Prosaic™
-
Very busy, not smooth.
Dwatsonkc
Newbie
Shot at f1.1 last night. A different look for sure...
Paul T.
Veteran
I'm tempted to remark that, if a photo was ruined by "bad bokeh" then it was a bad photo to begin with.
Oh, I just did.
Oh, I just did.
Dan States
Established
Absolutely. "Bokeh" is what you worry about when the subject holds no particular interest. Ridiculous to worry about since it is continuously variable based on motif, distance and aperture.
I distinctly remember when the 35 1.2 came out and Puts dogged it in his review. It was off the radar screen for years until actual users started making (gasp!) PHOTOGRAPHS with it.
In two years the 50 will have all the cache of the other high speed lenses.
I'll also restate my opinion that if you put "Nikon" on the Leica Noctilux and charged $1200 for it it would be considered the dog of the world.
Best wishes,
Dan (recovering Noctilux owner)
Nando
Well-known
A year ago, I would have bought this lens in a heartbeat. For me, the economic situation has forced me to get my GAS under control. I think that the 50f1.1 Nokton would be a fun lens to use but in low-light situations I know that I would be reaching for my 35f1.2 Nokton instead.
For the record, I do love the way the 50f1 Noctilux renders photographs wide open. It's super-fast speed is not the main attraction for me though it certainly contributes to the lens' "character". I also like the 75 Summilux-M and 80 Summilux-R. Personally, I think that I'd go for the 75f1.4 Summilux over a 50f1 Noctilux.
For the record, I do love the way the 50f1 Noctilux renders photographs wide open. It's super-fast speed is not the main attraction for me though it certainly contributes to the lens' "character". I also like the 75 Summilux-M and 80 Summilux-R. Personally, I think that I'd go for the 75f1.4 Summilux over a 50f1 Noctilux.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Paul,
Broadly I'd agree, but it's also possible you're using the wrong lens for the job. As I said above, out-of-focus foliage looks really unpleasant through a Thambar with the centre-spot in -- wiry and blobby -- so don't shoot out-of-focus foliage with a Thambar and the centrespot in...
Go on, tell me that this isn't horrible bokeh.
Cheers,
R.
Attachments
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
this lens renders very clinical, plain looking photos, which is great if thats what you are looking for. Traditionally speaking, at least of latest trends, plain looking is the last thing I think most people are looking for when they search out a super fast lens, and thats all thats going on here. In addition to getting real plain looking photos, you also get DOF at max aperature that looks to my eye real similar to what other lenses at 1.4 will give you, so thats not unique either. For the guy that wanted all that aberration fixed, this lens is perfect and for the guy that wanted a real affordable super fast lens that made crazy looking photos with thin slice dof, well, that guy is still looking. and thats really all that is going on here, not too difficult to figure that one out...
maddoc
... likes film again.
That`s for sure the Noctilux 50/0.95 ASPH.
I am still keen to see how the new CV 50/1.1 handles "available darkness", especially resolving shadow datails. That`s what the Noctilux can do quite well and was designed for, shallow depth of field can be achieved better with a 90/2 or 75/1.4...
leicashot
Well-known
I'm sure that the Nokton in the hands of an artist won't result in 'plain looking photos'.
I think it's ridiculous that people criticizd the Nokton for doing exactly what it's technically designed to do, which is what many criticized the Noctilux for 'not doing'.
How about focusing on using a lens to acheive 'photos' with character instead of shooting for 'character in bokeh'. That is just 'plain ridiculous'.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
Im not knocking the lens, simply making an overview of the circumstances surrounding its lack of acceptance.
A lens in the hands of a down syndrome patient or richard avedon is going to render out of focus and provide depth of focus at a given aperature equally without prejudice. Its up to the photographer to use what a lens can offer technically to create something beautiful and thats exactly what Im not talking about here.
Very simply put, this lens makes an imprint that looks like other lenses at 1.4 or even f2. Many of the people out there with rangefinder mania are looking for a f1 lens not to shoot in low light (because honestly, in a city at night if you know what you are doing in the darkroom there isnt worlds of difference between f1 and 1.4 if you are shooting bw) but to have a lens with a slice of dof like large format can provide and to have a lens that has some distortion. And since this lens has neither, it already makes an image that many can do with lenses they already own. So that leaves the practical use for this lens, for most pedestrians out there who will never discover the finer points of this optic, to shooting in the dark. Which, if you really break it down, just doesnt have anywhere NEAR the impact in 2008 as it would have in 1970. With todays film stocks, you can get a better image in the dark at f2 than you would have at f.95 in 1970 with whatever stock was available.
Again, not bashing the lens, someone asked why a "ho-hum" reception for this lens and that is exactly why.
ferider
Veteran
Agree with WM.
Funny part is, other CV lenses like the Nokton 35/1.4, where some of the character of the pre-asph Summilux was maintained (I assume intentionally) get bashed exactly for that character.
Cann't do it right for everybody, I guess. Like therapy: you only feel it's worth something if you have to pay (Leica prices) for it.
Roland.
Funny part is, other CV lenses like the Nokton 35/1.4, where some of the character of the pre-asph Summilux was maintained (I assume intentionally) get bashed exactly for that character.
Cann't do it right for everybody, I guess. Like therapy: you only feel it's worth something if you have to pay (Leica prices) for it.
Roland.
back alley
IMAGES
exactly, you are both correct as i see it.
this is a classic case of where a hope for a better/different image lies with the gear and not the gear user.
yanidel
Well-known
At the time the Nokton 1.1 came out I was looking for a 50-75mm lens for the M8. After looking at the samples posted (and trying the Noctilux), I decided to go for a 60mm Hexanon 1.2.
Not that the Nokton is a bad lens but by getting the 60mm Hexanon, I had two lenses for the price of one :
- at F1.2, it vignettes quite a lot, less contrast, smooth rendition (perfect for portraits) and glows. Wonderful for special look/artistic pictures.
- from F1.4-2 and below, it becomes a modern lens with excellent contrast and resolution. I don't like low light photography that much so the difference in stops from 1.0 to 1.2 did not matter that much to me.
I guess the Noctilux description would be similar. So really I think the only bad thing about the Nokton 1.1 is lack of versatility. It is a modern lens, very good, but you do not get that special look capability wide open as much as with a Nocti or Hexanon.
Not that the Nokton is a bad lens but by getting the 60mm Hexanon, I had two lenses for the price of one :
- at F1.2, it vignettes quite a lot, less contrast, smooth rendition (perfect for portraits) and glows. Wonderful for special look/artistic pictures.
- from F1.4-2 and below, it becomes a modern lens with excellent contrast and resolution. I don't like low light photography that much so the difference in stops from 1.0 to 1.2 did not matter that much to me.
I guess the Noctilux description would be similar. So really I think the only bad thing about the Nokton 1.1 is lack of versatility. It is a modern lens, very good, but you do not get that special look capability wide open as much as with a Nocti or Hexanon.
Krosya
Konicaze
Another funny part is that in Asia and Australia this lens new seels for what we have several used ones here. Why couldnt Cosina price it better from the beginning, I wonder? Maybe more people would keep them than?
back alley
IMAGES
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
ferider
Veteran
You mean the three classified adds we saw ? Among the maybe hundreds of users already ?
Still confused why you think the new Nokton 1.1 should be way cheaper than a used Hexanon 50/1.2.
Not saying it's cheap. > US 1k is a lot of money. Prices will surely adjust according to availability and demand. But it is what it is, Cosina Voigtlander is not a charity.
Roland.
Krosya
Konicaze
You mean the three classified adds we saw ? Among the maybe hundreds of users already ?
That plus there is one on Cameraquest site, plus some other places.
I suppose the same reason that a used BMW costs more than a new Ford Focus.
But really, all I'm saying is that if Cosina could make a better and more complicated CV 35/1.2 and price it under 1K, I really dont see why this new 50/1.1 that is not asph, that doesnt go down to .7m focus and doest perform as well and easier to make than a CV 35/1.2 is priced at over 1K.
When I spend more money on a Hex 50/1.2 - I know I get a better lens, but I can say that same thing about 50/1.1. Actually, if CV 35/1.2 was sold at over 1k and cv 50/1.1 under - now that would make sense. But hey, that the way I see it, noone has to agree.
x-ray
Veteran
The something it doesn't have is LEICA on the front.
For my use I want sharp not "character". I'm interested in the image I'm focusing on not what's out of focus behind. I'm afraid I'm more interested in content over bokeh.
I owned the Leitz 50 1.2 for years and sold it because it wasn't a good performer for general work and only OK at max aperture. Now people pay $10k for them just because it says Leica. I used the F1 version for a year and a half where I worked in the mid 70's and would not have sold my 50 summicron for two of them.
IMO the Nokton looks like a lens for serious shooters concentrating on content not bokeh. Just my opinion but the Nokton seems to fit the bill. In all honesty I'm not blown away by many of the newest Leica lenses. I like the performance of all of the Zeiss lenses I've used and own and knocked out with my CV lenses. In all honesty I don't feel Leica has given us our moneys worth compared to the Hexanons, CV and Zeiss lenses.
Just my 2 cents.
