Noctilux Photos

TJV said:
While I agree that incredible new ways of looking could potentially open up with new sensor technologies, I still think there is a place for an f1 lens. Just look at films like "Barry Lyndon" (I don't know if that's how it's spelt, sorry.) The low light cinematography in that film is stunning and the shallow depth of field looks right for such poorly lit conditions. I think that low light photography is less about capturing noiseless/grainless full tonal images and more about conveying mood and feeling for a place and time. Put it this way, Jimi Hendrix wasn't the technically best guitarist on the block but he certainly conveyed more raw emotion than anyone else of the era.
Click to expand...

My second RF lens was a Canon 50/0.95 (now ErikFive's). I was motivated to pick it up by some net chatter that Alcott (Kubrik's cinematographer) had used this lens for the candlelit interiors in Barry Lyndon. Not true, turns out - they managed to find a NASA Zeiss 50/0.7 for the interiors, which they had to hand-calibrate for scale focus to the inch. Interestingly, they used a Canon 50/1.2 for a lot of the exteriors, with minimal lighting. FWIW.

Erik - would love to see that 50/0.95 thread.

I think TJV has expressed it well that these lenses are not about strictly technical low-light photography, but about capturing a unique mood and emotion. Ned's shots, and others' in this thread, do that well.

I admit I still want a Noctilux.

- John
 
Looking at all the stunning images posted I cant understand why there was NO company ever to release a Noctilux equivalent.

There was the Canon 50/0.95 with a proprietary mount and Canons EF 50/1.0, bulky, slow Autofocus, no spare parts for future repairs (and not usable in manual mode once the thing is broken). Thats about it.

What about Tokina, Cosina, Sigma, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, Zeiss, etc... ?
 
Another shot from where I took the nocti out and played around with it at night on a dark road in India.
 

Attachments

  • scan071108-1.jpg
    scan071108-1.jpg
    229.8 KB · Views: 1
NB23 said:
Yeah right! It's only as expensive as the M8 or the Nikon D3... ;)
Click to expand...


Well I'm not going to be able to make a purchase like the M8 for a long time, and considering how these days my M6 to M8 ratio is like 75 to 25, well, never mind.
A Noctilux would be cool, I could have fun with it, unlike many I like how it performs even up into the higher apertures, weight wouldn't be a problem I don't mind the 75 Lux, although I've decided it has backfocus issues on my M8 (Grr)


Anyway, what I'm trying to say is I'm really glad to see more people using this lens for more then it's 1.0 aperture, and I really like the results, and, I s'pose, yeah, I do really want one.
 
Color shots look very interesting from technical perspective. I mean this has something more than only bokeh and short dof. I don't know how to describe it, maybe it is tonality, a dimension. Flare resistance is very great thing for me because I tend to shoot against sun more and more. But damn all these praises here which also raises price of Noctilux at classifieds, Ebay. I'd be in very trouble if M9 full frame digital releases. No, I need some time and really hope that Leica produce enough a lot new lenses to buyers fast so I can get of a nice Nocti for less than $2000, lol But I made a step further. I bought M3 recently though it is still not delivered to my door yet. Now I'm more close to the dream :) I'm saying all this above because 50mm fov is my favorite. So even $5000 is real bargain when you're gonna shoot in whole your life. It is not about fondling or shooting of pets and wife. Only one concerning thing for me is weight issue.
 
Last edited:
Yeah Tomas, 5000$ is damn cheap if one cares to calculate. A Noctilux lens is a lifetime thing, IMO. And nobody forces you to shoot digital. 20 rolls of Velvia can last a whole year with careful and thoughtful shooting. And you bet 100% can be keepers and unique just because of this dream Noctilux-Velvia combination. Shooting slides and BW film for a year or 2 can help you recuperate just enough to help you justify a M8 or M9 down the road.
This ideology of mine is not only good for the Noctilux but for anything luxurious and long-lasting.
 
Last edited:
Ned,

You are driving my crazy. I have just decided to give up rangefinder photography, when I come across this thread!!

Beautiful photos all 'round. I would love to see a Canon 50mm f0/95 thread also. I love large apertures.
 
kevin m said:
The next generation of DSLR's are going to make superspeed lenses a moot point, anyway, if the current generation hasn't already.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Do you not have an imagination? If you can put a 2.8 lens on a D3 at 6400 and get better results than a 1.4 lens at ISO 1600, well then imagine what you could do with that 6400 ISO at 1.4?

I for one, have been working on a project that involves Winter landscapes from the air...in moonlight. I have been using a 5D with either a 24 1.4, 35 1.4 or 85 1.2 mounted on a gryo. I have to use it at ISO 1600 since 3200 is pushing it a bit.

If I could get the same noise levels from the D3 at 12,500, wow, that would help a lot.

There will always, *always* be a place in my tool kit for a F/1.4 or faster lens, no matter how high in ISO these cameras go.
 
NB23 said:
Yeah right! It's only as expensive as the M8 or the Nikon D3... ;)
Click to expand...

Darn, I just spent my Noctilux money again!

This time it is a Nikon 200-400 VR and 1.4 converter......darn the bad luck..:).
 
KM-25 said:
Darn, I just spent my Noctilux money again!

This time it is a Nikon 200-400 VR and 1.4 converter......darn the bad luck..:).
Click to expand...
It is not too late to sell Nikon and buy Noctilux. It is not about luck :) You need to be just determined. Of course, it depends on what you do need for your professional tools. Just earn money by commercial shots from 200-400mm and buy Noctilux with the earned money just for leisure or the sake of Art ;) I cannot imagine that one'd make ever good shoot from 200-400 as with fov 50. Latest Ned's example shows infinite versality of 50. You probably missed the point of kevin m. He might be ironical. Some prefer short dof. Most DLSR are a heaven for infinite dof lovers (Oly E3?). It is nothing special with that. Surely, you can get sharp shots at f1.4 but rangerfinders are already good at it for long time. Films can pushed up to iso6400 and times goes down to 1/8, 1/4 if one has good condition. Can you imagine tossing around with a brick and a "fat" Nikkor 50 1.4 to get good shots (not technically)? It is much more uncomfortable than a M3 with Nocti. It doesn't make any difference if you add a tripod to carry with a brick. The whole point is getting available shoots at difficult conditions. It is really nothing revolutionizing from digital front. Though I don't mind for a Leica M with D3 sensor, lol
 
Thanks Ray!

Here's one more from the Noctilux, already posted at NC last year...

Web-MTL-7.jpg
 
Ned, the last two photos are really good again ! The subject is isolated, both have some 3D effect.
 
NB23 said:
Yeah Tomas, 5000$ is damn cheap if one cares to calculate correctly. A Noctilux lens is a lifetime thing, IMO. And nobody forces you to shoot digital. 20 rolls of Velvia can last a whole year with careful and thoughtful shooting. And you bet 100% can be keepers and unique just because of this dream Noctilux-Velvia combination. Shooting slides and BW film for a year or 2 can help you recuperate just enough to help you justify a M8 or M9 down the road.
This ideology of mine is not only good for the Noctilux but for anything luxurious and long-lasting.
Click to expand...

I can understand what you're trying to say. Personally, I can't even afford equipment at those prices, but I can make sacrifices to buy something relatively expensive if I know I am going to use it. I ate almost nothing but frozen mincemeat and cereal for a year so I could afford a used Mamiya 6 kit. When I needed money I sold the kit for a reasonable price.

If you buy a used Noctilux now you should be able to get your money back when you sell it. That is, if the bubble doesn't burst.

Clarence
 
Tell us what 'magic' brand of monitor you have that makes these pics so "3D" and special. :D

Seriously, these last two pics could have been taken with any lens, and this whole thread has an 'emperor's new clothes' vibe to it.

Congrats to Leica for making an f1.0 lens that's actually useable at full aperture. That's a real technical accomplishment. But razor thin DOF and swirly OOF bokeh does not art make.

I'll keep an open mind should I ever see a good print of a Noctilux shot, but from what I've seen over the years on a computer monitor, there's nothing this lens does that justifies the hype or the price tag.
 
Last edited:
Are you kidding me? Do you not have an imagination? If you can put a 2.8 lens on a D3 at 6400 and get better results than a 1.4 lens at ISO 1600, well then imagine what you could do with that 6400 ISO at 1.4?
Click to expand...

I didn't make it clear enough in my original post, but what I meant is from a light-gathering perspective, super speed lenses aren't really necessary anymore. If you like the signature of a lens, or the thin DOF, then that's still something only a superspeed can deliver. (I'll keep my Canon 85/1.2 for that purpose. ) But a useable iso 12,500 means you don't have to shoot at f1.4 just to get the shot anymore. And iso 25k in a pinch means you can shoot in the dark. :eek:

In the review on the link I posted, the photographer says that iso 6,400 on the D3 is equal to iso 400 on the older Nikon DSLR's. That's not just an improvment, that's a paradigm shift at least as big as super speed primes and Tri-X were back in the day. It opens up entirely new possibilities as to what is possible in low-light photography. Much more so than an f1.0 lens trying to wring the last bit of sensitivity out of a light dependent film emulsion.
 
clarence said:
I can understand what you're trying to say. Personally, I can't even afford equipment at those prices, but I can make sacrifices to buy something relatively expensive if I know I am going to use it. I ate almost nothing but frozen mincemeat and cereal for a year so I could afford a used Mamiya 6 kit. When I needed money I sold the kit for a reasonable price.

If you buy a used Noctilux now you should be able to get your money back when you sell it. That is, if the bubble doesn't burst.

Clarence
Click to expand...

Clarence, rule number one is "Photography is not a monetary investment". Going from that simple rule, the path is open for enjoyment and strictly shooting.

If it's all and only about money, may I suggest the now very cheap and EXCELLENT Minolta 58mm f1.2 + X700 body for about 250$. As cheap as it gets.
 
I merely said that if low-light shooting is what interests you, then super-high iso capture beats superspeed lenses. And it is a public forum, not a private club, right, so if you're going to claim that your lens produces unique results, then I'm free to chime in with my opinion that I just don't see it.

I like superspeed lenses, myself, and I've owned quite a few. But outside of its marginally narrower DOF, I have yet to see a Noctilux shot that matches the hype one hears about this lens. Again, perhaps it simply isn't visible on a monitor, so I'll keep an open mind should I ever see a good print shot with the lens.
 
Last edited:
I for one enjoy they fact some folks post their photos for us all to see. This one is to show a particular lens, I didn't want to buy it, it simply felt too big, but never the less I'm interested to see their results.

Thanks to everyone who posted a photo (or several in some cases).
Phil.
 
kevin m, how many times do you need to make this point. We must all be delusional and not like you. Okay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom