Roger Hicks
Veteran
What I'm compensating for is (a) low light and (b) noise with high ISO settings.
If others are compensating for physiological deficiencies, that's their problem.
If others perceive fast lenses as compensation for others' physiological deficiencies, they've either got bigger but unacknowledged problems, or smaller but unacknowledged problems.
This is a classic slippery slope argument. If f/1.1 is close enough to f/1.2 is close enough to f/1.4 is close enough to f/1.8 is close enough to f/2 is close enough to f/2.5...
Anyone who shoots under REALLY poor light (such as 1/4 @ f/1 @ ISO 2500) knows why fast lenses exist. If you don't take pics under such conditions: well, you don't know why they exist.
Tashi delek,
R.
If others are compensating for physiological deficiencies, that's their problem.
If others perceive fast lenses as compensation for others' physiological deficiencies, they've either got bigger but unacknowledged problems, or smaller but unacknowledged problems.
This is a classic slippery slope argument. If f/1.1 is close enough to f/1.2 is close enough to f/1.4 is close enough to f/1.8 is close enough to f/2 is close enough to f/2.5...
Anyone who shoots under REALLY poor light (such as 1/4 @ f/1 @ ISO 2500) knows why fast lenses exist. If you don't take pics under such conditions: well, you don't know why they exist.
Tashi delek,
R.
nobbylon
Veteran
Great thread and one of the reasons I've stopped using film and rangefinders with fast lenses for low light. Get a D3 or D700 and just take pictures. I agree with Nikon webmaster that the original purpose of fast lenses was for low light use. However, even the fastest film lenses are not in the same league as the D3 sensor. Most of the shots I see with these lenses are blurry at best because they are still taken at relatively slow shutter speeds. Bokeh? A different matter all together but I've seen very few shots with these so called super lenses that I think are any better than a 1.4 or 2.
GAS is all it is, nothing to do with getting the shot. A few will argue that one of the reasons for using a rangefinder is it's size compared to an SLR and then go and stick a whacking great Nocti on the front! madness. No i'm sorry this is just lusting after bigger and better and has IMHO nothing to do with getting the picture
GAS is all it is, nothing to do with getting the shot. A few will argue that one of the reasons for using a rangefinder is it's size compared to an SLR and then go and stick a whacking great Nocti on the front! madness. No i'm sorry this is just lusting after bigger and better and has IMHO nothing to do with getting the picture
los
Established
you guys going to let that comment stand without posting some more f1.2 and f.95 pictures?
yanidel
Well-known
Good way to summarize it. For one member shooting 6400 at F1 in a dance club, I guess there are at least 99 other members for who F1.4 and F2 would be enough for their style of photography (I never see much low light stuff in the galleries by the wayGreat thread and one of the reasons I've stopped using film and rangefinders with fast lenses for low light. Get a D3 or D700 and just take pictures. I agree with Nikon webmaster that the original purpose of fast lenses was for low light use. However, even the fastest film lenses are not in the same league as the D3 sensor. Most of the shots I see with these lenses are blurry at best because they are still taken at relatively slow shutter speeds. Bokeh? A different matter all together but I've seen very few shots with these so called super lenses that I think are any better than a 1.4 or 2.
GAS is all it is, nothing to do with getting the shot. A few will argue that one of the reasons for using a rangefinder is it's size compared to an SLR and then go and stick a whacking great Nocti on the front! madness. No i'm sorry this is just lusting after bigger and better and has IMHO nothing to do with getting the picture
) It is mostly GAS, I have to admit that for a while I felt it coming but after rationalizing it a bit, I came quickly to the conclusion that I do not need it. Now, GAS is nothing to be ashamed of and curiosity is a quality, so if some of us are enthusiasmed about this new lens for whatever reason, this is great !
Last edited:
los
Established
i just couldn't resist.
canon 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 (i can't remember which, but they're the only RF lenses i've got), probably at f2.8 (cause i can't stand the softness around the sides when they're wide open) and 1/8 sec or slower. fuji superia xtra 400.
the door man asked me, "how are you taking pictures, it's so dark".
canon 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 (i can't remember which, but they're the only RF lenses i've got), probably at f2.8 (cause i can't stand the softness around the sides when they're wide open) and 1/8 sec or slower. fuji superia xtra 400.
the door man asked me, "how are you taking pictures, it's so dark".
Attachments
samoksner
Who stole my light?
A few will argue that one of the reasons for using a rangefinder is it's size compared to an SLR and then go and stick a whacking great Nocti on the front! madness. No i'm sorry this is just lusting after bigger and better and has IMHO nothing to do with getting the picture
Just so you know, A noctilux, one of the fastest lens' available in any camera system, is hardly larger then a medium size Canon or Nikon prime. So yes, a noctilux is big compared to many other RF lenses' it's normal compared to SLR lens'
gavinlg
Veteran
These super fast lenses wide open are like an Italian twin cam engine with dual side draft carbs ... get them up near the redline and they take on a whole new character!
Now THATS a great analogy!
gdi
Veteran
clayne
shoot film or die
Yes, I've done much shooting in dim/bad-lighting and I also think that people only need f/1.4 max, with f/2 as a perfectly usable normal minimum. 35 f/2.0 is absolutely fine by me - even a 20 f/2.8 at night.
I could care less about "bokeh."
Most people I've found who obsess over constantly shooting wide-open and/or having fast lenses as their go to lenses usually take crap photos.
Leighgion
Bovine Overseer
I don't even shoot in this system, but I find the idea that anybody would presume to say f/1.4 is plenty fast to be nonsense.
There can always be too little light right up until absolute darkness. When each photographer decides they don't care to push it anymore is their own business, but it's really rather presumptuous to declare that your personal cut-off should somehow matter to other people.
There can always be too little light right up until absolute darkness. When each photographer decides they don't care to push it anymore is their own business, but it's really rather presumptuous to declare that your personal cut-off should somehow matter to other people.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Since we happen to have two favorite lenses in common, the 35mm and 50mm Summilux pre-ASPHs, think of the Noctilux as a 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH on steroids.
I replaced my copy of the 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH with the Noctilux and gained a) one stop b) better resistance against flare and lost a) close focus distance of 0.7m b) size and weight advantage of the 50mm Summilux. Horses for courses ...
For me - pure personal opinion - the Noctilux used at f/1.4 (that's an aperture I actually use very often with this lens), has an edge over the 50mm Summilux and the possibility to use it at f/1.0 is valuable for me: (400ISO, f/1.0, 1/30s)
Cheers,
Gabor
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Without trying to buy into any part of the argument here, that's a wonderful photo.
...Mike
nobbylon
Veteran
You are presuming that I don't know. I do and you confirm my original post as far as the size arguement goes. Using a Nokti or a Canon, or a Nokton super fast lens negates the size advantage of using a rangefinder. I used and eventually sold my Summilux 50 as I didn't see any advantages to having it other than having it, over the images I got with an F2 lens. Focus with these lenses is also a pain. Some can, some can't and i'm in the latter crowd.
Here's one I did in a friends house in Nepal by the light of the cooking fire and a few candles. Shot with a 35 summicron aspheric.
nobbylon
Veteran
Another done in low light with a Summicron 50 this time and tri X. From memory I was complaining about the 1/4 0r 1/8 second speed.
maddoc
... likes film again.
jaap
Jaap
Why are pictures taken with high speed lenses often boring?
Because they mostly bought by people who just satisfy there gas
Because they mostly bought by people who just satisfy there gas
maddoc
... likes film again.
RichardB
Well-known
This Thread is a perfect example of negativism in a Forum. Usually this sort of thing starts with an answer to a Post about a certain piece of gear or methodology. In this case, it is the original Post that starts the negative frenzy. This is usually called 'Trolling' when the original Poster knows that making a controversial statement will excite responses.
What difference does it make if one wants to use a Nocton or other piece of gear to you? The discussion should really be about the piece of gear when objective information is in hand and not of subjective conclusions or beliefs.
Posts such as
"Most people I've found who obsess over constantly shooting wide-open and/or having fast lenses as their go to lenses usually take crap photos."
and
"Why are pictures taken with high speed lenses often boring?
Because they mostly bought by people who just satisfy there gas"
are meaningless subjective beliefs.
Too many Posters have gotton used to the anominity of the Internet and feel free to Post statements that they would not say in public face to face with another individual in a discussion.
Frankly I am sorry I started to read this Thread and my attention to this Forum is going to be quite less in the future if maybe non-existant.
What I am interested in is the performance and build of the Nocton 1.1 in comparison to the 0.95 Noctilux so I can make an informed decision about which to purchase.
This discussion has provided nothing usefull. -Dick
What difference does it make if one wants to use a Nocton or other piece of gear to you? The discussion should really be about the piece of gear when objective information is in hand and not of subjective conclusions or beliefs.
Posts such as
"Most people I've found who obsess over constantly shooting wide-open and/or having fast lenses as their go to lenses usually take crap photos."
and
"Why are pictures taken with high speed lenses often boring?
Because they mostly bought by people who just satisfy there gas"
are meaningless subjective beliefs.
Too many Posters have gotton used to the anominity of the Internet and feel free to Post statements that they would not say in public face to face with another individual in a discussion.
Frankly I am sorry I started to read this Thread and my attention to this Forum is going to be quite less in the future if maybe non-existant.
What I am interested in is the performance and build of the Nocton 1.1 in comparison to the 0.95 Noctilux so I can make an informed decision about which to purchase.
This discussion has provided nothing usefull. -Dick
Nothing useful... Less competition for buying what will be a fantastic lens.
Am I compensating for anything? On My Time: I do not have to shoot digital, I do not want to shoot digital, and I like to keep the film speed to 400 because I prefer the color and lack of grain. So that means Fast Lens. Easiest and cheapest way to get the images that I like.
On company time: my last camera purchase was for $20,000. Digital Stuff.
Am I compensating for anything? On My Time: I do not have to shoot digital, I do not want to shoot digital, and I like to keep the film speed to 400 because I prefer the color and lack of grain. So that means Fast Lens. Easiest and cheapest way to get the images that I like.
On company time: my last camera purchase was for $20,000. Digital Stuff.
Last edited:
jaap
Jaap
Could it be that a forum is a possibility to hear different opions ?
And give certain people a kind of self reflection ?