Tell me not to buy a 35mm Nokton

J

jamiewakeham

Long time lurker
Local time
12:13 PM
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
362
My group of friends know me as a photographer, and I've shot several of their weddings as a result, always on the emphatic caveat that "I'm no pro, I'll do it cheap but I may screw up". Up till now, I've come up trumps over several June - August weddings. They're easy. There's plenty of light...

I've had a bad day. I've just been processing photos from the latest friend's December wedding that I'd shot, in part, with a rigid summicron on my M3. There's flare from backlighting from windows, low-ish contrast, and missed shots because the light was damned low and I set too-slow shutter speeds. Ultimately I can rescue the situation, mainly due to other cameras used as back-ups, but it's been hard work, and I don't want to put myself out for a couple of hundred quid for this much stress again, or to make a hash of a mate's wedding. To be fair, they're sufficiently broke that it's me or mates-with-digital-P&S so I want to give it what I can.

To top the day off, another friend has just asked me to shoot his wedding this February. He's specifically told me it'll be a dark venue and he doesn't want any flash. We've discussed golf-ball grain but he's happy to see what I get.

I'm so tempted to blow the entire fee (plus some...) on a Nokton 35mm. If that ain't fast enough, nothing is. Shooting at 1/30th sec and f/1.2 has got to see me through fairly dark conditions even with XP-2 at ISO400, surely?

Anyone put a 35mm Nokton on an M3? In terms of limited DoF and associated focussing issues, the camera seems an obvious choice, even if using the whole VF to frame is a bit rough-and-ready. Should I calm down and get a 40mm f/1.4?

Cheers
Jamie
 
You don't need the Nokton, you need a different film. XP2 is awful for the type of work you describe (at ISO 400 the shadows are all murky). As long as you have a resonably fast lens, like f2, all you need is P3200, shoot it at 1600 or so. XP2 will give you very muddy shadows full of grain. The P3200 or even HP5+ or TriX pushed to 1600 will give you much more pleasing results. I'm not saying the Nokton is "bad", many love it. It's just a lot of money. BTW, I have done a lot of my friends' weddings as I describe...
 
sorry to hear your problems...

go for a real B/W Film with 1600 ASA ...take the Fuji 1600, it is a real good film to do that...and than in EMOFIN you will pull of all the stops!....

I'm new here but you can see 5 Pictures now in my "Picturebook"..:p..I do a lot of music stuff and you can see how the 1600er is going to the top!

good luck!

regards,

Jan
 
Pablito said:
Indeed but TMZ is forgiving. A really wonderful film.
Click to expand...


..yes, this is a really good film..:)..but has much more contrast than the Neopan...and that is "my" problem....to be happy with indoor shooting...like this..

Regard,
Jan
 
Telewatt said:
..yes, this is a really good film..:)..but has much more contrast than the Neopan...and that is "my" problem....to be happy with indoor shooting...like this..

Regard,
Jan
Click to expand...

Hey Jan,
I've shot many hundreds of rolls of TMZ and one of the things I like about it is the amazing shadow detail. I never found it to be particualrly high contrast, and I shoot it ofen in high contrast lighting. I develop it (or have it developed, depending on how many rolls) in T-max developer. I have not tried the Fuji because a lot of professional photo lab people I work with have told me it does not have the real speed of TMZ (and obviously I have been happy w/ TMZ). But now you have got me curious about the Neopan!!!.
 
Pablito said:
Hey Jan,
I've shot many hundreds of rolls of TMZ and one of the things I like about it is the amazing shadow detail. I never found it to be particualrly high contrast, and I shoot it ofen in high contrast lighting. I develop it (or have it developed, depending on how many rolls) in T-max developer. I have not tried the Fuji because a lot of professional photo lab people I work with have told me it does not have the real speed of TMZ (and obviously I have been happy w/ TMZ). But now you have got me curious about the Neopan!!!.
Click to expand...
You got me to test the TMZ again...;)...I use the Fuji Films for 20 Years now, but I did tests some Times to look, what is going on in the market..:D...I never changed my Film...

..did you test the new TM 400 ?...

Regards,
Jan

..the T-max developer is great!...I did some thinks ......but I always go back to the EMOFIN...
 
Last edited:
I buy at B&H. Have not found it cheaper, but have not really looked around that much. Thing with TMZ is that it's short dated. The freshest you can get has about a year. And even if refrigerated it does tend to fog when it's outdated. Since B&H has a good turnover, you'll probably get it as fresh as it can be gotten.

Telewatt - I used Tri-X for over 20 years but I recently changed to HP5+ because I have not liked the "new" Tri-X formulation they started using around 2002/3. I am finding that HP5+ is more like the "old" Tri-X. But I prefer it in D-76.

I HATED the Tmax400 (which I tried when it first came out) so I'm not that interested in the new, improved TM400.

btw, liked your Bilbao pictures. What a strange place. I was there right after they opened the Guggenheim.
 
Pablito said:
I buy at B&H. Have not found it cheaper, but have not really looked around that much. Thing with TMZ is that it's short dated. The freshest you can get has about a year. And even if refrigerated it does tend to fog when it's outdated. Since B&H has a good turnover, you'll probably get it as fresh as it can be gotten.

Telewatt - I used Tri-X for over 20 years but I recently changed to HP5+ because I have not liked the "new" Tri-X formulation they started using around 2002/3. I am finding that HP5+ is more like the "old" Tri-X. But I prefer it in D-76.

I HATED the Tmax400 (which I tried when it first came out) so I'm not that interested in the new, improved TM400.

btw, liked your Bilbao pictures. What a strange place. I was there right after they opened the Guggenheim.
Click to expand...
....:D....I hated Tmax too!....but Kodak send me a film to test...:rolleyes:...so I will do...:eek:

D-76 is a very good one!.....but I like the shadows..so my Emofin win all!

regards,
Jan

Thanks for the feetback for my Spain- Edition...
 
Last edited:
From a gear perspective, the M3 is great for focusing the 35/1.2, but framing you need to go with a metal 35mm CV finder, they ROCK. I had a Leica and the CV is better. I shot a lot of weddings with a 'Cron version IV and loved it. You might look at the 40/1.4, almost as fast and closer to the 50 frame lines that are in the M3. I love the lens, but some folks do not. It is sharp and resistant to flare as every new CV lens is.

A headache is that if you shoot wide open, you might sway a bit not notice the target has moved out of focus while you are framing. In reality this is an issue with a M6 as much as it is with an M3 with a finder. You move the patch off the focus target and you are hoping. Nothing in life is perfect so keep that in mind.

Do look at the 40/1.4. She is made to bring up the 50mm frame lines on a M, so she's ready for you. She's a 1/2 stop slower than the 1.2 (least I remember my stops that way). Costs a LOT less and is much smaller.

But then the 35/1.2 is 1.2!!

I'm sorry, I can add nothing but dribble to the film argument. It is an important part of the equation and I would not disagree with sticking with what you know best.

B2 (;->
 
i bought a nokton for shooting weddings and these are two things to consider,

it's very big and very heavy. it throws the whole camera balance right out the window. a full day of wedding shooting and i assure you this will become an issue.

for the amount of light gained it sure is a real, real workout focusing wide open. the depth of field can be incredibly narrow... with a few rangefinder weddings under my belt i found it kind of pointless.
 
kully said:
But - I love the photos it gives, and there isn't the busy bokeh of the 40 Nokton. But the bokeh thing is a bit of a red herring - the only people to notice it are me and bokeh-watchers on the internet :)

No recommendations really, just that I have both and I tend to use the 40/1.4 more just because it is smaller...
Click to expand...
there are alternatives from Zeiss - ZM 50/2 and 50/1.5 much smaller and lighter, and have better flare resistance.... if price doens't matter
 
You can solve the problem by adopting a film and process which will give you a higher EI or buy using that faster lens. Either way it's a tradeoff and the Nokton is not the magic bullet to solve all of your problems. That's the Noctilux (just kidding).

In additon to the films and developers mentioned I would recommend you try Tri-X in Diafine @1200 ISO. All these options have a specific look. Neopan 1600 tends to have empty shaddows but nice midtones and well controlled highlights with fine grain. TMZ is the grainiest of the pack but behaves nicely in all other respects. Tri-X in Diafine is nice with the possible exception of flat, simetimes even muddy looking highlights.
I strongly recommend to try at least two of the three and choose the one which works best for You.

best

Stefan
 
For low light wedding photography, a good midrange DSLR will hammer any high speed film you care to mention. I've done tests and you would not believe the amount of extra shadow detail digital files give you at high ISO. If your doing this on a semi regular basis buy a 40D or equivalent and forget about film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom