My Noctilux Diary

WoolenMammoth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am silly, am I not. Æhum, you don't know what you are talking about.

I can see, I am sure that most Noctilux users can see the difference. There was a guy here presenting a picture he claimed was taken with a Noctilux at aparture 1,0 at 2 meters. It was easy to call that a lie. Not only by me. How deep is the DOF at aparture 1,0 at two meters? How deep is it at, say 1,4...?

Measured in amount of light (lux) there is a wast difference between 1,0 and 1,2. Take a math course.
 
jesus you are nasty Olsen.

I invite you to think whatever you like about wether or not I know what Im talking about. If you feel that the average person on the street can differentiate .01 ft depth of field in a photo, I cordially invite you to subscribe to that fantasy. There are plenty of first camera assistants that would have difficulty in a blind test. but think what you like.

My comment did not address lux as it doesnt take any kind of genius to see the difference in lux. But that is not what inspired my post, nor did my post contain anything to suggest otherwise. Why you bring this up now is somewhat amusing.

The math course I did quote shows "vast" as .01 foot. This is just simple math that precludes owning or using a noctilux. Its interesting that you suggest "noctilux users can see the difference". If you point it out, I would imagine that ALL humans with vision can see the difference. It's a measurable difference. However, out of all those people when you take the pile of photos shot with a lux at f1 and mix them up with the pile of photos shot at f1.2, there are very few people, noctilux users or not, who are going to pick out the stop accurately %100 of the time. There is a vast difference in DOF between f1 and f8. There is a pretty damn irrelevant difference between f1 and f1.2. Subtracting .01 foot of depth of focus certainly does not make someone pop from a background more than if you left that .01 foot of focus in the composition.

you just say the word notcilux and people lose their sensibility to have rational discussion.
 
Gabor, great photos. Already admired the subway shot on flickr.

But: stop saying it's the lens - it's you 🙂

It's not the speed. A 35/1.2 is "faster". Neither the DOF. A 50/1.4 at .7m has less DOF.

If the signature inspires you, more power to you. But claim it .. 🙂

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Roland,

thank you ! 🙂 I very much agree with you, the 35/1.2 is faster (and has a very appealing signature for much less $$$ !), and shallow DoF can be much easier achieved with the 75/1.4 and 90/2.0. Buying the Noct only for it's f/1.0 and DoF is waste of money, IMHO.

Vignetting is visible with the Noct and gets worse, when in high contrast situations. If one takes photos of a subject against a bright background (e.g. snow) it becomes clearly visible.

But all weak points (or flaws) of this lens taken aside, I like the way it renders. But I also like the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH and the Super-Angulon-M 21/3.4. These lenses are quite similar to the Noctilux (so is the 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH).

About versatility, the Noctilux is not very suitable for "street photography" ... the focus travel is very long and it is nearly impossible to fast focus and take a photo ... Most of the photos will be slightly out-of-focus but with some luck it sometims work out. 🙂

Cheers,

Gabor
 
maddoc said:
Vignetting is visible with the Noct and gets worse, when in high contrast situations. If one takes photos of a subject against a bright background (e.g. snow) it becomes clearly visible.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am exposured. It was not only the filter mentioned. And falling towards edges mean too, that it have f1.0 only in middle area.

I have an allergy to vignetting and distortion and that are my first technical things when choosing optic. Mostly I see Noctilux as a curiosity in lens family, interesting, but less serious tool. It's too near to the border what can reach that there comes much compromise to other features. Light dropping and vignetting could be better with larger construction - and it would cover a rangefinder!

Stanley Kubrick: Barry London. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

clayne said:
The difference is about 0.5 stops - this is not vast.
Click to expand...

5.6 - 4 - 2.8 - 2 - 1,4 is steps, and often I have heard 1.4 - 1.2 would be an half. If being accurate, 1.2 - 1 is more than 1.4 - 1.2. Am I right in looking those numbers? (Or is there a common habit in photography to mean half way in number scale meaning just a half step?)

The largest aperture in different lens in reality is an other question, despite it's number informed.

I am always marweled how 1:0.95 is possible and thinking 1:1 being absolute border where no light is absorded to the lens.
 
Last edited:
5.6 - 4 - 2.8 - 2 - 1,4 is steps, and often I have heard 1.4 - 1.2 would be an half. If being accurate, 1.2 - 1 is more than 1.4 - 1.2. Am I right in looking those numbers? (Or is there a common habit in photography to mean half way in number scale meaning just a half step?)

The largest aperture in different lens in reality is an other question, despite it's number informed.

I am always marweled how 1:0.95 is possible and thinking 1:1 being absolute border where no light is absorded to the lens.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

f/1.0 is half-stop from f/1.2.

Also, the f-stop is a ratio of focal length vs entrance pupil size. Not directly related to light transmission ability.
 
clayne said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

f/1.0 is half-stop from f/1.2.
Click to expand...

This seems not to be very sure:


Typical one-half-stop f-number scale

[FONT=Georgia,serif]f/[/FONT]# 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 2 2.4 2.8 3.3 4 4.8 5.6 6.7 8 9.5 11 13 16 19 22

Typical one-third-stop f-number scale

[FONT=Georgia,serif]f/[/FONT]# 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.3 3.5 4 4.5 5.0 5.6 6.3 7.1 8 9 10 11 13 14 16 18 20 22
 
mirrored said:
This seems not to be very sure:


Typical one-half-stop f-number scale

[FONT=Georgia,serif]f/[/FONT]# 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 2 2.4 2.8 3.3 4 4.8 5.6 6.7 8 9.5 11 13 16 19 22

Typical one-third-stop f-number scale

[FONT=Georgia,serif]f/[/FONT]# 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.3 3.5 4 4.5 5.0 5.6 6.3 7.1 8 9 10 11 13 14 16 18 20 22
Click to expand...

Read the article. There's some issues with 3rds and approximations.
 
clayne said:
You have got to be kidding.

The difference is about 0.5 stops - this is not vast.

Seriously, does this irrational behaviour happen to all Noctilux owners?
Click to expand...


Ha, ha! (I will try not to be rude). You might not think it is a 'vast' difference, but quite a few photographers think that it is, but that is what you pay for in the photo world. Half a stop and triple the price. Mathematically the difference is 'significant'.

Is it worth the price? Well, that is up to each and everyone to decide.
 
clayne said:
Read the article. There's some issues with 3rds and approximations.
Click to expand...

I didn't find there any confirm that either would be nearer approximation.

Typical one-half-stop f-number scale
[FONT=Georgia,serif]f/[/FONT]# 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 2 2.4 2.8

Typical one-third-stop f-number scale
[FONT=Georgia,serif]f/[/FONT]# 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.5 2.8

mirrored said:
5.6 - 4 - 2.8 - 2 - 1,4 is steps, and often I have heard 1.4 - 1.2 would be an half. If being accurate, 1.2 - 1 is more than 1.4 - 1.2. Am I right in looking those numbers? (Or is there a common habit in photography to mean half way in number scale meaning just a half step?)

The largest aperture in different lens in reality is an other question, despite it's number informed.
Click to expand...

--------------------

Olsen said:
Is it worth the price? Well, that is up to each and everyone to decide.
Click to expand...

Do doupt it would be, if only price and stop grow. But there happens more and that is why many are not really interested on it and why I put it to the 'curiosity lens group'. In its larger group "for what it is made for" keep inside lenses with better overal features, more usable. 1.0 goes significantly over certain border by lookin too much only one thing, 1.0.

Of cource this is personal. Few have different opinion which is very good. We wouldn't have this fashinating lens in manufacturing if not. In f stop race we definately have a winner.
 
Last edited:
A little about the tiny DOF of the Noctilux - or just any camera with a 1,0 aperture. At 2 meters the DOF is is 8 cm deep. Stopped down to 1,4 it is 13 cm deep. Imagine that you want the eyes and nose to be sharp, but not the ears. - This to exemplify the kind of results that a Noctilux is made for. Is it this kind of portraits you are looking for, then the Noctilux is a must.

You can apply this to make some weird, that's what I will call them, results were the DOF is from 85 meters to eternity. Or just 40 cm in a street scene. - And so on. We see a lot of that kind of shots here.

Please note: I am not claiming that the Noctilux is 'better',l because it is not. As I have stated earlier, I would prefer to use other 50 mm lenses in 90% of the time.

No, I did not give 5,000 $ for mine, which i think is an unheard of price. Both my 1,0-aperture lenses I bought for 'a song'. Otherwise I would not have bothered.
 
Here are 1/6th stops. Pick half or thirds as you like.

182818334_v4FmD-L.jpg


Roland.
 
People, let's not forget the Noctilux is a True f1.0 T stop lens. That's the whole point of this lens. It is a TRUE f1.0 whereas other lens makers can mark f1.4 truthfully while the lens only pases T1.8 light through it. The F stop is a physical thing but the light transmission through all the glass can be less, somewhat of a limiting factor (think of Neutral 4X filters: A sumilux remains a f1.4 lens but there is less light traveling through it).

Leica didn't cheat on this lens. It is a True T 1.0, therefore a legendary lens. No matter all the bitching, a King is a King.
 
Olsen said:
A little about the tiny DOF of the Noctilux - or just any camera with a 1,0 aperture. At 2 meters the DOF is is 8 cm deep. Stopped down to 1,4 it is 13 cm deep. Imagine that you want the eyes and nose to be sharp, but not the ears. - This to exemplify the kind of results that a Noctilux is made for. Is it this kind of portraits you are looking for, then the Noctilux is a must.
Click to expand...


this is also needlessly dramatic. There are plenty of lenses out there that will that shallow depth of field. There are not plenty of them in 50mm, but if your only concern is the DOF this is wildly achievable with a long list of other lenses in other focal lengths.

For a 50mm lens att 2 meters the link I posted shows 9cm DOF at F1, 11cm at F1.2 and 13cm at f1.4. For most people alive on earth right now, 2cm of depth of field is not particularly noticable and for none of them is this distance vast. It is measurable, it does exist and the weight that this measurment carries is brought into fantasy and absurdity when a noctilux is discussed. Its entirely worth pausing to make a note that this rarely or never occurs when other lenses capable of the same DOF are discussed. Just a noctilux. We are not engineers talking about the thread pitch on a screw here, just practical photography. I wish more people would keep that in mind before spinning these debates into academia where mathematically something is significant yet the VAST majority of the audience looking at those results cant differentiate it with their eyes...
 
GUYS!!!

Stop. Please.

I've tried very hard to keep this thread "sane". Including tolerating some very rude comments. (I'm not saying all the comments are rude though.)

And please remember:

I'm a musician. I count in 8 or 12. 😉

------

@ clayne - I love your Nikkor 50/1.2 shot. And I envy that you can take it with a Nikkor 50/1.2.

For me, the Noctiux is the best among my muses. It's the last lens that will leave my hands. Call me unlucky, that my number one muse costs ten times than yours.

@Jamie -
Now what... spend it on the therapist or the Biogon?
Click to expand...

You go spend your money on the therapist or the Biogon. Just remember that, whichever decision you make, you won't be challenged by me. 😉

So, vice versa, please.

------

I love vignetting SOMETIMES. If you hate vignetting, please avoid any thread that mentions "Noctilux" or "Holga".

If you hate the smell of a toilet, why keep sticking your head into one? 😉

------

The Noctilux is not a good general purpose lens. But I'm not a general purpose person either.

I'm a Night Walker.

I don't drink blood, but my sanity works from 6pm to 6am.

That's partly the reason why the Noctilux works for me but not some of you.

IF, just IF, I ever go out during the day, I got other lenses. Lux35 preA, SA21/3.4, Kinoptik Foyer 50/2, Kinotik Fulgior 35/1.3, Dallmeyer Super-Six Projection 45/1.9, Cooke Amotal Anastigmat 50/2, Kern Macro Switar 50/1.8, etc..

And I also have the Notkon 35/1.2.

------

It's sad that, for the first time in this thread, there was a whole page of discussion without even one Noctilux shot.

Sad.

I don't have any new shots available now. Someone please post one before we reach the end of page12. 😉
 
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth said:
this is also needlessly dramatic. There are plenty of lenses out there that will that shallow depth of field. There are not plenty of them in 50mm, but if your only concern is the DOF this is wildly achievable with a long list of other lenses in other focal lengths.

For a 50mm lens att 2 meters the link I posted shows 9cm DOF at F1, 11cm at F1.2 and 13cm at f1.4. For most people alive on earth right now, 2cm of depth of field is not particularly noticable and for none of them is this distance vast. It is measurable, it does exist and the weight that this measurment carries is brought into fantasy and absurdity when a noctilux is discussed. Its entirely worth pausing to make a note that this rarely or never occurs when other lenses capable of the same DOF are discussed. Just a noctilux. We are not engineers talking about the thread pitch on a screw here, just practical photography. I wish more people would keep that in mind before spinning these debates into academia where mathematically something is significant yet the VAST majority of the audience looking at those results cant differentiate it with their eyes...
Click to expand...

The DOF is the same for all 50 mm lenses at the same apertures! There is no difference in DOF at the same distance at aperture 1,4. At this aperture the Noctilux has the same DOF as just any other 50 mm lens. So, if you want 8 cm DOF - with a 50 mm lens at 2 meters you got to have a 1,0 aperture lens.

You can get 9 cm DOF at 2 meters with a Summicron 75 mm 2,0 - or any other 75 mm 2,0 lens. But it won't give the same field of view as the 50 mm 1,0 Noctilux.

Otherwise I find 'the vast majority' here quite knowledgable about the relations between focal lengthts, aperture stops and DOF.
 
Olsen said:
The DOF is the same for all 50 mm lenses at the same apertures! There is no difference in DOF at the same distance at aperture 1,4. At this aperture the Noctilux has the same DOF as just any other 50 mm lens. So, if you want 8 cm DOF - with a 50 mm lens at 2 meters you got to have a 1,0 aperture lens.

You can get 9 cm DOF at 2 meters with a Summicron 75 mm 2,0 - or any other 75 mm 2,0 lens. But it won't give the same field of view as the 50 mm 1,0 Noctilux.

Otherwise I find 'the vast majority' here quite knowledgable about the relations between focal lengthts, aperture stops and DOF.
Click to expand...


Sigh. I dont know if its the language barrier or what, but Id suggest you re-read the first three sentences of my post there. Quite obviously DOF is consistent at a given focal length from lens to lens. This needs to be stated? I cant understand how on earth my statement of "long list of lenses in other focal lengths" could have inspired your rebuttle. I would kindly request that you read my posts before just arguing for the sake of argument.

I made no statement to field of view. Obviously this will change with focal length. Something this obvious really needs to be detailed in this discussion?

My comments are succinctly in regards to DOF only. Please try to comprehend my statements, which are clear and very simple, before spinning this thread further into outer space. I'll remind you that the origin of this is your statement that 2cm of DOF is a vast difference.
 
Wow. the Noctilux is worse than politics - impossible to discuss without descending into an argument. I wouldn't buy one myself but I can't really get so worked up about other people enjoying themselves with one, and it's nice to see other people's pictures.

Deep White's 'three worlds' picture is amazing... Great composition and atmosphere, and the grainy low contrast of the film suits it really well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom