New Nokton: compensating for something!?

[RichC]

Why this feeding frenzy over the Voigtlander f1.1 lens (or the Noctilux, for that matter)? Compensating for something? Oneupmanship?

What practical advantages does it have over an f1.4 lens, which will generally be cheaper, smaller, perform better, and be plenty fast enough for low light?

I hear cries of "It's a special-purpose lens, for night shooting or shallow depth of field". Yeah, right...!

The f1.1 lens has about a one stop advantage, so you can shoot at a faster shutter speed - big difference <rolls eyes>! Let's be really generous and say that you can reliably and consistently hand hold a 50mm lens at 1/30 s: the f1.1 increases what would've been 1/15 s on an f1.4 lens to your "safe" speed of 1/30 s. So, only in the single circumstance when the exposure is 1/30 s @ f1.1 will you gain an advantage - and how often will that occur...? If there was a two-stop difference, that would be worthwhile - but there isn't...

Instead, brace yourself, breathe properly, use faster film or a higher ISO ... or even a tripod/monopod. Monopod too awkward - try a "string pod": http://www.xs4all.nl/~wiskerke/artikelen/string.html.

Also, night or low-light photography often needs shorter exposures than expected, since the subject (e.g. a singer in a nightclub) is usually significantly brighter than the surroundings - and you should be exposing for the subject if you wish to retain the ambience and emotion. In other words, your bright subject doesn't need f1.1 light-gathering power.

And let's not forget depth of field. Consider subjects at 5, 10 and 20 feet - f1.1 lens gives DOFs of 2, 8.5 and 35 inches, compared with 3, 12 and 50 inches for an f1.4 lens (all for 35mm film). What does that tell us? First, both lenses have DOFs that are so shallow that difference between them pales into insignificance. Secondly, the wide-open DOF is so narrow as to prevent photography unless your subject happens to lie on a single plane! In other words, for most photographs you'll need to stop down, defeating the point of using this fast lens.

I don't even want to think about the narrowness of the DOF on the Leica M8!

The same arguments apply to the Noctilux.

So, Noctilux users, show us the photos that couldn't have been taken with a slower lens... Prospective Nokton f1.1 owners, tell me about those shots you'll be taking that no other lens can capture...

 

[laptoprob]

I will stick to the Canon 1,2. Fast enough for me. And very different than f2 lenses. But lots of people want modern fast glass. Otherwise there wouldn't be a market for them.
Isn't the DOF the same no matter what crop factor?
But I can imagine a super high speed film can create results no other lens can. Not necessarily better technically (sharpness, contrast etc.), but different.

 

[noimmunity]

Why this feeding frenzy over the Voigtlander f1.1 lens (or the Noctilux, for that matter)? Compensating for something? Oneupmanship?

What practical advantages does it have over an f1.4 lens, which will generally be cheaper, smaller, perform better, and be plenty fast enough for low light?

Hard to talk about a lens nobody has used. But why not get excited?

Getting excited doesn't indicate a commitment.

Cosina undoubtedly deserves recognition and applause (= my excitment) for its achievements--not least of which is having listened to what the majority of users had asked for, as judging by the thread Stephen opened last year (I for one had asked for something different than a super fast 50, by the way).

The DOF between 5-10 feet would make for portraits with a lot of ambience in low lighting.

The extra stop could make a difference wrt motion blur.

 

[Krosya]

Well,
I use fast lenses for a few reasons:
1. I'm a bokeh junkie.
2. I hate tripods.
3. From experience - one stop can mean a lot - here is a pic (and you can see more on my flickr, where i was at the ISO 1600, couldn't carry a tripod as this was inside the cave, flash would ruin the shot and using CV 35/1.2 at 1.2 was the only way to shoot:

Those reasons are enough for me

 

[Lilserenity]

I'm not saying this is a definitive reason but if for some bizarre reason you're shooting Kodachrome or Velvia in difficult light, f/1.4 might get you a close exposure but f/1.1 might just nail it.

And what's the harm about people getting excited about something they like the sound of?

Cosina's contribution to the rangefinder rennaissance should be applauded. As much as they're undercutting traditional Leica prices, they have probably done much to help Leica too. For example, I now own an M2 with a Cosina (sorry, Voigtlander) lens, an Ultron f/1.7. Without Cosina, I'd still be saving for a Summicron 35mm whereas I have been able to afford a Leica and a smashing 35mm lens.

So I say let people have their feeding frenzy, it's a free world and whilst I doubt the Nokton 50mm f/1.1 is on my horizons yet, it may well be as there is no way I could ever afford a Noctilux.

I'm probably more interested in the Heliar 50mm f/2.5 if anything or the new 15-35mm finder from CV.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Well, lenses exert their personalities most intensely wide open, and super-fast lenses tend to have very distinctive personalities. If you like that kind of shooting, a lens like this may be irresistible. This is why I have the Canon 50/1.2, which I too am sticking with for the time being...

 

[nzeeman]

i always get excited when new lens is around. i know i wont be able to buy it but i am happy that rf world is still alive. also lenses from cosina like this one and at price like that make possible for younger people to buy new lens instead used one.

 

[kully]

That's like saying why had f/1.4 instead of f/2 or f/2.8 instead of f/2....

Some will want it.

 

[chris00nj]

Although I personally don't feel a need for a f/1.1 for myself, there is obviously a market for it.

While a f/1.1 is not much different than a f/1.4, there is also only one stop between a f/1.4 and an f/2. Come to think about it there is only one stop between a f/2 and an f/2.8, and just one more between f/2.8 and f/4. If f/4 is good for a consumer DSLR zoom lens, shouldn't it be good enough for all of us?

 

[nzeeman]

FWIW, the M8 will have more DoF over a film camera, using the same lens.

Being able to buy a NEW f/1.1 lens (which is almost the same as an f/1-1.2 lens, IMO) for an affordable price even - is what people are excited about. What are the alternatives? A used (somewhat less desirable) Nocti at f/1.2, a Hexanon or maybe a Canon - all used and close in price if not a lot more. From there it goes to f/1.4.

As mentioned, some of us like bokeh, hate tripods or just shoot in really crappy light.

An f/stop of "1.1" is a little odd. It's not f/1, and it's not f/1.2. Close enough though, really. It's no more than a third of a stop either way. But it's enough over an f/1.4 - which bites the Summilux a little. Zeiss too with an f/1.5 being the brightest ZM. Even CV could only muster f/1.5 previously in the 50mm space.

more dof? i dont think so-it is just crop from full frame so dof dont change...

 

[kshapero]

RichC does makes some good points. Although I love when CV comes out with anything new because it is a signal our little world is alive and well. Having said that, I find that for low light f2 is usually good enough because if the central subject is bright then I will run up and take a reading which usually gets me a better and less noisy shot. Of course f1.4 is good to have, but my low light shots come out better if I don't go past f2. Maybe it is me.

 

[ferider]

FWIW, the M8 will have more DoF over a film camera, using the same lens.

Using the same FOV it has more DOF. Using the same lens at the same distance, it has less DOF.


Interesting for me that the new Nokton is considered cheap. It's the most expensive CV lens released yet, and on par in price with some of the best 50s out there; for example the latest pre-asph Summilux, or the Millenium Nikkor with adapter.

If I want shallow DOF, I use a 90. 🙂

It's always cool though if a new CV lens is released ....

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[sleepyhead]

NOCTILUX FOR THE MASSES

I think one interesting outcome of CV offerring an "afordable" Noctilux alternative, is that now so many more people, not just people with deep pockets, but also people with photographic talent and not-so-deep-pockets will have access to a noctilux-like lens.

Now we will get to see a much more representative sampling of what these ultra-fast lenses really can do in terms of GOOD and INTERESTING PHOTOGRAPHY.

(Hoprefully not too many more pictures of over-saturated, mostly bokeh flowers, and Christmas Tree bokeh... 🙂 )

 

[Gaspar]

Well, two things, just because you don't drive a formula 1 car does not mean you do not appreciate the engineering that goes into it.

second, there are indeed circunstances when every little helps. I remember when my second daughter was born, I was ready for her with ilford 3200 and zuiko 55mm f1.2. Inside the room I doubt I would have got away with f1.8. even with the f1.2 I still had some blurred photos.
G

 

[whickus]

Why this feeding frenzy over the Voigtlander f1.1 lens (or the Noctilux, for that matter)? Compensating for something? Oneupmanship?

well, i guess you just don't get it then. that's fine though, because not everyone likes fast lenses. i don't understand the "need" to own a giant, gas-guzzling suv only to drive myself around on paved roads, so i don't buy them. to each their own.

What practical advantages does it have over an f1.4 lens, which will generally be cheaper, smaller, perform better, and be plenty fast enough for low light?

you say f/1.4 is plenty fast enough - well, obvously you haven't been in a situation where it wasn't fast enough. an f/1.1 lens versus an f/1.4 lens gives you the same advantage that an f/1.4 lens gives you over an f/2 lens, or the same advantage that an f/2 lens gives you over and f/2.8 lens, and so forth. there's also the matter of the signature and specific look the lens gives.

And let's not forget depth of field. Consider subjects at 5, 10 and 20 feet - f1.1 lens gives DOFs of 2, 8.5 and 35 inches, compared with 3, 12 and 50 inches for an f1.4 lens (all for 35mm film). What does that tell us? First, both lenses have DOFs that are so shallow that difference between them pales into insignificance. Secondly, the wide-open DOF is so narrow as to prevent photography unless your subject happens to lie on a single plane! In other words, for most photographs you'll need to stop down, defeating the point of using this fast lens.

why would we forget depth of field? that's the main reason people buy this sort of lens. f/1.2 and f/.95 lenses have been around for decades and it's understood that not everyone needs them. the people who purchase them and use them with excellent results understand that the limited dof can be tricky and the focus has to be precise. that's another reason you shouldn't buy it if you don't get the "feeding frenzy" surrounding it. again, the examples you give regarding differences in dof between an f/1.1 lens and an f/1.4 lens apply to the difference between and f/1.4 lens and an f/2 lens, and so on. the difference really isn't that much in terms of actual measurements on paper, but it can be drastic when you see the effects in a photo.

 

[funkaoshi]

Is there a stash of modern f/1.1 lenses for under 10K I was unaware of? Nope? Well I'm guessing that might be why people are getting excited.

Though, maybe getting angry and acting curmudgeonly is a better use of your time.

 

[yanidel]

I agree with your points though it miss one point : gear purchases are not rational. 😉

As for the argument saying that to have shallow DOF, use tele-lenses ... (this is a Ken Rockwell favourite by the way) ... it only underlines a lack of creativity by those who sustain that. The composition you get with long lenses has nothing to do with a 35 and 50mm lens so F1 to F2 are definitely creative tools on these lenses too.

 

[yanidel]

you say f/1.4 is plenty fast enough - well, obvously you haven't been in a situation where it wasn't fast enough. an f/1.1 lens versus an f/1.4 lens gives you the same advantage that an f/1.4 .

Well, so far we haven't see a sample to prove that point 😉
The one posted above by Krosya had to be taken with a tripod, even at F1.2, it does show some blur.

 

[Keith]

I now use my 1.2 50mm Zuiko constantly on my OM-1 for the sole reason that it trumps my 50mm1.2 Canon rangefinder lens in all departments ... I love shooting at this aperture but have been discouraged somewhat by the Canon's quirks and thus picked up an SLR to exploit the benefits of using a charismatic fast 50 via the Olympus glass!

The Nokton, if it turns out to be a good lens, will shift my priorities back to a rangefinder and I sure as hell can't afford a Noctilux.

 

[ferider]

I agree with your points though it miss one point : gear purchases are not rational. 😉

As for the argument saying that to have shallow DOF, use tele-lenses ... (this is a Ken Rockwell favourite by the way) ... it only underlines a lack of creativity by those who sustain that. The composition you get with long lenses has nothing to do with a 35 and 50mm lens so F1 to F2 are definitely creative tools on these lenses too.

And so is f1.4 on a 75mm lens 😉