cmogi10
Bodhisattva
Nice use of the rule of thirds
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Why does everyone get so excited about Noctiluxes?
It's a nice lens. It's faster than anything else except the (rather indifferent) Canon f/0.95. If I could afford one easily, I'd have one. I've used one quite a lot, and 'mine' (the loaner from a generous friend) focuses fine on my film Leicas and my M8.
Can I live without one? Yes, quite easily. Do I insult everyone else who has one? No: why should I? Would I like one? Yes. And unlike some (far from all) who get into these threads, I have actually tried one.
Cheers,
R.
It's a nice lens. It's faster than anything else except the (rather indifferent) Canon f/0.95. If I could afford one easily, I'd have one. I've used one quite a lot, and 'mine' (the loaner from a generous friend) focuses fine on my film Leicas and my M8.
Can I live without one? Yes, quite easily. Do I insult everyone else who has one? No: why should I? Would I like one? Yes. And unlike some (far from all) who get into these threads, I have actually tried one.
Cheers,
R.
ampguy
Veteran
lol
lol
I did not take that snapshot with that Biogon.
lol
I did not take that snapshot with that Biogon.
cameraman said:
kevin m
Veteran
Good God allmighty, do words have meaning anymore? Is there no such thing as even the attempt at objectivity?
This is... well, silly is the nicest thing you could say. Brand-obsessed propaganda might be closer to the truth. It's this kind of nonsense that guarantees that these Noctilux threads will degrade into pissing contests.
It's a lens. That's all. It has certain performance characteristics, none of which involve "art" or "magic" or any of the other horsehockey that gets batted around. Shallow DOF, some vignetting, a resistance to flare (add your favorite traits here) - that's all there is, folks. :angel:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,kevin m said:
Do you then deny that some lenses do exhibit 'magic', in the sense that they deliver an unreasonably large percentage of good pictures?
I will not say that the 'magic' is universal, nor would I personally include the Noctilux; but (for example) enough people seem to get excited about the 38/4,5 Biogon that one might decently speak of its being touched by magic.
I'm by no means trying to come over mystical, but I would argue that there is something not fully quantifiable in lenses that many people (including professional lens designers) call, for want of a better term, 'magic'.
Cheers,
R.
edhohoho
Established
I have used a Noctilux on my not quite perfectly aligned R-D1 and had very good results. I did have the advantage of a magnifier, but also the disadvantage of inexperience. So I wouldn't generalize that the Noctilux is too difficult to use. Rangefinders are not super accurate to begin with, and the Noctilux wouldn't be around and used by photographers if it were not capable of performing well.
kevin m
Veteran
Roger, are you familiar with the quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I think that's a fair description of an initial reaction to a technology that produces an apparently miraculous result. But if we're going to talk about it rationally, then we have to have to leave "magic" behind and focus on the facts. Any lens is nothing more than an assemblage of parts, built to certain tolerances based on a design that's compromised to produced the results desired by its designers.
Mandler let the corners go at full aperture on the pre-asph 90 'Cron and the pre-asph 50 'lux, and I love the signature of his designs because it suited my uses. Soft transitions to OOF and a smooth sharpness that flatter human skin were the draw for me. Nothing magical about it.
If a photographer finds the Noctilux suits his uses, then that's great. But the Noctiliux isn't "magic" or "artful" either.
Mandler let the corners go at full aperture on the pre-asph 90 'Cron and the pre-asph 50 'lux, and I love the signature of his designs because it suited my uses. Soft transitions to OOF and a smooth sharpness that flatter human skin were the draw for me. Nothing magical about it.
If a photographer finds the Noctilux suits his uses, then that's great. But the Noctiliux isn't "magic" or "artful" either.
Last edited:
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
ampguy said:
I'm not sure what that's suggesting.
Olsen
Well-known
edhohoho said:
I was told when I bought my Canon EF 50 mm 1,0L that it was much easier to focus the competing Leica Noctilux with the rangefinder system and all. First several years later I go the chance of buying a Noctilux and compare. The Canon with it's AF has a good hit rate with a slight front focus to begin with. Which glides backwards when stopped down. Which is ideal with such a lense. Manual focusing with the Canon alternative is close to impossible. I have a angled magnifier for the Canon, but havn't tried it with the EF 50 mm 1,0L. What kind of magnifier did you use?
MikeL
Go Fish
Olsen said:
Nah, the temperature dropped to about 60 F today, a bit cold. I do have to give some lessons this spring when my cousin and second-cousins visit from Oslo. I can't wait to go over economics with them. I've learned so much here!
Hacker
黑客
cmogi10 said:Nice use of the rule of thirds
I thought it was the third finger that ruled the picture?
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
I shoot all three of the fast 50's, Canon EF 50/1.0, Noctilux and a Canon 50/0.95 moded by EastCamTech. I have no problems with any of them but then I don't shoot people. I shoot nightscapes. I've had one show of my work and a local museum just bought a print of one from it for their collection.
These super fast lense let me work at night on the streets with out tripod in an exploritory manner. I couldn't do the work I like and others like with out lenses like these. The Noctilux was a major reason I got an M8.
Canon 50/1.0 Gallery (and a few others)
Noctilux Gallery
Canon 0.95 gallery
It's about light not sharp...
These super fast lense let me work at night on the streets with out tripod in an exploritory manner. I couldn't do the work I like and others like with out lenses like these. The Noctilux was a major reason I got an M8.
Canon 50/1.0 Gallery (and a few others)
Noctilux Gallery
Canon 0.95 gallery
It's about light not sharp...
infrequent
Well-known
@cmogi10 - can you provide the aperture for both the shots or are they both stopped down? beautiful subject, beautiful shots!
Olsen
Well-known
johnastovall said:
They looked very interesting.
Olsen
Well-known
MikeL said:
- You should follow them back to Norway and get yourself a prosperous future!
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
infrequent said:
All are wide open but for a few of the 21 distagon shots from a tripod. The whole thing about this work is wide open at very highs ISO.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
Olsen said:
Ugh
Of Course
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
are you cmogi10 now?johnastovall said:
infrequent-Both lenses are wide open, and thank you for the kind words
Emile de Leon
Well-known
If there is one lens that is on my m6 most of the time it is the noct. It is one hell of an artful lens. It has gone all over the world with me, no regrets. I paid a little over 1 thousand for it though a couple of years ago. You would really need this particular lens look bad in your repertiore to pay what it is going for now. It is my most used Leica lens though. But I like a 100 year old Dallmeyer f3 on 8x10 and 12x20.... wide open...smooth and beautiful.
northpole
Established
As a newcomer to this forum, I have observed some folks working themselves up into a frenzy over the unacceptable proportions of say, a Biogon 28mm vs say a Summicron; and yet on this thread there is no mention of the xxl dimensions of the Nocti in relation to other lenses and, more significantly, Leica camera bodies. Is it the case that folks accept the size of the Nocti because it is only used in extremely low light or are there additional considerations?
Peter
Peter