kevin m
Veteran
Tomasis, I don't often use the Canon at f1.2 because, as I said, it draws too much attention to its own signature at that aperture and away from the subject, as do most super-speed lenses. All of which, IMO, are better than the Noctilux in that regard.
Of the pics I've seen posted here, Ned is the only Noctilux user who has "mastered the beast," so to speak, because he uses the lens when it suits the subject matter, and not to show off the signature of the lens he's using.
I don't recall if you've posted any Noctilux pics. Do you have a link to them?
Of the pics I've seen posted here, Ned is the only Noctilux user who has "mastered the beast," so to speak, because he uses the lens when it suits the subject matter, and not to show off the signature of the lens he's using.
I don't recall if you've posted any Noctilux pics. Do you have a link to them?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin:
Point 1, not on the internet, at least when trying to judge technical quality. The image quality on a monitor is simply not good enough to judge what a lens can do, or even to compare lenses.
Point 2, as Tomasis said, well, why use an f/1.2? I am very impressed indeed by the Canon at f/4, and it's pretty good at f/2. But wide open, it's pretty poor. Call it 'signature' if you like. It never occurred to me that you were talking about anything other than wide-open performance: I apologize for misunderstanding you.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
tomasis
Well-known
The real question is if I'm worth any lens whatever it is industar-22 or mighty Nocti. Praise someone because he uses a lens, it is a bit silly
No I don't have Nocti yet but it looks like it is time to sell some gear for me now to get some funds. Bye Rd1 and M4 
Krosya
Konicaze
Roger,
Maybe I'm not seeing it, but if you look at my pics in this thread on page 3 from Canon 50/1.2 - wide open ones look sharper that those you posted with Nocti. Not sure why this is, but thats what I see. I'm sure real prints would tell a better story...
Krosya
Konicaze
So this defeats the purpose having a lens with unusable f1.2 and praise perfomance of a half stop lower i.e. f1.4 of this same lens. At this point you had carry some unnecessary weight for your wrist more for that fair comparison
Please look at my photos in this thread on page 3 - from Canon 50/1.2 wide open - I don't think they are "unusable". I'm sure everyone has their own standards, yet - unusable - far from the truth.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I completely agree. That's why I say that I am not necessarily saying that you and Kevin are either right or wrong; nor am I willing to claim absolutely that I am right or admit I am wrong.
The only way to find out would be for you to try your lens, and me to try yours. I am willing to be persuaded -- but not by monitor images. The perfect test would be original transparencies (no post-production possible).
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
I would not say that Canon is "pretty poor" at 1.2. At least not mine:
Well, while I agree, at this point we have digital files and they do tell "some" story. you can see my images and yours on the same monitor and so can I and we can compare. While not the best way, but good enough, especially since yours are from M8 anyway. Look at the pics you posted and look at mine and tell me in what way images from Canon wide open are inferior to yours from Nocti?
BTW - larger versions of my pics can be found at a link below. Not huge one, but a bit larger.
Plus nowdays most of the photography is done digitally and seen online anyway, so it's reasonable to compare lenses based on web posts - as thats the most likely how they will be used anyway.
Well, while I agree, at this point we have digital files and they do tell "some" story. you can see my images and yours on the same monitor and so can I and we can compare. While not the best way, but good enough, especially since yours are from M8 anyway. Look at the pics you posted and look at mine and tell me in what way images from Canon wide open are inferior to yours from Nocti?
BTW - larger versions of my pics can be found at a link below. Not huge one, but a bit larger.
Plus nowdays most of the photography is done digitally and seen online anyway, so it's reasonable to compare lenses based on web posts - as thats the most likely how they will be used anyway.
Last edited:
tomasis
Well-known
Not very poor, hehe
I guess that quality is inconsistent of most canon f1.2 lenses. Maybe it is difficult to build those too. My jupiter 3 is not that good I'd expected. Some found samples which seem to be better than original ones. I think it is same case for canon 50 1.2 users. Look around in dark with flashlight if you want a sweet deal
I guess that quality is inconsistent of most canon f1.2 lenses. Maybe it is difficult to build those too. My jupiter 3 is not that good I'd expected. Some found samples which seem to be better than original ones. I think it is same case for canon 50 1.2 users. Look around in dark with flashlight if you want a sweet deal
kevin m
Veteran
Have you met Mr. Reid? And do you realize the majority of photography nowadays meets a computer at some point in its life?
Have you looked at the images in this thread, or are you relying on memory?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, we have completely different pictures of completely different subjects, captured with different media -- and you're asking me to make comparisons?
Even if the subjects were similar -- and they could hardly be more different -- this is still not, as you claim, a 'reasonable' way to compare lenses. It's reducing picturess to the lowest common denominator (images a few hundred pixels square), via an unknowable chain of film/scanner or sensor, post-processing, and monitors.
I'd not even be happy about full-page published pics, which make far more demands on image quality than the web; there's too much scope for variation in post-prodction.
As I said, if we could use one anothers' lenses, that would mean something. This doesn't.
I'm not attacking your pictures; I'm just saying that this is, as far as I am concerned, a meaningless comparison. I'd cheerfully stack my 1960s f/2 Biotar against the Noctilux (or Canon) on screen.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,Have you met Mr. Reid? And do you realize the majority of photography nowadays meets a computer at some point in its life?
Have you looked at the images in this thread, or are you relying on memory?
Eh?
What does it matter who I have met? I'm not even sure who Mr. Reid may be. Is this important?
Yes, I know that photographs are often strained through computers. I also know that this may improve them or reduce their quality. I take it you are equally aware of this self-evident fact.
And yes, I have looked at the images in this thread, which are miserable little things a few hundred pixels square. I can form some judgement as to their aesthetic quality; almost none as to the quality of the lenses they were taken with.
What exactly were your points here?
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Ultimately you are probably right - for a "True" comparison, under "ideal" conditions - what you say is correct. However, in real world, the bottom line is - like I and Kevin say - most photos end up on a computer and most are on the web. Just as we have here. So, if thats the end result - on the web as we have it - thats we look at and deal with. And thats what counts - end result. If you use M8 - you will not wet print your photos, so might as well look at it on the web.
So, as we have it - on the web, in this thread, can you tell that Canon performed worse than Nocti? I know you are not attacking my pictures, but what I want to see some constructive criticism that would show where my Canon lens performed in a lesser way compared to your Nocti. Like sharpness, contrast, etc. I don't see how it makes a difference what subject it is - it's either a sharp lens or not, good contrast or not. So far I all I see is general comments as to how much worse Canon is wide open vs Noctilux. I'd like to see some specific things pointed out.
So, as we have it - on the web, in this thread, can you tell that Canon performed worse than Nocti? I know you are not attacking my pictures, but what I want to see some constructive criticism that would show where my Canon lens performed in a lesser way compared to your Nocti. Like sharpness, contrast, etc. I don't see how it makes a difference what subject it is - it's either a sharp lens or not, good contrast or not. So far I all I see is general comments as to how much worse Canon is wide open vs Noctilux. I'd like to see some specific things pointed out.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I have sad news for you: the web is not the real world.
If you are content with a second-rate comparison, rather than with what you yourself admit to be "True", then the best of luck to you.
In my experience, the Canon lacks both contrast and sharpness when compared with the Noctilux. In your experience -- you have presumably tried both reasonably extensively, as I have -- the same is not true. I could be wrong. So could you.
What I haven't done is shot the same subject side by side with the same film processed by the same lab (or on the same sensor with the same post-processing). If you have, I will be interested to hear the results -- and I'll put more faith in what you say than in what I see on a monitor, because I'd trust your judgement more than I'd trust dinky web pictures.
But comparing your leaves with my theatre shots, on different media, is simply worthless. I posted my pics because I like them, and because to me they are an argument for buying a Noctilux. You may feel they are an argument for the exact opposite. That's fine. As I say, I'm not pretending that I know it all, or that I am invariably right.
Your input, and Kevin's, and Ned's, and Fred's, and even mine, may help others decide whether they want a Noctilux or a Canon or neither or both. But we are no longer discussing the lens: we are discussing the reliability of the internet and of monitors, which is a rather different question and one that I am no longer inclined to discuss at length.
Cheers,
Roger
Krosya
Konicaze
So, when you review lenses, such as here:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps firstlook summarit.html
Why did you include any pictures you took with those lenses, since according to you they cannot represent quality of the lenses? My guess is - pictures are usually there to support the written word. Yet, you say it's impossible. I'm confused.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You've got it. The magic word is 'support'.
Any magazine editor will tell you. "Trust what we say, not the pictures we print." It's a piece of advice often reiterated in print, too. And it's even more true on the web.
Basically, the non-product pics in a review are intended to inspire the readers to say either, "Wow, I wish I could do that" or better still, "I can do better than that."
The latter is better because it gets people off their bums and out talking pictures. It's a poor teacher who doesn't want his pupils to do better than their teacher.
The pictures are also there to break up the text: very few people are willing to read huge slabs of text, without any visual relief. This is true of any leisure magazine. Read a travel article, or a motor-car review.
Cheers,
Roger
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
It seems like there are about three rumors mentioned (started?) in this thread:
1. There's a new .95 Noctilux coming, ar at any rate a limited edition Noctilux
2. Leica is introducing an M9 that improves upon the M8
3. Leica is coming out with a medium format (645) rangefinder
Is there any substantiation of any of these?
1. There's a new .95 Noctilux coming, ar at any rate a limited edition Noctilux
2. Leica is introducing an M9 that improves upon the M8
3. Leica is coming out with a medium format (645) rangefinder
Is there any substantiation of any of these?
BigSteveG
Well-known
The Noctilux is just the begining. I believe the entire Summilux line will either completely go out of production or become special order items until they do. Used prices will skyrocket. New buyers will have to make do with the newer line of lenses which I understand are quite good optically, but lacking in build quality. In terms of photography itself....it's all rather inconsequential.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Nick,
Substantiation?
On the web?
You quaint, old-fashioned fellow.
From what little I know:
1 Yes, there will be an M9, but don't hold your breath (this is the Leica Party Line).
2 Neither I nor any lens designer I have spoken to sees any advantage in an f/0.95, as this was only a marketing number anyway (about 1/6 stop faster than f/1). It makes more sense to expect either another f/1 or something faster -- f/0.9 (1/3 stop faster than f/1) or f/0.85 (1/3 stop faster than f/1).
3 Never even saw the 645 rumour, so I'd be astonished.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Purely as a matter of interest, why do you believe this? I'm not saying you're wrong; just that I'd be interested in the thinking behind the assertion, which I had not hitherto encountered.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hey, why stop there?
What's wrong with the 21mm and 24mm f/1.4 Summiluxes?
Cheers,
R.