leicashot
Well-known
Well put, I can agree with that brutha!
Nokton 1.1 ... is it just 'ho hum?'
- Thread starter Keith
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 131
- Views 15K
Well put, I can agree with that brutha!
yanidel
Well-known
You are correct 10mm do make a difference in DOF that can be significant so we could not compare them.
There were other reasons for going for the 60mm Hexanon and its heftier price tage :
- it is small and light in comparisons to the other super fast. The difference is not that significant with the Nokton 1.1 though, but more with the Nocti.
- 50mm on M8 is kind of in between focal. With 60mm, I get almost the 85mm correspondence which makes it a great tele for portrait and compression.
- it perfectly matches the 50mm framelines of the M8 which are horrendous with a 50mm lens.
- only 800 of them being produced, I believe its resale value will hold (and increase) much more than the CV1.1 over time.
- the build quality is simply amazing. I have owned a lot of CV's, the Hex is way better.
So all in all and including the most important, that is rendering, I fell the Hex was the better choice.
Ok, I am out too, I am horny to go get some great bokeh, great weather today 😀
leicashot
Well-known
Thats a great argument for the Hex, which is a fantastic lens I'm sure, would love to try it, especially in Paris....was there a month ago and didn't have my Leica with me:bang:
Go enjoy it and how us why you like it so much!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Purely out of idle curiosity, why not? They don't weight much or eat much. I don't think I've been to Paris without a Leica in 30+ years...
Cheers,
R.
x-ray
Veteran
I have a suggestion for Cosina. Make a reverse center spot gradient filter on top of a softar 1. I'm talking a reverse filter as apposed to the silver gradient center used on ultra wide view lenses to correct for light fall off at the edges. I would name it "LIKEANOCTILUST" gradient filter. It would be a gradient silver donut where it would gradually reduce the edge exposure from the center third to the edges by 1 or 2 stops and put it on a .5 ot 1 softar. This would cause the classic Noctilux vignetting and knock the sharpness down a little just like the f1 Noctilux. Everyone could have their $1k Noctilust.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Dan States
Established
Perhaps we need more Porsche level photographers and fewer "here is my cat, isn't the bokeh nice" types. There's more dynamic and exciting photography being done today with point and shoot digital cameras than pretty much all of the rangefinders in the world. Why is that? They don't even HAVE bokeh...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Real Porsches? Tail-happy 356s and 911s. The big advantage of a Leica or Noctilux, as compared with a 356, is that it won't rust to pieces, and as compared with a 911, that it goes where you point it regardless of how hard you press the shutter release/accelerator.
And what sort of curry are you talking about? Quite a few of the curry spice mixes have pepper in them. Buy off-the-shelf curry powder and you might get... well... a Cayenne.
Cheers,
R.
And what sort of curry are you talking about? Quite a few of the curry spice mixes have pepper in them. Buy off-the-shelf curry powder and you might get... well... a Cayenne.
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well ... Denver's a long way from Brisbane so I may not get there for a while! 😛
I guess in a lot of ways the Porsche has become somewhat sanitized over the years ... I do like the 911 shape the best and air cooled flat sixes have a sound of their own.
That said I think Kobyashi san gave us a slightly 'sanitized' product ... I personally like the rather unruly nature of my 50mm 1.2 Zuiko SLR lens, as I do my f1.2 canon RF lens!
I am going to have to buy one of these lenses and find out what it can do. That's basically the reason I picked up a Canon 50/0.95. Well, that and it was a $200BIN several years ago. all those Leica Photo.net posts stating it was worse than shooting with a coke bottle were incorrect. An amazing lens from the days that engineers designed Mach 3 planes using slide-rules.
From the images posted, I can see that the Cosina optical engineers did a great job with a super-speed lens, and kept the price within reason. Leica did a great job with the Noctilux, but the $10,000 price is too high for most photographers to buy. I have spent more for lenses at work, running up to $40,000. But it was custom made.
From the images posted, I can see that the Cosina optical engineers did a great job with a super-speed lens, and kept the price within reason. Leica did a great job with the Noctilux, but the $10,000 price is too high for most photographers to buy. I have spent more for lenses at work, running up to $40,000. But it was custom made.
roundg
Well-known
I think the CV50 1.1 just has shown the exact curve as CV35/1.4 (maybe CV28/2?), high expectation before its release then few people talked about it several months later.
We can't blame Cosina. They have done excellent job. The truth is that many buyer want to get a clone of Noct,and it turns out it's not. The truth is in RF world, Leica is the standard (though Zeiss still has some privileges inherited from its old reputation). No body will criticize a leica on its imperfection.
Another technical question I am thinking is as I know, Leica Noct does some optimization to deal with comatic aberration, same as Nikon's lengendary Noct 58/1.2. That's one reason why they are so expensive. Anyone knows whehter CV50 1.1 has similar design?
We can't blame Cosina. They have done excellent job. The truth is that many buyer want to get a clone of Noct,and it turns out it's not. The truth is in RF world, Leica is the standard (though Zeiss still has some privileges inherited from its old reputation). No body will criticize a leica on its imperfection.
Another technical question I am thinking is as I know, Leica Noct does some optimization to deal with comatic aberration, same as Nikon's lengendary Noct 58/1.2. That's one reason why they are so expensive. Anyone knows whehter CV50 1.1 has similar design?
Paul T.
Veteran
actually, Keith and the others... I think you're doing a great subversive sales job. You're making this look like a real unfashionable lens. There's probabyl no better way of inspiring people to go out and take great shots with it.
What I also find hilarious is that we're having this conversation off the back of practically zero photos playing to this lens' strengths. I would love to see some available darkness shots of bands on stage or theatre productions, or perhaps weddings in a Norman church with tiny windows. I can't see why anyone would buy such a bulky lens if they didn't need it for such applications.
Oh, and please do keep slating the 28/2, I'm longing for s/h prices to come down.
What I also find hilarious is that we're having this conversation off the back of practically zero photos playing to this lens' strengths. I would love to see some available darkness shots of bands on stage or theatre productions, or perhaps weddings in a Norman church with tiny windows. I can't see why anyone would buy such a bulky lens if they didn't need it for such applications.
Oh, and please do keep slating the 28/2, I'm longing for s/h prices to come down.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
You're absolutely right, Paul T... And long ago!
I don't own the 50 1.1, but have followed this and all the other threads on that lens, and I'd like to give an opinion based on shots I've seen on screen, only...
The reason for this thread is not the quality of the lens, but what some people imagined around the fact of being 1.1...
About he quality of the lens: Superb. Close to 1 meter focusing is great, it's not a macro lens. Size and weight is nice for that ultraspeed: there are bigger, heavier, slower lenses. A real bomb on its own enemies: it's sharp wide open! This is, I think, where no brand beats it, because it allows shooting with great tonality and detail in front of dark scenes. Or shooting real fast. Or doing it with a very selective focus. It has a nicely usable contrast for both b&w and color, also. The price is not an abuse in any way, and that's great news... The lens can deliver the most beautiful and delicate bokeh when non distracting OOF background is needed by the nature or treatment of the subject. Stopped down it's as good as other normal lenses for everyday use, so with the 1.1 you can cover ANY light situation and carry just one 50, instead of two... That's a HUGE list of achievements for any lens by any manufacturer, and all of them VERY good reasons -practical ones- to buy it! Even or specially when going out with just one lens... I really think it's a powerful lens, one of the best ever. Speed and versatility aren't found together often! At any price!
About the people imagining 1.1: When the lens was announced, more than the fast/good price thing, people (like me) thought of the bokeh thing... I think it was like this: “Wow! If the 35 1.2 shots we've seen have that bokeh, then the 1.1's bokeh must be a soft, misty, blurred. creamy soup!” Well, well, well... Close... Reality says: “CV designers proved they care for bokeh as much as photographers, and could deliver an outstanding bokeh with the 35 1.2 when well used for that purpose... And the 1.1 has the same ability indeed...” I invite you (those of you who haven't seen them yet) to check the two images posted by Tom A. a few days ago in other thread: “Actual images from...1.1!!” Shots are beautiful! And there's no possible better bokeh than that! As always, sharpest lenses can be out of focus... The limit's not the lens, but the photographer. Maybe this thread started long ago when an image was posted and comments came, “narrow depth of field”, but it's not that... It's just that the cool images from the asian girl showing nice bokeh with the 35 1.2 have far background usually... Not just for being 1.1 you can get close things totally OOF... It's the photographer who has to organize elements to appear in any way, not the lens!
Cheers,
Juan.
I don't own the 50 1.1, but have followed this and all the other threads on that lens, and I'd like to give an opinion based on shots I've seen on screen, only...
The reason for this thread is not the quality of the lens, but what some people imagined around the fact of being 1.1...
About he quality of the lens: Superb. Close to 1 meter focusing is great, it's not a macro lens. Size and weight is nice for that ultraspeed: there are bigger, heavier, slower lenses. A real bomb on its own enemies: it's sharp wide open! This is, I think, where no brand beats it, because it allows shooting with great tonality and detail in front of dark scenes. Or shooting real fast. Or doing it with a very selective focus. It has a nicely usable contrast for both b&w and color, also. The price is not an abuse in any way, and that's great news... The lens can deliver the most beautiful and delicate bokeh when non distracting OOF background is needed by the nature or treatment of the subject. Stopped down it's as good as other normal lenses for everyday use, so with the 1.1 you can cover ANY light situation and carry just one 50, instead of two... That's a HUGE list of achievements for any lens by any manufacturer, and all of them VERY good reasons -practical ones- to buy it! Even or specially when going out with just one lens... I really think it's a powerful lens, one of the best ever. Speed and versatility aren't found together often! At any price!
About the people imagining 1.1: When the lens was announced, more than the fast/good price thing, people (like me) thought of the bokeh thing... I think it was like this: “Wow! If the 35 1.2 shots we've seen have that bokeh, then the 1.1's bokeh must be a soft, misty, blurred. creamy soup!” Well, well, well... Close... Reality says: “CV designers proved they care for bokeh as much as photographers, and could deliver an outstanding bokeh with the 35 1.2 when well used for that purpose... And the 1.1 has the same ability indeed...” I invite you (those of you who haven't seen them yet) to check the two images posted by Tom A. a few days ago in other thread: “Actual images from...1.1!!” Shots are beautiful! And there's no possible better bokeh than that! As always, sharpest lenses can be out of focus... The limit's not the lens, but the photographer. Maybe this thread started long ago when an image was posted and comments came, “narrow depth of field”, but it's not that... It's just that the cool images from the asian girl showing nice bokeh with the 35 1.2 have far background usually... Not just for being 1.1 you can get close things totally OOF... It's the photographer who has to organize elements to appear in any way, not the lens!
Cheers,
Juan.
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Lens doesn't focus to less than a meter, which it would be great if it did. As far as Tom's pics - you should look at the other pics from this lens on his flickr page and see what bokeh is like. Like this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rapidwinder/3552691160/in/set-72157618400098667/
I think there is "possible better bokeh" than that. But thats me ....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rapidwinder/3552691160/in/set-72157618400098667/
I think there is "possible better bokeh" than that. But thats me ....
yanidel
Well-known
UV/IR are enough, I don't want to handle another layer of filters. But I found that in 95% of situation, the 1/8000th speed of the M8 allows you to get at least a F2 shot in a sunny day. Even F1.4 can be recovered in post processing in most cases. Apart from that, Paris not having the best weather in the world, there are really very few cases when I cannot go down to F1.2. In this case, F2 or F2.8 will already get you a great OOF, you just miss the special look of F1.2.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Krosya,
I won't have time to post more, but really: no bad bokeh shot means that a lens can't be well used for better bokeh scenes... It doesn't depend just on aperture and distance to the background and focusing distance, but on angles and kinds of lights... What you are repeating is what I just said that is... just not real, and some other forum members said the same: as a photographer no one can expect that a lens behaves in identical ways all along its register.
And this lens has a versatile register, and it certainly is an outstanding professional tool.
I won't have time to post more, but really: no bad bokeh shot means that a lens can't be well used for better bokeh scenes... It doesn't depend just on aperture and distance to the background and focusing distance, but on angles and kinds of lights... What you are repeating is what I just said that is... just not real, and some other forum members said the same: as a photographer no one can expect that a lens behaves in identical ways all along its register.
And this lens has a versatile register, and it certainly is an outstanding professional tool.
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
So the Nokton 50mm f1.1 is too sharp @ f1.1, it doesn't cost enough and the "out of focus" areas are not fuzzy enough. If that is "ho-hum" for a lens - what gives!
I find it to be very good as a fast 50, compact enough to be able to be used as an all around 50 (if you think it is too sharp at f1.1 - try it at f8!!!).
I have just souped a bunch of slow films shot with it (Tech Pan and Fuji Minicopy II (20 asa) and at some time in the near future I will scan them on to our Flickr site.
I find it to be very good as a fast 50, compact enough to be able to be used as an all around 50 (if you think it is too sharp at f1.1 - try it at f8!!!).
I have just souped a bunch of slow films shot with it (Tech Pan and Fuji Minicopy II (20 asa) and at some time in the near future I will scan them on to our Flickr site.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Hm, one out of three in my count: I care about the fuzz. Not the other 'issues'.
Looking forward to your shots with slow films!
leicashot
Well-known
I was working at the Cannes Film Festival with all my Canon kit and decided to keep my kit as light as possible, and hadn't planned on doing any touring. Unfortunately with my work, I don't get many opportunities to utilize a Leica....carrying my Canon kit around is enough weight for me. Had I known I was gonna stop off in Paris for 3 days, I would've definately brought it along...regretting it now ;-)
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
By the way, I went to your link... I saw those pictures long ago, all of them... Of course the photographer was not creating a special bokeh when shooting precisely that frame, but I don't find it problematic either, in any way, as bokeh! I guess he was registering the scene along a wide testing of a new lens possible registers...
You imagine that a background with less presence would be better... Well, not for all scenes! Above all, good photographs don't require an unsharp background, but a sharp concept. At least that's me. If I started to worry too much about bokeh, it would speak clearly about my abilities as a photographer. It's not the lens but how you use it. The 40 1.4 nokton can give the same bokeh than the 35 1.2... And there are worse bokeh shots by Leica's 40s: you can see them after googling a bit, in tests done by reviewers you respect.
Cheers,
Juan
You imagine that a background with less presence would be better... Well, not for all scenes! Above all, good photographs don't require an unsharp background, but a sharp concept. At least that's me. If I started to worry too much about bokeh, it would speak clearly about my abilities as a photographer. It's not the lens but how you use it. The 40 1.4 nokton can give the same bokeh than the 35 1.2... And there are worse bokeh shots by Leica's 40s: you can see them after googling a bit, in tests done by reviewers you respect.
Cheers,
Juan
