Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
My condolences. :angel:Dave Wilkinson said:
ampguy
Veteran
no bad shots
no bad shots
All of my Noctilux photos are keepers. All 25 1/2 to 37 1/2 frames
no bad shots
All of my Noctilux photos are keepers. All 25 1/2 to 37 1/2 frames
Krosya said:Can't wait to see what Ned would have to say about this.
Also, I wonder if people that use Noctilux would post some BAD examples of the photos. After all, not every photo that is made with this lens is great, right? How often, for example, they miss focus and ruin a photo. Or it didn't deliver as expected? How many photos are actually "keepers" from a roll?
maddoc
... likes film again.
Mostly, it gets bashed for the price .... There are bigger and or heavier lenses out (90mm Summicron f/2.0, Summilux 75/1.4) but the Noct seems to be unacceptable for it weight / size since it is "only" a 50mm lens ...Hacker said:
Funny thing is, that nobody seems to have issues with the over-styled and over-priced Leica special-edition-in-wooden-presentation-box cameras...These cameras hold and transport film in the same way as my "underdog" M4-P does, for 1/5 th of the price. The saved money could be invested into lenses, e.g. Noctilux ...
:angel:
LChanyungco
Well-known
i was wondering the same thing actually... i wont afford a noct. but i was thinking of buying a summilux 50 or the sonnar... which one would you guys recommend ?
maddoc
... likes film again.
LChanyungco said:
I have only experience with the Summilux 50mm pre-ASPH (E46). It is in a way similar to the Noctilux, not so contrasty when used at full open aperture. Stopped down it is quite sharp.
Ororaro
Well-known
ferider said:Hate to say it but I told you
could do but better ....
Roland.
Hmmm... I own both and I couldn't disagree more. That's why I own both, actually.
f6andBthere
Well-known
NB23 said:
Makes sense ... how the hell can a 75mm lens do what a 50mm can and vice versa. Am I missing something?
Ororaro
Well-known
kevin m said:Too true. When you pay $5,000 for a lens, it's flaws are "character;" when you pay $500 for a lens, it's flaws are just flaws.
Well, no!
Kevin, I'm really sorry but you're once again proving, with your sarcasm, that you're not to be taken very seriously in regards to lenses.
A lens I love even more then the Noctilux, if based on character alone, is the Summarit 5cm 1.5. This lens is tremendously unique and adds a twist to any photo. It can be found for as low as 200$. I've been praising this lens for more then a year now so nobody can legitimately say I'm a expensive-Lens-Victim or blind.
Just go buy yourself a nice clean summarit 5cm f1.5 and see the magic happen. Let me tell you, for a lens that's under 500$, it's flaws are anything BUT flaws, if you are minimally aimed at shooting with style and with a vision.
If you're into shooting Brick walls, the Summarit is not for you. But the Noctilux is, believe it or not: F1.0 images clean and crisp, at f1.4 the vignetting is gone, at f2.0 the whole "character" is gone and it's already rivalling the summilux. Joke all you want but this is the truth.
Last edited:
Ororaro
Well-known
diagularax said:
No, you're missing nothing.
Those 2 lenses are very different in their signature as well as being different in their respective focal length (obviously) and aperture (obviously).
Ororaro
Well-known
Krosya said:Can't wait to see what Ned would have to say about this.
Also, I wonder if people that use Noctilux would post some BAD examples of the photos. After all, not every photo that is made with this lens is great, right? How often, for example, they miss focus and ruin a photo. Or it didn't deliver as expected? How many photos are actually "keepers" from a roll?
The rate is the same then from a roll shot with a summilux asph. Is there a reason for this not to be true?
Actually, the keeper rate jumps to 100%, 200% and maybe even 1000% Versus a Summilux as soon as you're very low light (as in the Louvre with Velvia 50 and shooting at 1/15th at f1.0, like it happened to me).
Let me turn the tables, Krosya. Let me imagine the "BAD" examples, the LOW keeper rate of shots done with a summilux in the same environment.
The key here is using the Noctilux as it was intended to be used. Something very little people here seem to have done, unfortunately.
Attachments
Last edited:
MikeL
Go Fish
diagularax said:
Well, if you are so exasperated tell us what they can do.
Ororaro
Well-known
MikeL said:
Transmit light...
MikeL
Go Fish
For low light, the stop of the Noctilux and it's angle of view is big. For subject isolation and portraits I've been very impressed with the 75 Summilux though. The focal length helps of course. I like the contrast with both at f1.4. The curvature of field is less with the Summilux. Both are plenty sharp stopped down. Flare is low on both. When taking photos indoors, I do miss the speed and wider angle of the Noctilux sometimes....Just my 2 bits.
MikeL
Go Fish
NB23 said:
Heh heh
Ororaro
Well-known
MikeL said:
Oh! The summilux 75 is a superb lens! I'm not saying the opposite. I own one for about 6 months now but the reason I'm not posting a lot about it is because my experience isn't extensive enough. I like it and all but I'm not sure I'm "qualified" to openly judge it as I'm judging my Noctilux, Summilux 35, Summarit and Super Angulon 3,4 samples.
If I had to choose a Noctilux replacement, I'd go with either a 50 summilux asph or a Voigtlander 35 1.2 and I'd complete the set with a 75 1.4
Lord Fluff
Established
NB23 said:
Ned, in the Noctilux shots thread you posted a pic which you admitted may have come from the 75 rather than the Noct. It's obviously not that easy to tell them apart......
Lord Fluff
Established
NB23 said:
I think the vignetting may be a "flaw" in this regard - from what I have read the Noctilux is f1 in the middle but more like f2.8 at the edges. It just happens that many of us like vignetting!
Ned - do you have any Summarit pics you could post?
maddoc
... likes film again.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52761Lord Fluff said:
Lord Fluff
Established
maddoc said:
Only four shots? I'm sure Ned has a few more than that to share.....
David Murphy
Veteran
Well, I'm almost afraid to say this for fear of being harangued about it here, but almost any SLR 50mm F1.2 (or say 55mm F1.2, etc.) made after about 1968 or so will best most fast rangefinder lenses, except perhaps the Noctilux. Later F1.2 SLR lenses are comparable with the Noctilux in quality although they are a bit slower. One lens that especially maximizes price peformance is the Canon FL 55mm F1.2. The earlier Canon FL 58mm F1.2 is a beautiful lens, but pretty soft at F1.2. They solved this with the FL 55/1.2 and you can sometimes get them for around $100 -- a helluva a bargain. I'm sure the FD 50mm F1.2 is noticeably better, but more expensive. Nikon, Minolta, Konica, and Olympus others made similar lenses usually more expensive than the Canon's, but much cheaper than their rangefinder cousins, and usually better.
Despite this rational and grounded diatribe, I'd kill to get a Konica 60mm F1.2 or a Zunow 50/1.1
Despite this rational and grounded diatribe, I'd kill to get a Konica 60mm F1.2 or a Zunow 50/1.1
Last edited: