Noctilux Photos

menos said:
Kristian, that last shot is just amazing! The 80s are back in full effect, and you got it framed superbly! Nice, how clean you got the shot (I suppose, It just looks as dark, as you partly metered for not blowing the highlights ?).

I guess, the question a few posts up about the filter came up because of the ghost of the light, shining down the barrel - the 50 Summilux ASPH would have just absorbed this ;-) (although it does nothing negative to the picture in my view) - great shot!

EDIT: now I read the last posts ;-)
'f course the filter - actually, these bug me out so much, I shoot all my lenses filterless with two exceptions:
- bad surroundings (a club is accounted as such - never know, who is going to open a champagne bottle)
- the 24 1.4 Nikon lens - it has an annoyingly shaped front element, I am just too lazy, to keep clean - a filter makes that a lot easier

Mister E - if it is a f1 Noctilux, you got there (pictures look like it), the 35 Lux ASPH is about the opposite in imaging character, as it can get to the Noct.
I use mostly two bodies now - one with the 35 Lux ASPH (M7) and one with the f1 Noctilux (M8.2).
The pictures look soooo different - the Lux being bitingly sharp and contrasty (love it even more on film now), while the Noct gives it's special character (my 90 Cron pre ASPH collects dust, since I got the Noctilux - thinking about changing it for a 90 Cron ASPH for low light reach - read: motor sports).

I use them both for their respective character and switch lenses between bodies, when I want the Noct a bit wider or the Lux a bit longer.
They make a great pair of lenses for me ;-)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the nice words. The lighting was exactly how I saw it, with great texture. I'm not sure the Lux ASPH wouldn't have had internal reflections either as I remember that lens flaring at times or having internal reflections. I do intend to test the Noct V Lux some day in the near future. I don't even know for sure that it was my filter that caused the flare you see. The only time a filter has really bugged me is when using the UV-IR filters against bright lights on the M8, where internal reflections were a nightmare. Otherwise I've probably only ever had to remove the filter from my lens no more than 20 times in my career.

What people seem to criticize this lens for I actually love - thats the accuracy in which it renders out of focus areas. I shoot mainly people and I need backgrounds to be accurate. I'm not going for artistic effect. I want my image to stand out due to my photographic input, not due to the effect of the bokeh. Here's a few more samples from the shoot.
 
Last edited:
Nice shots.

Reflections from filters are usually mirrored about the center of the image - the one above looks like that to me. So using the 50 ASPH probably wouldn't have helped.
 
Tim Gray said:
Nice shots.

Reflections from filters are usually mirrored about the center of the image - the one above looks like that to me. So using the 50 ASPH probably wouldn't have helped.
Click to expand...

You know … 50 Lux ASPH … mythical rumor of healing all optical effects magically (guess, I had forgotten the occasional smiley).
I assumed at time of posting, Kristian didn't use a filter, so … bla bla bla bla …
Fantastic shots Kristian! Like the black light shot - there was a great series posted on the Nikon Café some weeks ago - very cool stuff (was that you ?).

I don't like the Noct f1 because of it's crazy background rendering (prefer the clean 50 Lux ASPH look), but I loooove the f1 Noct because of the "angel dust", the modern lenses completely lack ;-)

Maybe I am just looking for excuses, to like the older lens over it's more expensive improvement ;-)
 
menos said:
You know … 50 Lux ASPH … mythical rumor of healing all optical effects magically (guess, I had forgotten the occasional smiley).
I assumed at time of posting, Kristian didn't use a filter, so … bla bla bla bla …
Fantastic shots Kristian! Like the black light shot - there was a great series posted on the Nikon Café some weeks ago - very cool stuff (was that you ?).

I don't like the Noct f1 because of it's crazy background rendering (prefer the clean 50 Lux ASPH look), but I loooove the f1 Noct because of the "angel dust", the modern lenses completely lack ;-)

Maybe I am just looking for excuses, to like the older lens over it's more expensive improvement ;-)
Click to expand...

The older lens certainly has charm, and por portraits the f/1 may be the ticket, but for documentary purposes I always found the f/1 to be out of sync as it's bokeh always seemed to get the attention, leaving it to be much less of a multi-purpose lens. Either way they are very different and can only be compared on the grounds of super-high speed, weight and size. Everything else is vastly different. - oh and, no those Nikon Cafe shots weren't mine but they sound interesting.
 
130529862.jpg


RAP III F
 
Thanks Kristian.

It's funny, I've got some shots of the sunrise in digital and they pale in comparison. The light band rising in the middle is something we see in Alberta when it gets really cold.
 
Last edited:
Greg, indeed that sky shot is pretty crazy!
Kristian, is the flare in the close up really just from the filter or is the new Noctilux more prone, than the old one (damn, I almost fold out test charts and brick walls here)?
It is a ghost, I would think, if I photoshop it :-(
 
Mister E said:
That filter flare just really bugs me. It's distracting from the subject in this shot too, where in the other it was much harder to see. Your customers don't mind that? I dig the second shot!
Click to expand...

Well it is distracting somewhat but this was shot on a music video and they love flare, infact they induce it in most shots themselves. But ultimately I'm just too lazy to remove the filter and more than anything it's a safety issue for that $10.5K front lens element I'm trying to protect. Not shot on a set is worth that kind of risk IMHO. If I was shooting a portrait of someone more important than I'd remove the filter of course.
 
menos said:
Greg, indeed that sky shot is pretty crazy!
Kristian, is the flare in the close up really just from the filter or is the new Noctilux more prone, than the old one (damn, I almost fold out test charts and brick walls here)?
It is a ghost, I would think, if I photoshop it :-(
Click to expand...

I believe it's probably the filter. as it looks more like an internal reflection than flare, but the light source inside the frame was VERY strong and not too many lenses would be able to eliminate it 100%. At the end of the day when I place a filter on the front of the lens I need to be comfortable with it changing the optical formula of the lens, which ultimately the filter does.
 
Some really fine images there with the Noct. To be honest what I didn't like about the original f/1 is how slow it is to use making the weight and size even more obvious in use. The newer Noct 0.95 is a LOT faster to focus with a shorter focus throw. This makes handling much easier, and thus more enjoyable to shoot with....I also have a Planar and Sonnar too, but could easily use the Noct as an every day lens, and have been for a few months now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the photographer focus's on exploiting the unusual bokeh of the f/1 then it gets boring really quickly cause the content of the image begins to lack substance. I think it's more in the mind of the photographer than the Noct's rendering. If the photographer uses the speed of the lens for practical use instead of effect and the 'entire' image has substance then the Noct f/1 images can be incredible.

This kind of approach is common with all fast lenses, but exploited to ill-effect more often than not with the Noct f/1, which is why the turnover rate is always quite high.
 
The thing is, you're hardly seeing any of the classic Noctilux 50 1.0 for sale these days. At one point, KEH had at least 4 or 5 and now they don't have any.
In the past, the 50 1.0 Noctilux got passed around some, but since the Leica M9 came out, the pickings have been slim.
And since it's a supply/demand thing, I'm thinking the price is going to go up, and up.
I wouldn't be surprised if the price of both the Noctilux 50 1.0 and the 50.95 is equalized.

In fact, at some point, I wouldn't be surprised if the 50 1.0 is worth more than the new version, for a couple of reasons.

First off, they're not making the old versions any more. And this "may" make it more collectible. Secondly, many prefer its "signature" to that of the new version.
 
Last edited:
D&A said:
Leciashot, both shots are lovely, but for different reasons. One of a number of things that struck me abut the color shot was the OOF circles of golden yellow, with splashes of green. Now look at her necklace, similar circles of golden yellow with reflections of green. I'm sure your "eye" saw this. The second shot has what Double Negative described as ethereal, and I would agree..... yet her eyes (stare) says something more, in my opinion. Of course it's simply the viewers own personal interpretation.

Dave (D&A)
Click to expand...

This was the first time I got to do that 'bright lights in background' picture that Noct users look for. I was pleased with the result. This is where the f/1 reigns supreme, but the 0.95 did a nice job. I would've loved to see the Sonnars result in the same shot but I left it at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom