speaking of gear...

While I understand that folks want to keep it as small as possible since that is one of the reasons for owning/using the Leica M system, even the fastest lenses for the M are smaller than the equivalent cameras' lenses in SLR. Take the Nikon D3/F3T and the Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D vs. the Leica Motor M for M7 and Voigtlander 28 1.9 ASPH. I know the M lens is only f/1.9 and not f/1.4 but you get the idea. While the Noctilux is not small, it's way smaller than the Canon 50 1.0 I used to own, which is also an excellent lens and sharp wide open as well. But when you add the bigger mount and the AF guts, the size increases. That's just the way it is.





As far as the Noctilux not being sharp wide open .... :rolleyes:.

Opinions vary, even when shooting wide open. It's hard/impossible to judge sharpness on the Internet. Not to mention sharpness is but "one" attribute of what we perceive as sharp. Contrast being another, and lack of flare ...OO. Secondly, photographers use fast glass not just for speed, but the distinct "signature" that large aperture glass gives.

So saying your ...___ is just as good is a weak take.

Okay, so could we say different? That does the job for me. I'm not saying fast glass is better but it gives a different look, right?





50 1.0 Noctilux with B+W ND filter on Leica M7 on Ektar 100





Canon 50 1.0 AF @ 1.0 with polarizer on Canon 5D2

The mantra that the Noctilux is not sharp is repeated ad nauseam by those a) who have never owned one, b) had one and didn't have the rangefinder calibrated, c) have bad tech or d) are jealous.

If you're happy with your 50 1.4, good for you. I don't see why the Noct has to be put down to justify your 50 1.4 ASPH. Heck, if you've got the cash, own both. I know several people who do and appreciate both lenses for what they bring to the table/negative/sensor. I hate to be heavy-handed but I'm getting a little sick of the Noct basher know-nots :).


Gregory
 
Last edited:
the sickness, however, varies. some people want more and more lenses, while others--like me--seek refinement. the safe ground is between 28 and 50, as pretty much everybody is happy and content with lenses of such focal lengths. outside of that, i opted to 18, but that doesn't go well with my style. should have gone 90 :bang: ... if so, i'd be set, but now i need to sell a lens to buy a lens.
 
Hey Joe!

I was in the exact same situation when the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 just came out. I wanted it to compliment the 28/1.9 and the 35/1.2.

3667449135_5d08d74374.jpg


In the end, I find myself usually picking one fast lens and 2 slower lens amongst the 3 focal lengths. Works quite well too.

Cheers,
 
back alley said:
very nice benny.

i am getting closer to selling the zm and getting the 1.1.
Click to expand...

You willing to trade nice rendering of th Sonnar ZM for an ugly one from CV 50/1.1, Joe? Why? CV 50/1.1 is not in the same leauge as your Sonnar, CV 35/1.2 or even CV 50/1.5 IMO. Why would you want to do this? Plus you have that nice CV 40/1.4 too. I really dont see why would you want to get rid of a good lens to get just an average one, just because its f1.1.

If anything - (in case you just want to try that CV 50/1.1), I'd keep all the lenses you have and just buy it and make you mind up later. Cause if you sell Sonnar and later dont like Nokton - you'll be sorry for letting a better lens go.
 
Last edited:
Krosya said:
You willing to trade nice rendering of th Sonnar ZM for an ugly one from CV 50/1.1, Joe? Why? CV 50/1.1 is not in the same leauge as your Sonnar, CV 35/1.2 or even CV 50/1.5 IMO. Why would you want to do this? Plus you have that nice CV 40/1.4 too. I really dont see why would you want to get rid of a good lens to get just an average one, just because its f1.1.

If anything - (in case you just want to try that CV 50/1.1), I'd keep all the lenses you have and just buy it and make you mind up later. Cause if you sell Sonnar and later dont like Nokton - you'll be sorry for letting a better lens go.
Click to expand...

the 40/1.4 is gone.
is the 1.1 really that ugly?
 
back alley said:
and when aren't we...?


i went out today with both rd1 bodies and with the cv 28/1.9 and cv 35/1.2 attached...in truth i didn't even take the 28 out of the bag because i wanted to play with the new 35.
i started thinking that if i got the 50/1.1, i could easily live with that kit (and bulk up my arms a bit too) ;).

i now have a slow and small kit and a large and fast kit and it would be a tough decision to make if i could only keep one kit. i mean, some days small is better but i had forgotten how nice a bigger lens feels in the hand. that big focus grip on the 35 is very nice and so fast to grab on to.
Click to expand...
gotta love that CV 35/1.2.
 
bennyng said:
Hey Joe!

I was in the exact same situation when the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 just came out. I wanted it to compliment the 28/1.9 and the 35/1.2.

3667449135_5d08d74374.jpg


In the end, I find myself usually picking one fast lens and 2 slower lens amongst the 3 focal lengths. Works quite well too.

Cheers,
Click to expand...
freaky nice
 
If I remember well, the first discusion here about the 1.1 was about the defocused areas it produced... Some people said the lens' OOF zones on an image weren't as defocused at f/1.1 as they expected... I don't even know if that's physically possible...


From the images I've seen, it looks like a great lens... I've seen very sharp images wide open, with nice contrast, and although bokeh can be variable and also personal, I've seen very nice bokeh shots with it...


Apart, it's not a real huge lens, so it can be carried without problems as an everyday lens...


I would bet it's a wonderful lens, but I have never used it...


Portraiture in low light (home, parties, bars, concerts) with the R-D1 must be a lot of fun with it...


Cheers,


Juan
 
bennyng said:
I'm sure many will beg to differ.

But if you shoot in relative darkness in most part of the year, it's better to have the option to shoot (albeit you have the 35mm f/1.2) than to the keep the slower 50mm in the bag. To me, out of focus rendering of dark backgrounds are usually not an important consideration in the grand scheme of things.

Joe, here are some of mine (some shot on an R-D1/s) for reference.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

some nice stuff there benny, and i agree the lens does well and seems smooth to me.
for bright conditions i would also still have the elmar and cv 2.5.
 
bennyng said:
I'm sure many will beg to differ.

But if you shoot in relative darkness in most part of the year, it's better to have the option to shoot (albeit you have the 35mm f/1.2) than to the keep the slower 50mm in the bag. To me, out of focus rendering of dark backgrounds are usually not an important consideration in the grand scheme of things.

Joe, here are some of mine (some shot on an R-D1/s) for reference.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that great slideshow... I really enjoyed it.

A marvelous lens to me...

Cheers,

Juan
 
back alley said:
the 40/1.4 is gone.
is the 1.1 really that ugly?
Click to expand...

Well - it depends, of course, on what you like and what is important to you. I was very excited when I heard that Cosina was coming out with a 50/1.1 lens as I was hoping it would have signature of CV 35/1.2 and was ready to buy one..........until I saw pictures from it.
That quickly made up my mind to get either Noctilux or a Hexanon. Since Hex was cheaper - thats what I got.
Dont get me wrong - CV 50/1.1 is not a "bad" lens. Just not great and way overpriced, although now it's prices are as low as $800. Everything is relative. Just when compared with similar lenses, even in same or lower price range, like CV 35/1.2, CV 40/1.4, CV 50/1.5 and Sonnar ZM 50/1.5 - they all draw better in my opinion, and have advantages over 50/1.1. Plus there were reports of some backfocusing/focus shift with it. But...it's your money. Just , as I said earlier, I'd keep all of your other lenses until you get to use CV 50/1.1, as you may wish them back sooner than you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom