Nokton 1.1 ... is it just 'ho hum?'

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I understand your point on the windows. This effect appeared on several lenses I owned, most famous for it was my Cron IV at F2. It does not bother me but here we get into perception and taste, so I'll try to have the building owners close their shutters next time for you 😉
Just wanted to make the point that bokeh is important to some people, be them "serious" or not.

Dear Yanidel,

Is it the bokeh that's important, or is it simply selective focus? As others have said, if you don't notice the bokeh until someone calls your attention to it, then it's good bokeh.

I very strongly believe that you could have taken that picture just as effectively with any one of a number of fast lenses -- the operative word being 'you', because someone else might easily take your camera and lens out of your hand, Hexanon and all, and produce an inferior picture because they're an inferior photographer.

The bar effect is (I believe) produced by the vertical glazing bars being out of focus, and the out of focus areas overlapping, producing what is known in lens testing as 'false resolution'. In other words, it's a common optical phenomenon, varying with resolution, contrast and distance.

Edit: I completely agree that the out of focus area can be more or less pleasing, but I also believe that some people have made a cult of 'extreme bokeh' at ultra-wide apertures, very close up, and have made some truly rotten pictures as a result.

Cheers,

R.

 

[yanidel]

that is the classic hex look. I really need to get one of those 60mm's, so hard to find. the 50 1.2 is a thing of beauty though and there is something really special about that lens. I cant imagine who is chosing the nokton over the 1.2 hex given that they are more or less the same price.

Only 800 were made but you can find them on Ebay usually.
What I like about the 60mm is its decent size and weight compared to other super fast (around 400grams), especially the Noctilux. On the M8, it corresponds to a 80mm lens. In the end, I found it to be a great compromise in terms of rendering prize and weight between the 50 and 75 Summilux, especially since it perfectly matches the 50mm framelines of the M8.1.

 

[johannielscom]

Roger,

I'll make sure I read up on the Bokeh module on your site once it's up!

Always a pleasure reading an writing in threads like this since I always feel I get presented views that are new to me, and which educate me.

Thanks, guys!

Yanidel, I really like that shot of yours!

 

[yanidel]

Dear Yanidel,

Is it the bokeh that's important, or is it simply selective focus? As others have said, if you don't notice the bokeh until someone calls your attention to it, then it's good bokeh.

Good point, selective focus is what will make a picture or not in terms of subject. The resulting bokeh will harmonize the background to the subject without disctracting.

Could I have taken this picture with another lens ? The framing yes, but the rendering would have differed. Too bad the picture is not bigger, but there are some "blobs" (?) that appear at the street level that I particulary like, just like how the building on the right fades. At this distance, only F1.2 can create it on the Hexanon. At F1.4, the picture already would be free of aberrations (doesn't glow, no more blobs ...) and the separation to the subject too far to create these "blobs" (?). These are details I know, but in the end, I found a lens which bokeh I absolutely love, and it took a lot of tries believe me.

Though focus is extremely challenging at F1.2, I take the risk on most of my pictures to have that 1.2 look, otherwise I would have bought a Nokton 1.1. That is why I bought a super-fast, not for low light, (I don't know how to compose with all that dark around 😉)

 

[sevres_babylone]

Guests throwing up in the restroom,

That's pukeh, not bokeh, Fred.

 

[sanmich]

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. 🙄

For me, you nailed it.
if I where after a super fast lens, and put aside the character of the lens (since it seems to be quite neutral) I would either go for the Hex for the build quality (I never handled either but have some VC and an Hex, and the hex is in another league) and because I believe VC has much more QC problems than Konica (Been there, shelled what is a lot of money for me for an Ultron 28, and it costed me much more when I had to resell it and buy an hexanon).

For me the Nokton, without any asset like 0.7m focusing, and with the risks inherent to VC QC is not priced right. We all know that it has nothing to do with design or production (see the 35 nokton) but with assumptions about the market.

 

[x-ray]

For me, you nailed it.
if I where after a super fast lens, and put aside the character of the lens (since it seems to be quite neutral) I would either go for the Hex for the build quality (I never handled either but have some VC and an Hex, and the hex is in another league) and because I believe VC has much more QC problems than Konica (Been there, shelled what is a lot of money for me for an Ultron 28, and it costed me much more when I had to resell it and buy an hexanon).

For me the Nokton, without any asset like 0.7m focusing, and with the risks inherent to VC QC is not priced right. We all know that it has nothing to do with design or production (see the 35 nokton) but with assumptions about the market.

I hate to keep bringing this up but my 50mm asph summilux was built incorrectly and my late model 50 summicron had uneven wear in the helical mount from IMO poor design. Also my v4 35 summicron had serious mount problems. On the other hand I've had absolutely no complaints mechanically or optically with my 6 cv lenses and 3 Zeiss lenses. The assumption of quality or lack of based on name or price isn't always true. Oh yes I forgot the many Leica lenses that I've owned and seen that have haze from lube on the inside glass. I can't forget about my 90 APO asph summicron that I had to have relubed due to a binding helical mount. I don't remember these problems out of my nikon or canon lenses.

I've said this before that lens character is more a function of shooting conditions, shooting technique, film, processing and printing technique than the lens itself. Sometimes I almost buy into this notion of character / bokeh / glow and then I go back 40 years in my portfolio and quickly realize I would mostly be fooling myself to thinkaby one lens would change the look or more important the feel of my images.

My 2 cents again for those that care and those that don't care then forget I wrote this as it doesn't pertain to your photographic philosophy.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

My newly acquired 35/1.7 Ultron just survived three weeks of vacation including the Beach and Disneyworld. I took it and the Bessa R2 on most of the rides, including roller coasters and such. It took a few bangs. It's as well made as the classic SLR lenses from the 60s.

 

[x-ray]

I will grant you there are character differences in lenses but in the vast majority of RF glass its splitting hairs and requires a vivid imagination to see it. Now if were talking Thamdar vs Summicron 90 then I would agree or the 125 Hektor vs a 135 Elmar. Large format lenses exhibit character differences to an extreme degree. Take a look at a Petzval, rapid rectilinear, verito, photo plastic, imagon, heliar or any number of specialty and antique lenses vs more modern and you'll see a real example of lens character and bokeh out the a$$.

Im not trying to insult anyone but the 35 mm shooters obcessing over bokeh are trying to define a style around a lens characteristic that's subtle at best and highly subjective. Character / bokeh seems to be very over exagerated and true skill and technique forgotten.

 

[Krosya]

And yet we have that wonderful "Ultimate Bokeh Thread" with lots of beautiful photos in it. Hmmmm. How did that happen?

 

[x-ray]

I can see from your images you're a major bokeh guy. You should understand then the same lens will exhibit different characteristics in the oooofff area depending on what's back there, light falling on it, distance and contrast. The same lens can react totally different under different conditions. What I'm geting at is there are no absolutes when it comes to what causes oof to be one way or the other.

If you seriously wantvto talk oof then you need to look at Canons 200 1.8, 135 2 and 85 1.2. I shoot this trio and find them amazing in ability to isolate a subject with maximum sharpness on the subject.

Please don't take what I say wrong, if bokeh is your thing then enjoy and have fun. Your photography is for you and only has to please you.

 

[leicashot]

Good point, selective focus is what will make a picture or not in terms of subject. The resulting bokeh will harmonize the background to the subject without disctracting.

This is certainly a very nice shot, but not because of the bokeh or shallow depth of field. Many would argue that the background is too blurred as the background is important to the context of the subject. Therefor, IMHO, the background is distracting, and not because of the blur, but because it's not quite sharp enough. In documentary terms, you've unessesarily 'taken awy' from the image just to show off anf utilize the 'bokeh' of the lens.

Being a good photographer is about utlizing your tools appropriately in the right situations, not just to see how fancy your bokeh looks....well at least thats my opinion.....the only lens I shoot for bokeh is the Noct, cause it's not really good at anything else other than shooting at it's f/1 aperture with it's crazy aberations and style.

Other than that, this 'shooting for bokeh' attitude is a silly approach to photography.

 

[leicashot]

Good point, selective focus is what will make a picture or not in terms of subject. The resulting bokeh will harmonize the background to the subject without disctracting.

This is certainly a very nice shot, but not because of the bokeh or shallow depth of field. Many would argue that the background is too blurred as the background is important to the context of the subject. Therefor, IMHO, the background is distracting, and not because of the blur, but because it's not quite sharp enough. In documentary terms, you've unessesarily 'taken awy' from the image just to show off anf utilize the 'bokeh' of the lens.

Being a good photographer is about utlizing your tools appropriately in the right situations, not just to see how fancy your bokeh looks....well at least thats my opinion.....the only lens I shoot for bokeh is the Noct, cause it's not really good at anything else other than shooting at it's f/1 aperture with it's crazy aberations and style.

Other than that, this 'shooting for bokeh' attitude is a silly approach to photography.

.......let me finalize my comments on this thread by comments I made in another thread....

"Bokeh is important but should not dictate how a photographer uses it or used as a prime importance when shoosing a lens...but then again, if that's what's most important to people, so be it. It really doesn't affect my life. Whatever brings a smile to our face....which is what photography is all about."

 

[Paul T.]

I can see from your images you're a major bokeh guy. You should understand then the same lens will exhibit different characteristics in the oooofff area depending on what's back there, light falling on it, distance and contrast. The same lens can react totally different under different conditions. What I'm geting at is there are no absolutes when it comes to what causes oof to be one way or the other.

There's the rub. There's a tendency to get a tiny amount of information from the web and think it indicates a rule, and it doesn't.

I remember with the VC 40/1.4, that everybody slagged the bokeh, and was confident the 40mm Summicron was better. Sean Reid did a side by side test and it turned out the VC gave much more attractive bokeh.

Likewise there is now received opinion that the VC50/1.1 does not give a shallow DOF. Personally I don't believe it, and won't until I see a side by side test. Yanidel's rather good photo, wide open, gives a fair DOF at the focus point, too.

 

[yanidel]

Many would argue that the background is too blurred as the background is important to the context of the subject. Therefor, IMHO, the background is distracting, and not because of the blur, but because it's not quite sharp enough. In documentary terms, you've unessesarily 'taken awy' from the image just to show off anf utilize the 'bokeh' of the lens.

Being a good photographer is about utlizing your tools appropriately in the right situations, not just to see how fancy your bokeh looks....well at least thats my opinion.....the only lens I shoot for bokeh is the Noct, cause it's not really good at anything else other than shooting at it's f/1 aperture with it's crazy aberations and style.

Other than that, this 'shooting for bokeh' attitude is a silly approach to photography.

The thing is that this shot is taken out of its context and of my approach. If you have a look at my blog, you'll see that most of my shots are wide-open with significant OOF fields. Why? Because while I want to document life in Paris in 2009, I don't want to document the city. I want to imply it and the poetry that goes with the City of Lights.
This is a personal choice and obviously not a bokeh show off. But since OOF is important to my approach, I made sure I had the bokeh that pleases me the most. So far, the 60mm Hex and lately the 28mm Cron give me that combination.
It is extremely difficult to find the optimal aperture in all shots were OOF will not be too blurred, but not too descriptive either.
If you stop down too much, tourists with their cameras and backpacks start to appear (especially the colored Italian ones 😉).
But as a self-critique of my shot, yes probably F2 or F2.8 could have detailed a bit more the background and keep the selective focus. This would have incurred the loss of aberrations, so I decided to stay for 1.2 and emphasize the "magician world" with aberrations. Also in the sake of consistency between pictures. Some people will like it this way, others no, but again, this is about tastes, not photography in itself.
So linking back to the topic, at least in the case of this shot I had the choice between the 1.2 look or above. It would not have been the case with the CV1.1.

 

[leicashot]

So linking back to the topic, at least in the case of this shot I had the choice between the 1.2 look or above. It would not have been the case with the CV1.1.

Sorry, but how do you know this without any experience with the lens?

 

[yanidel]

Sorry, but how do you know this without any experience with the lens?

In the times of flickr and forum, it is easy to look at dozens of samples. Limited vignetting wide open, no glow, ... no special look, modern. That was enough to make my judgement.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Good point, selective focus is what will make a picture or not in terms of subject. The resulting bokeh will harmonize the background to the subject without distracting.

Could I have taken this picture with another lens ? The framing yes, but the rendering would have differed.

Now, I suspect, we are into a slightly different field: sensitivity to bokeh (some clearly notice it more than others).

The psychology of vision, and the way we learn to see, are fascinating areas of research. You are no doubt aware of differences in taste-buds (some people can taste some things that others can't) but you may or may not be aware that some people have an extra set of cones in their eyes and can distinguish more colours, more subtly, than others; I only learned this two or three years ago. And visual acuity is well known to vary widely.

There's also a large cultural aspect -- the conventions of perspective, for example -- and this may be age-related; you are a lot younger than I, and were therefore exposed to different visual stimuli when growing up.

This is another reason why I am suspicious of bokeh. It seems to have no absolutes: people use it to mean what they want it to mean, and your picture well illustrates the role of personal taste. You really like the bokeh; I would not normally notice it, but (as I said before) when I looked hard at it I disliked the effect in the windows; and another post says it should be sharper anyway. We both disagree with him, but that doesn't mean he's wrong...

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicashot]

In the times of flickr and forum, it is easy to look at dozens of samples. Limited vignetting wide open, no glow, ... no special look, modern. That was enough to make my judgement.

Well, I am yet to see any good photos used in the appropriate application the Nokt was designed for, and while the signature and character would be obviously different, you can't definateively say there is a narrower depth of field with either lens. But, you could assume that due to the Hexanon's +10mm, the compression and perspective may exagerate the OOF more somewhat.

But it's almost like you're saying the Nokton couldn't render the image as well as the 60/1.2. Well that is somewhat subjective and a poor assumption....it sounds like you're convincing yourself that a lens (Nokton 1.1) less than half the price of yours (Hex 60/1.2) is at least capable of doing the same job, or possibly even better? Is there any truth in that, or are you slagging the Nokt for no apparent reason?

My opinion is that both would do the job equally well, resulting in slightly different signatures that most people honestly wouldn't even notice or care about, except for bokeh analyzers. One sells for $1K new and the other around $2-3K used.....

The same argument can be had with the 0.95 versus every other 1.2 aperture and under.....but at the end of the day, people pay for what they 'perceive' to be better, and honestly, reality doesn't really matter. We all create and make excuses for our own version of reality, which ends up being perception most of the time anyway. We see what we want to see, right?

There is no answer to this question of 'best/better bokeh.' Clearly there are two sides. Noctilux style vs clean and corrected style. Even with side by side comparisons, could any of us clearly define a winner? The winner is the one that gets purchased and used for what it's designed to do....and heck if the bokeh makes you horny, even better 😀

I'm out.

 

[yanidel]

This is another reason why I am suspicious of bokeh. It seems to have no absolutes: people use it to mean what they want it to mean, and your picture well illustrates the role of personal taste. You really like the bokeh; I would not normally notice it, but (as I said before) when I looked hard at it I disliked the effect in the windows; and another post says it should be sharper anyway. We both disagree with him, but that doesn't mean he's wrong...

Cheers,

R.

That sums it up pretty well. What got me in that debate is a comment on the fact that "serious photographers" do not worry about bokeh which is IMO completely reductive to one's vision, perception and way of working. As you said, age, culture, visual acuity, life experience will lead to different perception and interpretation of a picture. There is not one "correct way" of photography, there are 1000 of experimental ways. Bokeh and OOF could be one of them. But I get tired at the constant bashing of it and disdain. If some don't like pictures with significant OOF and strong bokeh, this is great, this is what any art is about, each one with its own perception.