Noct 1.0 v Nikkor 50 1.4 give me some comparisons

[dave lackey]

😱

No, I don't want to start a "war", but this is serious business for me in that posting comparison photos will help me to decide which body to purchase. I am looking hard at the Nikon S3 2000 and the M6 TTL. The lens I wish to use for a lot of my photography must have the shallowest DOF and best OOF I can get. At this stage in my life, I am not gettin any younger, so I want to make an educated purchase without having to go through buyer's remorse, selling, buying, etc.:bang:

I have seen amazing bokeh with the Noct 1.0. But, I have not seen side-by-side comparisons between the wonderful Nikkor 50mm 1.4 and the Noctilux 1.0...

So, can we see some images posted for comparisons???

Thanks in advance,

 

[rogue_designer]

To me, it doesn't make sense to compare those two. Apples to Oranges.

I'd compare the Summilux 50 1.4 vs. the Nikkor 50 1.4 vs. the Canon 1.4

The ultra aperture .95, 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 offerings are different beasts, and measured on different criteria.

 

[VinceC]

If your criteria is minimum depth of field, get the Leica.

DoF 50mm 1./4 ... 1.4 at 36-inches minimum Nikon RF focus = 1 inch
DoF 50mm 1.0 ... 1.0 at 36-inches = 0.7 inches
DoF 50mm 1.0 ... 1.0 at 28-inches minimum Leica focus = 0.4 inch

With Nikon, you have to buy into a 50-year-old lens system. Nikkor made a well-regarded f/1.1 in the 1950s, which sells for roughly $2,000 to $3,000 and is hard to find.

The only 50mm Nikkor 1.4 in Leica mount is the 1950s version, which has pleasing wide-open out-of-focus characteristics, but can be problematic in some situations. So side-by-side comparisons with the "Noct" and the Millenneum 50 are that much more difficult.

 

[awilder]

Your goals of minimal DOF and best OOF are in conflict with these two lenses. The DOF of the 50/1 is indeed the most shallow of any 50 but OOF quality can be unpredictable depending on subject and lighting. As already mentioned the pre-asph. 50/1.4 Summilux is a better comparison to the S2000 Nikkor and of the two, the Nikkor will be the best in terms of overall sharpness and equal in terms of OOF quality and shallow DOF to the Summilux. As a slide shooter, I prefer the meter accuracy and convenience of the current Leicas vs. the non-metered S2000 but a good hand held meter like the new Sekonic spot meters should do even better than an inboard meter for tricky lighting.

 

[dave lackey]

If your criteria is minimum depth of field, get the Leica.

DoF 50mm 1./4 ... 1.4 at 36-inches minimum Nikon RF focus = 1 inch
DoF 50mm 1.0 ... 1.0 at 36-inches = 0.7 inches
DoF 50mm 1.0 ... 1.0 at 28-inches minimum Leica focus = 0.4 inch

With Nikon, you have to buy into a 50-year-old lens system. Nikkor made a well-regarded f/1.1 in the 1950s, which sells for roughly $2,000 to $3,000 and is hard to find.

The only 50mm Nikkor 1.4 in Leica mount is the 1950s version, which has pleasing wide-open out-of-focus characteristics, but can be problematic in some situations. So side-by-side comparisons with the "Noct" and the Millenneum 50 are that much more difficult.

Okay, that helps!

The Millenium 50 seems to have great OOF characteristics! It would be nice to see side-by-side photo comparos between the Noct 1.0 and the Millenium 50 of, say, a really close-up flower like this one from Olson:



This was a great post in the Noctilux Challenge! 🙂

 

[rogue_designer]

If minimum dof is your criteria, then what about getting a 75 or 90 f2?

If it's closeups of flowers and macros you want to do, then I would be looking at slr systems with dedicated macro lenses, not RFs.

 

[Kyle]

If you go with a Nocti you should probably be looking at .85x M6s or M3s.

 

[ferider]

Hi Dave,

the example that you show is clearly heavily cropped (if shot at 1m min distance). You get more shallow depth of
field without cropping with a longer lens. As a rule of thumb, a 90/2 has similar DOF as a 50/1. A 100/2 or
105/2.5 will beat a 50/1. The RF lens with the most shallow DOF is the Leitz Elmarit 135/2.8.

Roland.

 

[x-ray]

Not trying to throw a curve or start a war but why RF if you want the most out of a fast lens. If you're getting older and your eyes are being a problem consider the canon 85 1.2 and a EOS3 or other EOS body. I own one and love it and have owned the 50 1.2 Noctilux and shot extensively with the f1 Noctilux when it came out. I also own the 50 1.4 asph summilux and the S3-2000 witht he new 1.4.

Something to consider is the difficulty in focusing even a .85x RF with a 50 at F1 and minimum focus distance or even close to it. It's not easy even with my 75 summilux at 1.4 on my .85x MP's.

I think most people get the f1 thinking it's something magic and then when they find out how hard it is to effectively use and focus at close distances they get rid of it.

Here's a sample of the 85 1.2 at 1.2 and minimum focus distance.

If you have a nikon slr body don't overlook the 85 1.4. Nikon made a 50 1.2 Nokt and Canon made a 50 f1 EOS lens and currently makes a 1.2 50 EOS.

 

[dave lackey]

X-ray,
That is a nice photo. I am certainly interested in larger subjects such as people and antique cars and looking for a certain rendition from shallow DOF and good OOF bokeh.

I have found numerous photos of that in the thread Noct Challenge.

Smaller subjects such as plants, flowers, etc. are part of my research right now and would like to get some serious bokeh going on...

I like that 85 lens, it makes a nice image!

Thanks!

 

[awilder]

A good argument for the 50/1 is it's unique telephoto-like isolation at f/1. The 50/1 wide open shooting at 1.5 m for portaiture, has less DOF than a 90 at f/2 at 2 m. This is one of the main reasons for using this incredibly expensive lens over a 50/1.4 wide open which would be like a 90/2.5 at 2 m.

 

[ray_g]

Smaller subjects such as plants, flowers, etc. are part of my research right now

I am a little confused. Don't you think a macro would be more appropriate for this?

 

[x-ray]

The most shallow DOF and best OOF of all the lenses I have ever owned or used are three that I currently own for my Canons. Each are in the class of the sharpest lenses made for 35mm with 200 F1.8 L canon at the very top. It has the most shallow DOF and is sharper than any lens I have ever seen including anything I have owned or used in Leica glass. The 99% equal performers to the 200 are the 135 F2 L and 85 F1.2 L from canon. The catch to the 200 is that it has been discontinued and is now ultra expensive. I've recently seen minty samples approaching $7,000. An you thought the Noctilux was expensive. Shooting a 1/2 length figure witht eh 200 at 1.8 renders the background a total blur, complete OOF but yet you can see the stitching in clothing where the focus is.

 

[swoop]

They're two different categories. It's a really odd comparison. Any reason why?

oh, and for future reference. For lens comparisons I just search flickr.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Thanks Vince C. for that info.

 

[ferider]

Okay, that helps!

The Millenium 50 seems to have great OOF characteristics! It would be nice to see side-by-side photo comparos between the Noct 1.0 and the Millenium 50 of, say, a really close-up flower like this one from Olson:



This was a great post in the Noctilux Challenge! 🙂

I just looked at the thread. To quote Olsen:

"Here's another one taken with Canon EF 50 mm 1,0L and EOS3 (one of my best cameras ever). At aparture 1,0 and 1/60, according to memory. The flowers? Bluebells."

It is impossible to take this with a Noctilux.

Vince, although modern Leica bodies can focus to .7m, the
Noctilux can only focus down to 1m.

Roland.

 

[VinceC]

I got these numbers using an online DoF calculator. But they agree with my 1957 Nikon Guide as well. Wide open and minimum focus distances for Nikkor lenses. But depth of field itself should be consistent with other brands (there is one online test which suggests the Summilux has slightly more depth of field at 1.4 than the Millenneum Nikkor).

Depth of field for 50/1.4 at 3 feet = 1 inch
Depth of field for 50/1.1 at 3 feet = 0.75 inch
Depth of field for 85/2 at 3.5 feet = 0.75 inch
Depth of field for 85/1.5 at 3.5 feet = 0.5 inch
Depth of field for 105/2.5 at 4 feet = 0.625 inch
Depth of field for 135/3.5 at 5 feet = 1 inch

 

[mw_uio]

Dave, I have the Nikkor AIS 85/F1.4, it is no slouch, focusing down to 0.85 cm. The Canon in FD 85/F1.2 'L' or EOS 85/1.2 'L' are star performers. Even the Canon FD 50/F1.2 'L' I bet will rival the other 50's that you mentioned and I know that it produces 'tac' sharp photos. The Canon EOS 50/F1.0 is a lens that fetches a lot of ka ching! Good luck in your decision making. What ever you get, you can use, and then through it back for sale on rff! Good luck!

Cheers

MArk
Quito, EC

 

[nikon_junkie]

Old Canon SLR FD glass comes in at f/1.2 and an affordable $250 to $600 depending on whether you are talking 50mm, 55mm, or the glorious 85mm.

Of course it isn't a RF but is purported to be the same design as the contemporary speed demon glass.

I had the original 50Lux and regret selling it to this day. SMOOTH focus and a retro 50's look to the images.

 

[MikeL]

Dave, if I were shooting wide open a lot I'd think about digital. The instant feedback when your depth of field is 1 inch or less would be a big advantage. I've heard OOF areas look different on different mediums but I don't have enough experience to comment on that. It sounds like you are photographing vegetation. Are you under a canopy or out in the open? A camera with shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 would be nice unless you don't mind using ND filters. Just thinking out loud.......