cam
the need for speed
there is no substitute for the Noctilux and, frankly, i prefer the look of the f/1 to the new aspheric. it is still very high up there on my lust list (but, yeah, can't afford it either).
the closest i've personally come to it is with the Zeiss C-Sonnar 50/1.5 wide open. there is a creaminess and a dreaminess to it that is exquisite and it also has the ability to draw in big chunks of charcoal and chalk as can be had on the Nocti. obviously, because of the speed, the OOF are not as distinctive, but there is still a painterly draw.
the closest i've personally come to it is with the Zeiss C-Sonnar 50/1.5 wide open. there is a creaminess and a dreaminess to it that is exquisite and it also has the ability to draw in big chunks of charcoal and chalk as can be had on the Nocti. obviously, because of the speed, the OOF are not as distinctive, but there is still a painterly draw.
Hacker
黑客
Yeah, I agree that gdi has some of the best shots. The f0.95 has the same optical forumla as the Canon 50mm f1.2, so it would be a better comparison to the Noctilux.
Joshua
Established
Link by chance?
jackal2513
richbroadbent
its all relative
compared to say a 24mm elmarit wide open at 2.8 it most definitely is soft
summarit really is a fun lens and the closest look to the noctilux abberations i've ever experiuenced
Hacker
黑客
Had a workout of the Noctilux recently as an old classmate wanted to try it out:
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Another vote from me. It is indeed the poor man's Noctilux.:angel:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I have to agree with this - I think Hexanon 50/1.2 or Canon 50/1.2 gives more of a Noctilux look that CV 35/1.2. I have CV and Canon and I think Canon delivers more of a Noctilux signature, but not the same, of course.Here is Canon 50/1.2 example:
and one more:
Canon does a good job, but.....
But I still want the Noctilux
That bokeh makes my head spin, especially in the second shot. In a blind test I would have called that a Xenon image.
Goldorak
-
I like the bokeh
marke
Well-known
I have to agree. It's a bit unsettling.
Prosaic
Well-known
The old Leica Summarit 50/1.5 draws similarly, albeit depth of field is greater. Canons FL 58/1.2 is quite close too but not a rangefinder lens. (All later high speed Canon lenses, starting with the FL 55/1.2 have a different look already.)
Last edited:
Tony C.
Established
This topic has been covered many times, and while I appreciate that there is an element of subjectivity, I have found the Noctilux and Hexanon 1.2 to be clearly different in terms of bokeh.
I have owned both and like them both. The Hex is obvious good relative value, given the absurd (cost) heights to which the Noctilux has risen. The Hex is also beautifully made, easier to focus, and sharper. But having said all of that, I find the Noctilux bokeh to be clearly smoother and creamier – qualities which I value highly – than that of the Hex.
I agree with those who find the above (Hex) example to be rather jarring. In contrast, here are a couple of illustrations of what I consider to be the smooth bokeh of the Noctilux.
I have owned both and like them both. The Hex is obvious good relative value, given the absurd (cost) heights to which the Noctilux has risen. The Hex is also beautifully made, easier to focus, and sharper. But having said all of that, I find the Noctilux bokeh to be clearly smoother and creamier – qualities which I value highly – than that of the Hex.
I agree with those who find the above (Hex) example to be rather jarring. In contrast, here are a couple of illustrations of what I consider to be the smooth bokeh of the Noctilux.
Hacker
黑客
I went out and shot some Summarit pictures, I did not think it draws similarly to the Noctilux...it is too swirly.
gdi
Veteran
The "jarring" boke above was from the Canon 1.2 - not the Hex. I agree the Noctilux can show very nice bokeh - but sometimes it seems nothing is clearly in focus (not that sharpness is all that matters, of course).
The boke of any lens is highly dependent upon the the background - including the Noctilux. Surely you've seen the vertiginous boke the Noctilux is capable of? There are plenty of examples available. I have never seen that swirling from the Hex - but I have seen harsh backgrounds in other ways.
Here are 2 shots from the same lens (not the Hex), at the same aperture, same day - if you use a lens enough you can predict the results fairly well:
Last edited:
Tony C.
Established
gdi
Veteran
I think it may be because your eye "picks" the smoother shots and passes on the jarring ones? The Noctilux can misbehave (harsh, double lines, etc.) as well.
I can hand pick shots from the Hex that are as smooth as any Noctilux shot I have seen. Or I can pick ones as rowdy the Noctilux! It is situational - though you do get some more speed from the Noct, of course.
I really think the noctilux is a great lens - but I chose the Hex for the sharpness, and lack of focus shift - and of course because it is cooler! :angel:
link to sample of someone's jarring Noctilux shot...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3397/3220303586_6e36bc5386_b.jpg....
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
This thread, and this discussion in general is very confusing to me. I think too many people use the word "notcilux" to sub "shallow depth of field" as most lenses being discussed here dont look ANYTHING like a noct and if they didnt have an aperture somewhat close to f/1, they'd NEVER be brought up.
The big offender for me is the hex f1.2. I just got one of these but have been using hex M lenses for a long time now. Personally I dont think you could find more different feeling lenses that a hexanon and a noctilux. Perhaps thats just me, but... You can get that shallow depth of field from other focal lenghts or other formats, but if you are talking about the fingerprint of the lens, talk about the fingerprint of the lens.
The lens that I would guess draws similarly to a noct is the preasph summilux or if you want to be liberal, the old summarit however the summarit draws finer and less splotchily than either. The summilux has that same sort of thickness to it that the noct overdoses on. To my eye, I dont see that in most other lenses and its probably the biggest thing the noct has going for it look wise. I dont feel there is another lens that I have seen faster than 1.4 that even approaches that look, certainly all the fast lenses that everyone always cites when this comes up dont look ANYTHING like a noct. Sure, they have shallow depth of field, but thats a real pedestrian way to conduct any comparison if you ask me. Nobody asked me though, so, heh, hope I dont ruffle any feathers.
The big offender for me is the hex f1.2. I just got one of these but have been using hex M lenses for a long time now. Personally I dont think you could find more different feeling lenses that a hexanon and a noctilux. Perhaps thats just me, but... You can get that shallow depth of field from other focal lenghts or other formats, but if you are talking about the fingerprint of the lens, talk about the fingerprint of the lens.
The lens that I would guess draws similarly to a noct is the preasph summilux or if you want to be liberal, the old summarit however the summarit draws finer and less splotchily than either. The summilux has that same sort of thickness to it that the noct overdoses on. To my eye, I dont see that in most other lenses and its probably the biggest thing the noct has going for it look wise. I dont feel there is another lens that I have seen faster than 1.4 that even approaches that look, certainly all the fast lenses that everyone always cites when this comes up dont look ANYTHING like a noct. Sure, they have shallow depth of field, but thats a real pedestrian way to conduct any comparison if you ask me. Nobody asked me though, so, heh, hope I dont ruffle any feathers.
gdi
Veteran
There are many situations where you could not tell the difference between a Noctilux and other very fast lenses - as proven above, all the lenses behave differently in different situations. So the "fingerprint" of a lens is variable in that sense.
But if you are using the fast lenses for what they were designed to do - take good pictures in very low light you can accomplish that with any lens mentioned. But we do, usually, gravitate to the OOF, narrow DOF, topic in these discussions - and invariably the statement is made that "nothing looks like a Noctilux". Of course, none of the lenses has exactly the same character as any other so how can one argue with you - if you say it looks best to you - then it does.
So basically, I agree - the Noctilux can't approach the look of the Canon 1.2 - its really not even close!
I do have a very nice Apotar on a Agfa folder that looks exactly like a noctilux, but it it slower and not quite as soft. :angel:In the end. you pick the one you like for your personal reasons.
(BTW did you find a HEX 2.4 ?- I saw one for a not horrible price - 550 - but I am passing on it)
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
I never did, the 2.4 to my eye looks too close to the f/2 to pay a giant premium for. Im patient.
I get the jist of what you are saying, but make all these comparisons at 2.8 if you want to talk about what the lens LOOKS like. The speed is just a cherry on top after that. The noct and summilux both have this sorta thick drawing to them that no other lenses seem to have. Comparing it to anything canon or anything else is just really bizarre to me. Any similarity comes to a screeching halt for me once you get past "they both go to 1.2".
