Nokton 50/1.5 vs Nokton 50/1.1

[nzeeman]

whenever nokton 1.1 topic is open same thing happen - people say it is not real f1.1 lens, it has wide dof and stuff like that. i think few things are clear - it IS f1.1 - check out exif for photos online (there are galleries in which people compare noctilux and nokton on flickr and you will see from shutter speed that it is f1.1) also someone with digital rf would already notice if it wasn't f1.1... also it is obvious that it is much much sharper than other fast lenses (yes than noctilux too...) i know it is hard to admit but cosina is now ahead of leica in many things.
also it is better for leica to start making some better lenses for less money instead of paying people to talk crap about cosina around forums... 😀

 

[john_s]

Well, other 50/1.2 lenses seem to have narrower DOF wide open - Canon 1.2 and Hex 1.2, which makes me wonder if Nokton is true 1.1 lens. Or maybe Hex is faster than 1.2, or something.

I wondered that too. I have made lots of light measurements with my M6 and Nok 1.1 and compared to my f1.4 Leica lens, and within the accuracy of the meter in the M6 I am convinced that the Nok is 2/3 of a stop wider than the f1.4. (To gain some accuracy I deliberately made measurements on the threshold of the LEDs dimming. All measurements pointed to the Nok being f1.1, i.e. 2/3 of a stop wider than f1.4).

On the subject of depth of field, there is a fascinating article on Erwin Puts's web site showing a typical actual ray diagram around the focus point. It shows that the shape of the bundle of rays converging near (but not precisely at) the focus point on the film is a much more complicated shape than the classic ray diagram from which the DoF tables are generated. The upshot is that different lenses can have different behaviour around the focus point, and it seems to me that the Nok f1.1 gives us the best of both worlds: genuine f1.1 aperture, and graceful DoF. Those who were hoping for less DoF will be a bit disappointed.

On the subject of value for money, everyone knows the compromises needed for a lens designer to go from an f2 design to an f1.4 design. The jump from f1.4 to around f1 or f1.1 (even f1.2) is a futher significant step. I would use the Nok f1.1 when f1.4 was probably not going to be wide enough. Otherwise, the f1.4 lens is going to be sharper and easier to carry.

In the Leica world, going from f1.4 to a tiny fraction of a stop wider than f1 costs about $7000. And that's from an f1.4 base that's truly state of the art (the Asph 50/1.4)

 

[ferider]

This comparison shows that the Nokton 1.1 is very close in transmission to the f1.0 Noctilux:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferider/3682676506

Since this comparison is done on a crop sensor, and the Noctilux vignettes on full frame more than the Nokton, I am guessing that the full frame transmission of the two lenses is nearly identical. So yes, it is a true (or better) f1.1 lens, if the Noctilux is a true f1.0 lens. Note also how much faster the Nokton is when compared to the Canon 50/1.2.

I like what I've seen about the Nokton. Bokeh is "neutral" to my eyes. A "worker's lens", does what it's supposed to do without any additions. Unique in that way, comparable only really to the Noctilux 0.95. Haven't bought the Nokton, because I care less about speed these days, my 35/75 f1.4 combo is more than enough. And for me, a 35/1.4 is as "fast" as a 50/1.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[nzeeman]

thanks ferider - also it is good for comparing sharpness of these lenses...

 

[leicashot]

I did not notice that. I apologize.

no worries, thanks for the apology, lets move on ay ;-)

 

[leicashot]

whenever nokton 1.1 topic is open same thing happen - people say it is not real f1.1 lens, it has wide dof and stuff like that. i think few things are clear - it IS f1.1 - check out exif for photos online (there are galleries in which people compare noctilux and nokton on flickr and you will see from shutter speed that it is f1.1) also someone with digital rf would already notice if it wasn't f1.1... also it is obvious that it is much much sharper than other fast lenses (yes than noctilux too...) i know it is hard to admit but cosina is now ahead of leica in many things.
also it is better for leica to start making some better lenses for less money instead of paying people to talk crap about cosina around forums... 😀

I think you may be somewhat misinformed

 

[Roger Hicks]

Any thread about lenses faster than f/1.4 attracts certain stock replies:

Canon f/1.2 owners who seem unable to believe that any better fast lenses have been designed in the last 50 years or so

Noctilux owners/users who seek to justify their enormous expenditures, or who love Noctilux bokeh.

Former Noctilux owners/users who found that the lens wasn't perfect for them, and therefore blackguard it, especially the bokeh.

Those who are unable to understand that you can't really judge very much from a picture on a computer screen that's maybe 600x900 pixels.

Hexanon f/1.2 owners.

Any of these fast lenses may or may not suit you. The Noctilux didn't suit Tom but (considerably to my surprise) really suited me -- and as it was on loan from a friend (for 2 years) I didn't have a financial axe to grind. I've not tried the 50/1.1 yet, and although I have tried the 35/1.2 I decided to stick with my pre-aspheric 35/1.4 because (a) I already own it and (b) it's much smaller and lighter despite (c) being inferior objectively.

My favourite fast lenses alongside the old 35 Summilux are the 24 Summilux and 50 C-Sonnar, despite being 'merely' f/1.4 and f/1.5. I recently gave away my (cleaned, brought-to-spec) Canon 50/1.2 because the half stop over the C-Sonnar wasn't enough to make me use the lens much.

If I could afford it, I'd probably buy a Noctilux, and I'd certainly consider a Nokton. But I can't get all that excited about it. TAKING LOTS OF PICTURES (improvement through practice) has done me more good, over the last 43 years, than buying new kit.

EDIT: That's not to deny the value of good kit. Some of the kit I own -- Leica, Alpa, Linhof, Gandolfi, Zeiss (I have a Biogon on my Alpa), Rodenstock, Schneider -- is the finest in the world. I enjoy using it. But it's highly disputable whether it's made me a better photographer. If it has, it's only because I enjoy using it, and because it's easier to get better pics with equipment you enjoy using.

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicashot]

Any thread about lenses faster than f/1.4 attracts certain stock replies:

Canon f/1.2 owners who seem unable to believe that any better fast lenses have been designed in the last 50 years or so

Noctilux owners/users who seek to justify their enormous expenditures, or who love Noctilux bokeh.

Former Noctilux owners/users who found that the lens wasn't perfect for them, and therefore blackguard it, especially the bokeh.

Those who are unable to understand that you can't really judge very much from a picture on a computer screen that's maybe 600x900 pixels.

Hexanon f/1.2 owners.

Any of these fast lenses may or may not suit you. The Noctilux didn't suit Tom but (considerably to my surprise) really suited me -- and as it was on loan from a friend (for 2 years) I didn't have a financial axe to grind. I've not tried the 50/1.1 yet, and although I have tried the 35/1.2 I decided to stick with my pre-aspheric 35/1.4 because (a) I already own it and (b) it's much smaller and lighter despite (c) being inferior objectively.

My favourite fast lenses alongside the old 35 Summilux are the 24 Summilux and 50 C-Sonnar, despite being 'merely' f/1.4 and f/1.5. I recently gave away my (cleaned, brought-to-spec) Canon 50/1.2 because the half stop over the C-Sonnar wasn't enough to make me use the lens much.

If I could afford it, I'd probably buy a Noctilux, and I'd certainly consider a Nokton. But I can't get all that excited about it. TAKING LOTS OF PICTURES (improvement through practice) has done me more good, over the last 43 years, than buying new kit.

EDIT: That's not to deny the value of good kit. Some of the kit I own -- Leica, Alpa, Linhof, Gandolfi, Zeiss (I have a Biogon on my Alpa), Rodenstock, Schneider -- is the finest in the world. I enjoy using it. But it's highly disputable whether it's made me a better photographer. If it has, it's only because I enjoy using it, and because it's easier to get better pics with equipment you enjoy using.

Cheers,

R.

Perfectly put Roger. Should put an end to the argument....maybe any Noct, or Nokt users can post more pictures, which is what owning these lenses is all about. I personally used to own a Noctilux but had to sell it for $$$ needed for my career, but have always missed it, and love it's speed and signature, like no other lens, except maybe the Nikon Noct.

 

[nzeeman]

I think you may be somewhat misinformed

i was just kidding in last sentence about leica paying people to write stuff on forums - but sometimes those people behave like that. i know i would probably never have any of those lenses so i think my observations are pretty objective . i just watch many photos on flickr and judge from them - yes they can be low res sometimes but every photo give you some information. and until now nokton is clear winner...

 

[Roger Hicks]

i was just kidding in last sentence about leica paying people to write stuff on forums - but sometimes those people behave like that. i know i would probably never have any of those lenses so i think my observations are pretty objective . i just watch many photos on flickr and judge from them - yes they can be low res sometimes but every photo give you some information. and until now nokton is clear winner...

Hold on. Your opinions are objective because you've never tried the lenses in question, but look at flickr?

Hey: I can be an expert on ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (at second hand, off the internet, without ever taking a picture or going to a real exhibition).

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicashot]

i was just kidding in last sentence about leica paying people to write stuff on forums - but sometimes those people behave like that. i know i would probably never have any of those lenses so i think my observations are pretty objective . i just watch many photos on flickr and judge from them - yes they can be low res sometimes but every photo give you some information. and until now nokton is clear winner...

Ahhh, understood.....I agree the Nokton is the clear winner, but for absolute performance, the 0.95 is the definative champion of performance with a stop faster and quite sharp and corrected.

Me personally I prefer the Noctilux f/1, but with the recent price increases in used 'asking prices' the Nokton is a real bargain and a no-brainer for performance and price.

 

[nzeeman]

Hold on. Your opinions are objective because you've never tried the lenses in question, but look at flickr?

Hey: I can be an expert on ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (at second hand, off the internet, without ever taking a picture or going to a real exhibition).

Cheers,

R.

i didnt say i am expert - i justa said i am objective because i dont have emotional or financial connection wit those lenses. i just watch photos taken with them same as i would watch results from scientific experiment. in science for example you dont need to conduct every experiment over and over again to see results.

 

[Roger Hicks]

i didnt say i am expert - i justa said i am objective because i dont have emotional or financial connection wit those lenses. i just watch photos taken with them same as i would watch results from scientific experiment. in science for example you dont need to conduct every experiment over and over again to see results.

By the same token my opinions on buying an Airbus or a Boeing are absolutely objective because I have read a great deal about both and travelled on both.

More accurately, I don't know enough about either because I've never flown either -- I'm not an airline pilot -- and I'm not responsible for airline purchasing. I'm happy to admit my ignorance.

You are quite right, you don't need to repeat every experiment to see results -- but (for example) there are differences between driving a car for 100,000 miles; driving it for 2,500 miles; driving it for 250 metres; and not driving it at all. I'd suggest that the closest analogy when it comes to looking at Flickr pics is the last, viz., not driving it at all, though you might be able to make a case for the analogy with driving it 250 metres.

Recently I bought a T-shirt from www.redmolotov.com with a famous quotation from Eric Blair on it:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

A lot of the internet is based on these doubleplusungood premises (I stand open to correction from those who are better at Newspeak than I; it may be undoubleplusgood).

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicashot]

Can anyone post more images from these lenses, this thread is getting a bit silly

 

[john_s]

Ahhh, understood.....I agree the Nokton is the clear winner, but for absolute performance, the 0.95 is the definative champion of performance with a stop faster and quite sharp and corrected.......

Not a full stop over the Nokton f1.1, if that's what you mean.

From f1.1 to f1 is about 1/3 of a stop.

From f1 to f0.95 is about 1/6 of a stop.

Making a total of 1/2 of a stop.

Alternatively, if you assume that the lenses' apertures are precise (usually they're not quite), the difference is calculated at 0.42 of a stop (i.e. less than a half stop).

Not that it matters to me. An extra $9000 for half a stop is beyond my resources.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not a full stop over the Nokton f1.1, if that's what you mean.

From f1.1 to f1 is about 1/3 of a stop.

From f1 to f0.95 is about 1/6 of a stop.

Making a total of 1/2 of a stop.

Alternatively, if you assume that the lenses' apertures are precise (usually they're not quite), the difference is calculated at 0.42 of a stop (i.e. less than a half stop).

Not that it matters to me. An extra $9000 for half a stop is beyond my resources.

Dear John,

That's the point, really, isn't it? Mine too. But if I could afford one reasonably easily, I'd have one. Or, come to think of it, if I were working in a field (e.g. theatre photography) where I'd shoot a lot more at f/1.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sukiari]

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is a very soft lens and is about 50 years old. The Hexanons are not obtainable. The Noctilux produces ugly images (see the thread "Noctilux Diary"), completely black corners and no good sharpness. I prefer the Nokton.

Erik.

The 50 f/1.2 is not really soft. It has some aberrations wide open, but by f/1.4 it is much, much sharper. Then again, look at the margins of a shot made with a Leica 50 f/0.95, f/1, or f/1.2. They have the same problems.

The Canon 50 f/1.2 is a hell of a lens, and has a very unique look. If you are willing to be DEAD on with your focusing and composition, it will perform.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Ot

Ot

Recently I bought a T-shirt from www.redmolotov.com with a famous quotation from Eric Blair on it:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

"Eric Blair"? Seems to me I have read that list of newspeak sayings somewhere. Hey, wasn't that the birth name of . . . (thank you Wikipedia).

From Room 101

Ben Marks

p.s. good one Roger

 

[leicashot]

I think one photographer has finally shot some nice examples of what this lens can do wide open....I am posting this to demonstrate the lens's ability to isolate subjects....people will probably pick on the bokeh quality....to me, it is what it is....a fast 50mm lens that's sharp, light-ish weight and cheap, "awesome" I say!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=32714149

 

[Tom A]

It is getting a bit silly, isen't it! In 99% of the images taken with these various lenses - it would not make any difference. The Noctilux is a veteran of the fast 50's and for close to 35 years it was the only choice for "super speed". The Nokton 50f1.1 is a modern design, using the latest glass and coating technology as is the Noctilux 0.95. No surprise that from the point sharpness, contrast etc - the newer lenses are better - and from what I have seen so far - the difference between the 0.95 and the 1.1 is not that significant.
The Canon 50f1.2 and the Nikkor/Zunow 1.1 were sensations when they came out as was the 0.95 Canon - bit by the standards set by first the original Noctilux F1.0 and now by the Noctilux 0.95 and the Nokton 1.1 - they are not that great.
Stop the Canon 1.2 down to 1.4 and its better than @ 1.2 - so why not go for a f1.4/1.5 that is a/smaller and b/most likely better at 1.4 (Asph Summilux, C Sonnar, Nokton f1.5 or even the Canon 1.4). The whole point with a super-sped lens is to use it at maximum aperture and get good, sharp, contrasty enough images that they are useful for a project, article, book whatever.
"Character" in a lens is often a way to 'sell" flaws! The Noctilux survived its long career because there was no realistic competition during its "life span". We learned to live with massive edge fall off (aka tunnel vision), a focus plane that, to put it mildly, was difficult to find in a f1 soft contrast negative.
I am very impressed with Leica's current line-up of premium quality lenses, the 21f1.4, the 24f1.4 and the 24f3.8/18f3.8 and the 0.95 is a great achievement in optical design. However, I am just as impressed with the Nokton 50f1.1 because it is affordable and small enough to become an all round 50 without any "penalty" in the mid f-stops and in many way - that is a greater achievement than a $10 000 f0.95!