breathstealer
Established
Who cares if it's a viral marketing campaign? People posting samples, no matter how inexpert in terms of testing, is always a good thing. Either the samples give you new info as to whether you'd like to purchase the lens or not, or you don't care for them and scroll past them in the thread list. There's no need to come into the thread and complain - lots of people are getting help from this thread, and if you're not one of them, just keep scrolling.
And viral marketing is really meant to push products in places where they aren't well known yet. All of us here knew about the 35/1.4 well before it was released - this stuff is not new news. If this is a marketing campaign, it's one of the most useless I've ever seen.
And viral marketing is really meant to push products in places where they aren't well known yet. All of us here knew about the 35/1.4 well before it was released - this stuff is not new news. If this is a marketing campaign, it's one of the most useless I've ever seen.
Larry H-L
Well-known
People seem to rush to bokeh decisions based on web images that were taken at the closest possible focus distance with a wide-open aperture.
A better test, IMHO, is to click down 2 or 3 stops, and shoot at a moderately close distance of 6 or 8 feet.
Anyone have such a shot with the new Nokton?
A better test, IMHO, is to click down 2 or 3 stops, and shoot at a moderately close distance of 6 or 8 feet.
Anyone have such a shot with the new Nokton?
ampguy
Veteran
an example
an example
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sotome/2298450055/in/photostream/
I wouldn't call any bokeh bad, but just rendered in a way that is not what I prefer, and not how a cron 35/50, Hexanon 50, or even Rokkor 40/2, or 75/1.4 lux would render in specific OOF situations.
I'm not convinced that this is equivalent to a summilux wide open, and think that the CV 35/1.2 may be closer.
However, it appears to be a fine lens for the size and price, and seems to take great photos in most types of scenarios.
an example
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sotome/2298450055/in/photostream/
I wouldn't call any bokeh bad, but just rendered in a way that is not what I prefer, and not how a cron 35/50, Hexanon 50, or even Rokkor 40/2, or 75/1.4 lux would render in specific OOF situations.
I'm not convinced that this is equivalent to a summilux wide open, and think that the CV 35/1.2 may be closer.
However, it appears to be a fine lens for the size and price, and seems to take great photos in most types of scenarios.
aka5ha said:
kevin m
Veteran
This thread reminds me of a sign over the counter of a lab I used to go to: Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick any two.
This lens is fast, small and relatively cheap. What else do you want outta life? If bokeh's your thing, and you're on a budget, then lose a stop and pick up the 40 Rokkor; If you gotta have the fastest lens made, then take the 35 Nokton and live with the size; If you have the money and you want to own "the best" then buy the Summilux Asph. But if you want one lens that's fast, small enough to carry all day and won't break the bank, then CV has given you that option. Seems avoiding shooting backlit foliage is a small price to pay.
This lens is fast, small and relatively cheap. What else do you want outta life? If bokeh's your thing, and you're on a budget, then lose a stop and pick up the 40 Rokkor; If you gotta have the fastest lens made, then take the 35 Nokton and live with the size; If you have the money and you want to own "the best" then buy the Summilux Asph. But if you want one lens that's fast, small enough to carry all day and won't break the bank, then CV has given you that option. Seems avoiding shooting backlit foliage is a small price to pay.
ferider
Veteran
Actually, in all the examples, at f2 the bokeh seems to be at least as good
as with pre-asph 35/2 and the different 40/2 variants. One should not
compare 35/1.4 bokeh wide open with bokeh at f2 of other lenses. People
have loved to do that with the 40 Nokton and here we go again.
Regarding the 35/1.4 pre-asph bokeh - I wish somebody who really owns
both the new Nokton and has owned the old Leica lens would comment.
To me 35/1.4 pre-asph wide open shots, in particular with foliage in the
back have always been nauseating. But for some reason for this
lux and the Noctilux this never mattered to get outstanding bokeh
grades. :bang:
Note that on M8 I have even seen examples of 50/1.4 pre-asph lux
shots with double lines in the background; a lens that has outstanding
OOF reputation - and justifyably so.
It's a double gauss design. You have to do compromises between resolution
and OOF performance wide open. As simple as that.
You can not make a lens "sharper". As a shooter you can control the background.
as with pre-asph 35/2 and the different 40/2 variants. One should not
compare 35/1.4 bokeh wide open with bokeh at f2 of other lenses. People
have loved to do that with the 40 Nokton and here we go again.
Regarding the 35/1.4 pre-asph bokeh - I wish somebody who really owns
both the new Nokton and has owned the old Leica lens would comment.
To me 35/1.4 pre-asph wide open shots, in particular with foliage in the
back have always been nauseating. But for some reason for this
lux and the Noctilux this never mattered to get outstanding bokeh
grades. :bang:
Note that on M8 I have even seen examples of 50/1.4 pre-asph lux
shots with double lines in the background; a lens that has outstanding
OOF reputation - and justifyably so.
It's a double gauss design. You have to do compromises between resolution
and OOF performance wide open. As simple as that.
You can not make a lens "sharper". As a shooter you can control the background.
Last edited:
R
rich815
Guest
Larry H-L said:
What the point of the fast lens then? Just get an f/2 or f/2.8 lens. It's performance wide-open, and yes, close-up, is one of the most important aspects of a fast lens.
That's like saying we should test a sport cars at 35mph....
ampguy
Veteran
Great points
Great points
Roland, these are great points, however, I actually think the OOF of the Noctilux whether designed, or accidental, is pure genius.
Take this example:
http://matsumura.smugmug.com/gallery/4232830_YeC4X#247593245_e5RoX-O-LB
Note at the upper center and left, there are no highlighted bubbles, fish scales, bright circles, just muted off white barely visible almost painted circles, nothing perfectly circular to distract attention from the main subject.
Also note the green oval, it was probably a circle, but induced or accidental SA, Coma or whatever makes it a soft pastel background that in B/W would just be a soft blur.
That's what I want in yet another 35/x.x ~$600 lens
Great points
Roland, these are great points, however, I actually think the OOF of the Noctilux whether designed, or accidental, is pure genius.
Take this example:
http://matsumura.smugmug.com/gallery/4232830_YeC4X#247593245_e5RoX-O-LB
Note at the upper center and left, there are no highlighted bubbles, fish scales, bright circles, just muted off white barely visible almost painted circles, nothing perfectly circular to distract attention from the main subject.
Also note the green oval, it was probably a circle, but induced or accidental SA, Coma or whatever makes it a soft pastel background that in B/W would just be a soft blur.
That's what I want in yet another 35/x.x ~$600 lens
ferider said:
ferider
Veteran
But that's exactly my point, Ted.
You can get great bokeh shots if you control the background, like in your
example. Or you can get "bad ones", like in the following (nice) photo taken
by Steve (hope he doesn't mind the cross post):
Based on this, how can anyone say that Noctilux bokeh is good vs the bad bokeh of the new 35/1.4 ?
BTW, your example could almost have been taken with the new Nokton at .7m distance.
Except for the vignetting
Roland.
You can get great bokeh shots if you control the background, like in your
example. Or you can get "bad ones", like in the following (nice) photo taken
by Steve (hope he doesn't mind the cross post):
Based on this, how can anyone say that Noctilux bokeh is good vs the bad bokeh of the new 35/1.4 ?
BTW, your example could almost have been taken with the new Nokton at .7m distance.
Except for the vignetting
Roland.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Roland
Hi Roland
OK, that's a valid point. I didn't own my Noctilux long enough to take any of the tough backlit foliage shots (used it during fall and early winter), so I've not seen too harsh OOF with it.
The new 35/1.4 has already shown that at 1.4 one has to be careful of the background, not just the backlit foliage, but double lines or even rounded edges from the early samples of the coffee cup on a round table.
I'm not sure that a 35 anything (maybe a CV 35/1.2??) could do the same photo as my snow noct photos. The vignetting is a feature I am sure - Dr. Mandler didn't want users to have to mess with photoshop for hours to get the right look out of the camera
Hi Roland
OK, that's a valid point. I didn't own my Noctilux long enough to take any of the tough backlit foliage shots (used it during fall and early winter), so I've not seen too harsh OOF with it.
The new 35/1.4 has already shown that at 1.4 one has to be careful of the background, not just the backlit foliage, but double lines or even rounded edges from the early samples of the coffee cup on a round table.
I'm not sure that a 35 anything (maybe a CV 35/1.2??) could do the same photo as my snow noct photos. The vignetting is a feature I am sure
- Dr. Mandler didn't want users to have to mess with photoshop for hours to get the right look out of the camera ferider said:But that's exactly my point, Ted.
You can get great bokeh shots if you control the background, like in your
example. Or you can get "bad ones", like in the following (nice) photo taken
by Steve (hope he doesn't mind the cross post):
Based on this, how can anyone say that Noctilux bokeh is good vs the bad bokeh of the new 35/1.4 ?
BTW, your example could almost have been taken with the new Nokton at .7m distance.
Except for the vignetting
Roland.
Matt(1pt4)
Established
I just finished scanning the first roll I took through my new SC. Pictures here:
http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/a-few-from-my-new-cv-35-f14-sc/
The bokeh does have character, but I don't think it detracts from the pictures.
http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/a-few-from-my-new-cv-35-f14-sc/
The bokeh does have character, but I don't think it detracts from the pictures.
back alley
IMAGES
hey matt, welcome to rff.
i just looked at these over on p.net and like them very much.
the bokeh is much talked about on this lens but in your shots the oof background looks fine. i'm not a fan of bokeh at the best of times thinking that it's the main subject that makes or breaks a photo.
i also have the 35 biogon and look forward to making some comparison shots with my new cv 35 as well.
joe
i just looked at these over on p.net and like them very much.
the bokeh is much talked about on this lens but in your shots the oof background looks fine. i'm not a fan of bokeh at the best of times thinking that it's the main subject that makes or breaks a photo.
i also have the 35 biogon and look forward to making some comparison shots with my new cv 35 as well.
joe
jky
Well-known
Thanks for those Matt...
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I am still laughing at the idea of a "viral" marketing campaign! When it comes to lenses and glass, it is all in the eye of the beholder. image quality is dependant on skills, film (or sensor), type of shooting etc. I have seen crappy shots done with the best made lenses (Leica 50f1.4 Asph and 75/2 Summicron's) and I have seen superb shots made with a multitude of cheap, old optics.
I also firmly believe that if you pipe up with opinions on a forum like this, you should at least have the experience with the product you are talking about - and if your opinions are about lens quality in general or the damned 'bokeh" (that fuzzy stuff) - put up some pictures of your own that supports your opinion.
The problem with judging images on a screen are well known to us all - BUT if you put images done with two similar lenses up against each other, there is enough detail and "rendition" to judge major differences. Stuff like resolution and "ultimate" sharpneee cant be judged - even if you blow up sections to mega size.
I think the problem is that some of us have these lenses and seem to like them. I have it and I like it - it is not the best 35 that I have, that honor goes to my Biogon 35f2, but it is a more consistent lens than my 35/1,4 pre-asph which is the main competition in this angle of view and speed.
The "amateurish" statement is BS - nobody has so far claimed that these shots are done for a fee for a client and thus frees us from having to do what somebody else judges appropriate. I have to assume that the"amateurish" night shots refers to some of the stuff I did! Of course it was a quick and "dirty" job. It took about an hour! I walked down the street one way with the 35/1,4 SC and up the other side with the 35/1,4 pre-asph - shot a roll each way and scanned them. Yes. I can see more flare from the pre-asph 35/1,4 than from the 35/1,4 - and that was all I wanted to figure out. Both lenses performs well enough that I easily can pull a 11x14 print from either one, without having to make excuses for it!
If the viral promotion implies that the "tests" ( and that is what it is - and the results are for my own judgement) would tell us which one is better than an other lens - forget it. Modern optics are so good today that the differences have more to do with ergonomics and cost.
Some people put more emphasis on Bokeh than others. Personally I have never really given it much of a thought, but if it is important - dont buy lenses that display what you consider "bad bokeh" - the rest of us will happily shoot away with them anyway.
I also firmly believe that if you pipe up with opinions on a forum like this, you should at least have the experience with the product you are talking about - and if your opinions are about lens quality in general or the damned 'bokeh" (that fuzzy stuff) - put up some pictures of your own that supports your opinion.
The problem with judging images on a screen are well known to us all - BUT if you put images done with two similar lenses up against each other, there is enough detail and "rendition" to judge major differences. Stuff like resolution and "ultimate" sharpneee cant be judged - even if you blow up sections to mega size.
I think the problem is that some of us have these lenses and seem to like them. I have it and I like it - it is not the best 35 that I have, that honor goes to my Biogon 35f2, but it is a more consistent lens than my 35/1,4 pre-asph which is the main competition in this angle of view and speed.
The "amateurish" statement is BS - nobody has so far claimed that these shots are done for a fee for a client and thus frees us from having to do what somebody else judges appropriate. I have to assume that the"amateurish" night shots refers to some of the stuff I did! Of course it was a quick and "dirty" job. It took about an hour! I walked down the street one way with the 35/1,4 SC and up the other side with the 35/1,4 pre-asph - shot a roll each way and scanned them. Yes. I can see more flare from the pre-asph 35/1,4 than from the 35/1,4 - and that was all I wanted to figure out. Both lenses performs well enough that I easily can pull a 11x14 print from either one, without having to make excuses for it!
If the viral promotion implies that the "tests" ( and that is what it is - and the results are for my own judgement) would tell us which one is better than an other lens - forget it. Modern optics are so good today that the differences have more to do with ergonomics and cost.
Some people put more emphasis on Bokeh than others. Personally I have never really given it much of a thought, but if it is important - dont buy lenses that display what you consider "bad bokeh" - the rest of us will happily shoot away with them anyway.
R
rich815
Guest
Matt(1pt4) said:
Well, that's one word for it! My word is "awful". Nice photos (as pretty much always from you Matt) but that one of your lady with the trees in the background? My god, to me the bokeh is so distracting as to seriously draw my eyes away from her. And for such a beaufitul woman you'd think that'd be difficult! Purely my opinion of course but I do not like that bokeh at all.
back alley
IMAGES
rich815 said:
i just don't see that!
it's like we're looking at completely different photos.
joe
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Have to agree with Joe here.
I dont' find the oof areas to be all that distracting in any of those photos. I have a seen a few shots on this site where I have not been keen on the bokeh (one that stands out in my mind is a shot of a bike rack, where a bunch of the bikes formed a mixed jumble of distracting shapes).
I still think it is a nice lens, though it won't replace my 35 UC Hexanon as my body cap. But for those times when I really need the extra stop - this is going to be the lens I turn to.
My 35/1.2 nokton is about to go up on the forums. Great lens, but I much prefer the compactness of the 1.4.
I dont' find the oof areas to be all that distracting in any of those photos. I have a seen a few shots on this site where I have not been keen on the bokeh (one that stands out in my mind is a shot of a bike rack, where a bunch of the bikes formed a mixed jumble of distracting shapes).
I still think it is a nice lens, though it won't replace my 35 UC Hexanon as my body cap. But for those times when I really need the extra stop - this is going to be the lens I turn to.
My 35/1.2 nokton is about to go up on the forums. Great lens, but I much prefer the compactness of the 1.4.
ben
Member
ben
Member
photogdave
Shops local
Nice to see you posting here Matt!
raid
Dad Photographer
erikhaugsby said:I'm thinking that Raid might need to do a 35mm lens test pretty soon.
I am ready whenever "you" are!
Send 'em in.