Noctilux Photos

C'mon, Ned! Here is what I'd suggest, - don't get upset when people ask about or comment on your photos, but rather explain what you find to be that element that makes (in this case - Noctilux) the lens of choice.
I like when you post photos, but a little comment with some specifics that would help me and others see what you see that this lens delivers. Would that be something you could do?
I mean, just making a comment like - "only Noctilux can deliver/make such a photo" is really not enough to understand why. What are the key elements that do that? I, for one, would like to see this for myself. But in this case I'm not sure where to start. So a good explanation of a serious Noctilux user such as yourself would be as useful and seeing the photos.
 
Bonjour Ned,
I don't like the tone (not the first time I tell you) but I like your pictures (that's the most important thing) and I'm quite convinced by your explanation.
Understand me: I fully appreciate that the specificity of the Noctilux is that it can be use at f1 and f8. But if one never shoots at f1, it seems stupid that he buys Nocti, right?
So the question is still: do you need, in your practice, the extra stop (I mean f1)? I guess you do; but then could you tell us which pictures have been shot wide open?
Best,
Marc

Edit: I've just read the whole thread. there's at least one picture you mentioned as being taken wide open, so just don't mind my question.

NB23 said:
Why are you supposed to see something that totally knocks your socks off? People don't understand the noctilux.

They all expect some super boke and ultra thin focus.
What makes the Noctilux so special is the fact it can be used at f1.0 and equally at f8 for landscapes, as opposed to the Noct-Nikkor which would suffer serious CA. Let's not even talk about the Canon f1.0 paperweight.

People do not understand the Noctilux. They keep on talking about focus shift but they forget that such a lens rather shows a severe field curvature. It's so severe that instead of just being sharp at the middle, it's sharp at the middle, soft as we go out and gets sharp at the edges. There is in fact 2 planes of focus when shot at f1.0 because of the field curvature.

No, people expect impossible things from this lens. They all want to see Boke but they forget the 90mm f2 will give them more of that.

I know for a fact that people who don't understand the purpose of the Noctilux or those who expect incredible things out of it are people that usually don't understand how lens work.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I've had a couple of N'lux and they're brilliant. However I found two disadvantages (three if you count price). I found the weight simply got to be a burden but, more importantly, the wide barrel made focusing somewhat slow. I now use an old 50 S'lux with faster film. As a matter of interest I've been playing around with a new Voigtlander Ultron 35mm which has a very short and rapid focus 'throw'. Cheap - excellent value, almost disposable.
 
lns said:
Ned, these images are great, and so far only one person has criticized. Really, he just said that he can't see what makes the images special. But others do see it. Pease don't stop posting.

I personally enjoy seeing superior images. That's sort of the point.
Click to expand...


i cant see what is special also. there is one problem with leica users - for example we saw on the first page that imaes bokeh can be swirly wide open. leica users say that they love it, but when it see that kind of bokeh on canonet wide open they say:"is ok but a bit swirly bokeh", also there is very strong vigneting wide open on many noctilux shots - and nobody talk about it, but when other manufacturer lens have vigneting its a biggest problem in the world. i dont say its a bad lens, i would mind to have it but i just want a bit more criticism and objectivity when talking about leica.
 
krosya, why somebody have to comment every picture when it speaks for itself? If some are blind enough, I consider them very lucky because they don't need to have afford 5000$ for a ****. They can enjoy Industar lens instead. That's all what makes everyone happy is to use a camera with a lens and a film.

It is like to try telling to a blind person that the sky is blue when he can feel the air instead or doesn't it.
 
foto_fool said:
I have not fondled the Noctilux, but it takes a 60mm filter while the Canon takes a 72mm (and partially blocks both VF windows and the brightness window). They both weigh A LOT but the Noctilux is lighter (630g vs 985g according to Luminous Landscape). I believe the Canon is shorter than the Noctilux.

- John
Click to expand...

damn it is a hell difference. It makes Noctilux price even more worth :) Think about resale value too ;)
 
tomasis said:
krosya, why somebody have to comment every picture when it speaks for itself? If some are blind enough, I consider them very lucky because they don't need to have afford 5000$ for a ****. They can enjoy Industar lens instead. That's all what makes everyone happy is to use a camera with a lens and a film.

It is like to try telling to a blind person that the sky is blue when he can feel the air instead or doesn't it.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant comparison. We can discuss colours, rendition ... even if we don't see the same thing.

Now; it seems very difficult to discuss over the Noctilux ... is there a kind of sacred taboo about it I don't know of?
 
...why somebody have to comment every picture when it speaks for itself? If some are blind enough, I consider them very lucky because they don't need to have afford 5000$ for a ****. They can enjoy Industar lens instead. That's all what makes everyone happy is to use a camera with a lens and a film.

It is like to try telling to a blind person that the sky is blue when he can feel the air instead or doesn't it.
Click to expand...
"Every picture speaks for itself?" That's about as silly as "Any notcilux image has a unique Noctilux look. "

It's simply not true. Of Ned's images, some have a unique signature that may not have been possible with any other 35mm lens, and that signature is pretty clear even on a computer monitor. Many, starting with the B&W images on the very first page of this post, the woman walking on the street, the airport lounge, etc., could have been shot with damned near any 50mm lens made. A plastic Canon EF 50mm 1.8, even.

I spent a couple of years working in a motion picture camera rental house, collimating lenses nearly every day from the best glass makers in the world: Cooke, Angenieux, Zeiss, and many Canon and Nikon lenses adapted with a PL mount, and once you stop them down, they're all more alike than not. The differences are only readily apparent once they're opened up.

And here's something I learned while grilling one of the best DP's in the business on the subject of lenses: While prepping his camera package, I asked why he had chosen to use Cooke primes rather than Zeiss Super Speeds for a particular shoot, thinking there must be something special for him to have paid the hefty fee the then-new Cookes commanded, particularly since he owned his own set of Zeiss super-speeds. His answer? The Cookes were equal in resolution, but less contrasty than the Zeiss lenses and that suited the lighting scheme for the commercial he was working on. That was it. Nothing 'magic' about the lens, just a direct, logical answer. "Anyway, he said, you new guys spend too much time worrying about lenses and not enough thinking about the lighting." :eek:
 
NB23 said:
I'm just aiming at posting shots, any shots, taken with this lens. There's so much more to this lens then mere Boke and shallow DOF (the 90mm f2 has the same shallow dof... so nothing too exotic about the noctilux).
Click to expand...
That approach of shooting this lens certainly shows "nothing too exotic about the Noctilux".

Lenses are like (yes, yes: they are not) brushes: if you can only use a brush one way, the brush won't matter. Understanding what the brush is for, and you can create something distinct from the others, that does.

A fountain pen is not "more exotic" than a orange-lime crayon. What you can do with it, though, can be.
 
Kevin M, in your last reply, I have nothing to disagree. It depends on how you interpret those first two meanings. I didn't try imply only positive way or praise. When I say this, it means that if you don't like some pics then it is fine! You don't have to share with other's enthusiasm of the greatness of Nocti or photographer. Ned did meant to say that you can take both simple, boring, sharp aka EFS50/1.8 and dreamy, unique, summilux75 like shoots from the same lens depending which aperture are you choosing as you said before regarding cinema lenses. Don't forget that is a fov 50mm which means a lot flexible compositions. I have seen some guys who have 20 different 50mm lenses in their collection/equipment for the same price as Nocti's. Which alternative is better for calm mind and creative work? For me, f1.2 alternatives are not enough because I rather go with a Summiliux instead. I have seen some Canon 0,95 shoots. It is pretty good for low contrast imagery for sure. If you want softness, no crispness, then Canon is for you. It happens for me when f1.4, iso 1600 and slow times are not enough for me, so Nocti is good choice for me, right? Is there more lenses at F1 or less in M mount than Noctilux and Canon 0,95? No? My conclusion is that Nocti has not equal competitors at F1. If one use this as a single lens or 80% on the camera, even one million dollar is bargain. I don't really recommend to use as specialty lens or for rare ocassions.

If I remember right, Ned has Summitar for low contrast imagery. Sounds it good, Kevin? :) Myself, I have a Industar lol
 
Last edited:
I don't see a distinct Noct signature above f4. From f4 below, the background looks different. From f2 to f1.0, things look very different, to my eyes, from other lenses. The difference in backgrounds is noticeable with the 50mm pre-asph summilux and 75mm summilux as well.

I don't know why people still look for differences when the lens is stopped down. What some people like or appreciate, I think, is the two different looks when opened up and stopped down.

Even if you like the opened up look, I don't know how anyone can justify $5000 or $2000 or $500. The different looks will possibly enhance a photo, but I don't think it will make one, by a long shot. Given the importance of form and content and lighting, how can anyone justify the gear they have. Can you justify cost of a Summar for it's look when wide open, especially if it flares a lot? If the Noctilux wasn't so expensive, I think people would no longer be looking for something magical, or whatever criteria they would need, to justify it.

To my eyes things look different with the Noctilux as you open it up. I like it. I see an interesting curve of things in focus. Detail (micro contrast or something) and color rendition when opened up is great (or plenty good). It changes a bit as you get to the sides. The background looks like a tad more extreme than the 50mm pre-asph summilux. It very rarely flares, even when opened up. When I've had it flare it has been in full sunlight outdoors with a filter on it.

Does this look when opened up justify the weight and longer focus throw? Does it justify the ever changing cost? Some people talk about getting a 50mm Summilux ASPH instead. Who can justify needing sharp corners and other small differences when wide open?

Many have asked for more than swirly bokeh shots, but then don't understand what's special about it when closed down. The point of my long winded post is that it can do both.
 
Oh yeah, I'd love to see more photos from this not-more-special-than-any-other-but-different-lens. I think it's a cool lens.
 
Last edited:
I don't see a distinct Noct signature above f4. From f4 below, the background looks different. From f2 to f1.0, things look very different, to my eyes, from other lenses. The difference in backgrounds is noticeable with the 50mm pre-asph summilux and 75mm summilux as well.
Click to expand...

MikeL, thanks for this and the rest of your post. It's the best description I've seen of the Noctilux characteristics, I think.
 
kevin n, all he says is different lol if you want know more, look at erwin putz site for a noctilux article. it is quite right regarding apertures. Nocti and Elmar would be nice combination for night and day shoots :D
 
Just another reader popping in to say I am enjoying the Noctilux shots (I use a 35mm Nokton myself),

and Ned - its nice to see someone who is using said expensive rare lenses out and about photographing the real world, rather than sat at home doing bokeh tests on vases and plants.

Looking forward to more photos...
 
Paulbe said:
Hey Ned--super photos...thanks!
Please post some noct-nikkor shots---now THAT seems to be a hard-to-find lens these days.
Thanks to all for your posts--the comments do make you think..
Paul
Click to expand...

Hi!

I have too many shots of too many things and it's getting hard to efficiently browse throught them.
Noct shots are magical, smooth. I will post some, soon. Guaranteed to make Nikon shooters lust. :devil:
 
lns said:
Ned, these images are great, and so far only one person has criticized. Really, he just said that he can't see what makes the images special. But others do see it. Pease don't stop posting.

I personally enjoy seeing superior images. That's sort of the point.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot. I just want to rectify that I meant Images from a "superior" lens Versus "superior images from a lens. I am not to the point of qualifying my images as superior :)

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom