My Noctilux Diary

[mirrored]

GUYS!!!

Stop. Please.

For me, the Noctiux is the best among my muses. It's the last lens that will leave my hands.


------

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



------




------

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


I don't have any new shots available now. Someone please post one before we reach the end of page12.

Sorry for discussion, but it's a extraordinary lens and this thread has grew my knowing about it. I am naturally interested on it, but I am new to RF and Leica M and therefore I didn't knew almost nothing earlier. Instead I am a '50mm fan' with many of them in my Nikon SLR. I have been very close to purchace Noct-Nikkor several times, so my interest to the topic is pure. My sight to lens performance and character is somewhat more professional one, with my background: for example I have worked 7-day newspapers as a photographer and studied on photography.


Who will turn this to side 13?



edit: I find Noctilux 1.2 discussion and one photo. It's better compared to Noct-Nikkor with hand-ground aspheric lens, if I understund.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=13243
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49336

 

[rocheung]

wow. impressive fall-off and nice bokeh

 

[maddoc]

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.

Finally somebody mentioned it That's exact the point with the Noctilux and it's price, it is a true f/1.0 lens (at least in the center) and not only a "mathematical" f/1.0 lens.

To much discussion ....

 

[gdi]

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.

Do you have a link for T-Stop measurements of the lens (and other fast ones)? I had seen it noted (anecdotal, I am sure) as T1.1. Of course that would be in the center only - subtract "x" stops to the edges...

Thanks

 

[gdi]

Gabor - you have mastered the Noctilux! Very nice shots - consistently!

 

[mirrored]

Noctilux photos: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/leitz/50_1_noctilux

T1.1

Who knows. I find something written by one cinema person:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=337760&postcount=45
"Leica-M 50mm Noctilux f/1.0"
"f/1 should be something like T1.1"

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091505leica_50mm_f0_95.asp
"Breaking the optical “sound barrier” of lens speed 1.1 has been the Holy Grail of lens design for many years."

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=221948&postcount=25
"Leica Noctilux-M 1,0/50mm (T1.1) is the fastest lens available on the market."

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=324418&postcount=12
"Then Leica is jumping to make a serial of Noctilux T1 cine lenses for the industry."

Sorry for discussion still. I see "My Summilux diary" should been put up with other thread for technical discussion together.

 

[clayne]

You guys are touting T-stops for a lens that consistently exhibits heavy vignetting? C'mon.

 

[climbing_vine]

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.

I interpreted your post exactly as he did, and I'm a native speaker.

You write too much. Your verbiage clouds the point you think you're trying to make. That's your problem, not the reader's, and you should work on it before patronizing people that are trying to put in the effort to make sense of your rambling.

 

[Svitantti]

I would say for light cathering (lens speed) a half stop is not that critical, because you could often just exposure a bit longer and the photos will look pretty much the same. In dim light probably a little pushing would do the trick.

I'm no saying its the same when the exposure time is critical or neither that pusing film wont make difference, but for most "street photographers" etc. it really is not that critical.

But for the depth of field and bokeh the difference is often noticeable. Some of this is of course just basic difference of different lens designs, but sure a difference in the lens speed will makes photos look different and even a half stop can be important.

I still wouldn't buy a noctilux unless I won in lottery or something (thumbs up for this evening), but I could think about a Canon f1.2 or such . Until that I will shoot with Jupiters and maybe Noktons (which I just sold) for 50mm.

 

[kokakiku]

Just found this thread. Here's my contribution.

 

[deepwhite]

@maddoc & kokakiku - thanks for sharing your Noctilux shots.

------

A few more shts from the expired neopan 1600 roll:

[Capturing Loneliness]

I found it to be a major theme of my photos.

------

[Evil House - Stop Starring at Me!]

"The city is alive."

Yeah. You tell me.

------

[Seeing Myself]

There are one of those moments
That one looks across
And sees oneself

 

[maddoc]

@ deepwhite: #2 [Capturing Loneliness] !! I like it lot !

I have tried to take a portrait ...

 

[cam]

very nice!

despite my love of these fast lenses, i am starting to wonder if perhaps i don't love them even more on film.... is it the crop factor or the medium?

 

[maddoc]

... the crop factor "transforms" the 50 into a 75 (R-D1s) or 60-something (M8) so in fact it is like having a very fast short tele lens. Film ... is more forgiving than sensors and gives more pleasing results (.. to my eyes at least).

 

[cam]

yes, i agree.... when everyone asks me about my next camera, i am beginning to think more and more that it may be film.

 

[deepwhite]

@ maddoc - I love your portrait shot. I moved my head away from the screen at the sight of it....

@ cam - long time no see!

Do buy a film camera as your next one, if you love blurry shots or enjoy bokeh. When switching the same lens between the R-D1s and a film camera (M7, Hexar RF, or Bessa R2A), I found that "blurry shots" and "bokeh" are two things that show the most difference between film and CCD.

There is another lens that I love very much, second only to the Noctilux. I also shoot with it both with the R-D1s and the film cameras.

The first shot is the best I can do with this lens + R-D1s, about bokeh and barely out-of-focus blurry shot:

And the next shot is what I can do easily with film:

You can see that everything is "alive" and "moving" on film, while the bokeh is pretty "still" in digital.

Buy a film cam.

 

[cam]

miss you too, deepwhite. you are a dangerous influence that second shot is just dreamy!

thank you for the explanation, Double Negative. as i get more and more serious about this, i really am leaning towards film. and yet i know how much i have to learn.... my boyfriend and i are were just laughing at the idea of finding a dry and dust-free place for negs. our toilet was the only place we could think of.... what if i have to go?

 

[ken_nyus]

DoF is affected by your medium (or sensor) size. The smaller the medium/sensor, the deeper your DoF (witness DP&S cameras and their seeming infinite DoF compared to say, a film camera or FF DSLR). ....

I thought it was the exact opposite.

If you use one of the DOF calculators out there, they report shallower DOF for cropped sensors.

For P&S I thought the deep DOF was all about the small max f-stop.

 

[maddoc]

Wow !! So much maths, I already got confused .... But thanks for the explanations, guys !!

deepwhite, I like that photo of the tree, a special atmosphere in there.

Here is one more on film, Tri-X souped in Rodinal 1:50...

 

[ken_nyus]

On paper, yes:

Leica M8, 50mm @ f/2.8 and 10' = 1.57' of DoF
Leica M7, 50mm @ f/2.8 and 10' = 2.06' of DoF

...but you need to frame your subject differently because of the crop factor, which swings your DoF the other way. Also, adjusted, we get the following:

Leica M7, 66mm @ f/2.8 and 10' = 1.17' of DoF

Got it now, thanks for the reply!