of test that would show, say, the same landscape photo, or a portrait, or a bokeh shot, taken with say a Noctilux, a Summicron, a Voigtlander, a Zeiss... etc.. This kind of thing can be most informative. Like the 50mm tests that Raid did for us... but with a broader array of subject matter. I understand the difficulties in doing such a thing (gathering all the lenses, taking the time to conduct the test in a controlled fashion, etc.). And in the end, all you can show for your efforts are little teeny web pics!
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
A good point... the best point!
Maybe I need to visit a therapist to figure out why it bugs me when someone using really expensive equipment shows us pictures that could have been taken with a P&S (well... a good P&S). Probably something deeply Freudian. Now what... spend it on the therapist or the Biogon? D**m!
Maybe I need to visit a therapist to figure out why it bugs me when someone using really expensive equipment shows us pictures that could have been taken with a P&S (well... a good P&S). Probably something deeply Freudian. Now what... spend it on the therapist or the Biogon? D**m!
Olsen
Well-known
There is a wast difference between aparture 1,0 and 1,2. The difference is 1)in the ability to hand hold the camera by using the right exposure time, or 2)seperating an object from the background and foreground by applying a super narrow DOF.
So, the Noctilux is for special applications. It is also a curiosity. That's why I have one. Is it good?
Depends what you call 'good', - which is vital to define, but generally; not really. Depending on application.
I have at least two 50 mm lenses that are far better at doing 'general applications'. Like the brilliant Carl Zeiss Planar 50 mm 2,0 which excells with it's combination of resolution and contrast, - and microcontrast, - often misunderstood as 'sharpness'. It draws streight lines and reproduces the world in true color, sharpness and contrast beond most lenses you can buy. Compared the Noctilux stands out as contrastless.
- It is the Planar which is a really old design of the two. 'Old', when it comes to lense design is a sign of high quality. 'New' is typically computer designed zoom lenses with a lot of compomises. Mostly bent lines.
I also have a Canon EF 50 mm 1,0L (also a curiosity and a collectors item) - which is the only competitor to the Noctilux. But the Leica is far better in reproducing constrasts. It says a lot that Canon gives up the 1,0-position and goes for a far less demanding 1,2 construction - far less demanding on tollerances. While Leica goes the other way by launching a 0,95 version.
These 1,0 lenses are expensive to make. The Canon version cost NOK 25.000 here in Norway when it was made, while the Noctilux cost more than NOK 30.000 - excluding AF and wiring telling the camera what it is doing, like on the Canon. The reason is first of all the small scale production, but also the complicating factors of large glas surfaces and critical precision.
When you well have one, you will find out that 'focus is not just focus', it is moving backwards when stopping down - and getting wider, ofcause. And that it is vital that the lense and camera - particularly the M8, is both tuned to work together. Otherwise the combo will not focus correctly together.
But folks here love to bash the Noctilux, - and the WATE.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
this is a flatly silly thing to suggest. You are not going to find a lot of camera folks who will be able to %100 accurately pick in a blind comparison pictures of people on the street shot with a Noct at 1.0 and at 1.2. You absolutely are not going to find anyone in the real world that is going to label those pictures accurately. Is there a difference, sure. But vast? thats being absurdly dramatic.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
At three feet you have .01ft difference of depth of field between f1 and f1.2. For some people that might be "vast". Id suggest that for most people however, its down right irrelevant and most people, from camera snobs to sanitation workers are just not going to be able to pick out the average photo shot a one aperature versus another.
clayne
shoot film or die
Yep. But pretty much no one wants to hear it. One of my flickr contacts took a decent shot here:
Noctilux? No, Nikon 50mm f/1.2.
mirrored
Established
Generally in this thread: Release me on vignetting please! It's awful, totally ruined.
Interesting lens, but first things first.
I had to say.
Interesting lens, but first things first.
I had to say.