The curse of expensive equipment?

[YYV_146]

It's called jealousy.

I don't have a Noct, nor do I think I ever will, because $10k is way more money than I would spend for one lens, especially when I have other options. Do I think less of you because you have one? Nah. If I wanted, I could sell $10k worth of my gear and get one, but I'd rather have the other stuff.

Some folks can't understand that personal choice is just that.

Personally, most of my best work has been done in my extremely boring small town. The trick was finding the right thing to shoot. It's not as easy but since I have 24/7 access it's fine. On the flip side, when I'm traveling, I don't have that inside knowledge of the area, and usually end up making mediocre photos (and the more I visit the same area, the better I get). So staying local isn't necessarily bad.

Personally I like to take long trips or, if a month-long stay is out of the question, going back to the same locations over and over again. I like NYC - not all of it, admittedly, but the architecture and street scenes.

I think it boils down to whether you actually need such a diverse range of equipment - I buy lots of things that I only use for one project, then sell off with a minor loss. The Noct was extra expensive for me because it's something I want to keep long-term, but concentrating on this lens and getting amazing results makes it feel worthwhile.

 

[YYV_146]

The notion that someone would spend this kind of money on a camera lens, especially a fixed lens, as much as I like photography, seems preposterous -- a vulgar Veblen item. Nobody needs an f1:1 lens -- thousands for an extra stop or two? In fact, I regard most all Leica as Veblen goods -- straight down to their lens caps. That said, I wouldn't offend anyone who purchase something like this, though I might "smh" to myself as I read it. You must "really" like shallow dof the width of a human hair -- whatever. Nothing I'd spend thousands on. Seems silly. While I'm certainly not trying to take the "moral"(?) high ground here, I get satisfaction from the exact opposite -- finding overlooked/undervalued "cachet-less" photographic tools, like the mint XR Rikenon f2.0 k-mount lens I got in the mail yesterday for $20. Allegedly, "the sharpest 50mm ever produced". Sure, I'll drop an Andrew "for ducks" to see if it lives up to its billing. Not thousands, though. I hear Greece is very nice this time of year.

Greece is. I always fancied a trip to South Europe, but visa issues are a huge headache...

Anyways, the Noct is pretty pointless if you use it wide open as a head-and-shoulders portrait lens, since you won't get anything other than the eyes in focus (one eye, to be precise). But I can see potential in using it as an environment portrait lens, full-body composition or small group shots. Then you get the ability to provide meaningful separation without being too far away from the action and keep a natural FOV (as opposed to a 200mm f4).

 

[Bille]

In other words, is it just more "noble" to carry a cheap film set or P&S and sightsee in the most beautiful cities of the world, compared to loading up on top-of-the-line cameras and lenses but only working in the 20 blocks around your home?

What kind of pictures are relevant anyway?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger just has a small computer.

Dear Randy,

Several, two of which have internet access. And obsolete operating systems. But how big do I want to see shots of motor cars on a photo forum?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The notion that someone would spend this kind of money on a camera lens, especially a fixed lens, as much as I like photography, seems preposterous -- a vulgar Veblen item. Nobody needs an f1:1 lens -- thousands for an extra stop or two? In fact, I regard most all Leica as Veblen goods -- straight down to their lens caps. That said, I wouldn't offend anyone who purchase something like this, though I might "smh" to myself as I read it. You must "really" like shallow dof the width of a human hair -- whatever. Nothing I'd spend thousands on. Seems silly. While I'm certainly not trying to take the "moral"(?) high ground here, I get satisfaction from the exact opposite -- finding overlooked/undervalued "cachet-less" photographic tools, like the mint XR Rikenon f2.0 k-mount lens I got in the mail yesterday for $20. Allegedly, "the sharpest 50mm ever produced". Sure, I'll drop an Andrew "for ducks" to see if it lives up to its billing. Not thousands, though. I hear Greece is very nice this time of year.

"Nobody needs" -- oh boy. "I don't want/lack the imagination to use" = "Nobody needs".

A kind friend loaned me an f/1 for a year. I loved it. I half wish I'd bought it off him. But I didn't. I bought his Thambar instead. Do I regret the choice? No. But I half wish I'd found the money for the Noctilux as well.

By all means rejoice in your "also ran" lenses. But it's not very realistic to pretend that a $20 f/2 Rikenon amounts to much.

Veblen goods are akin to potlatch: proof you can afford to waste money. Anyone who thinks that Leicas are necessarily "Veblen goods" is, in my book, unclear on the concept of "luxury" and "special purpose".

What else does the same as an f/1 (or f/0.95) Noctilux? Or indeed a 90/2.2 Thambar? Can you not see the difference?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Godfrey]

...
In other words, is it just more "noble" to carry a cheap film set or P&S and sightsee in the most beautiful cities of the world, compared to loading up on top-of-the-line cameras and lenses but only working in the 20 blocks around your home?

To quote a long gone friend, Dr. Richard Feynman, "Why do you care what everybody else thinks?"

To my way of thinking, what is "most noble" is to do what you darn please to the benefit of everyone, including yourself. If some people think that how you do it doesn't meet their aesthetic/teleological preferences ... Tough.

G

 

[jonmanjiro]

Greece is. I always fancied a trip to South Europe, but visa issues are a huge headache...

What visa issues would they be? I cannot think of a single southern European country that requires a visa. Assuming from your location in Durham, NC that you're an American citizen, they'll let you right in.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I never realised, until I read all the advice offered, just how many of you were single...

Regards, David

 

[YYV_146]

What visa issues would they be? I cannot think of a single southern European country that requires a visa. Assuming from your location in Durham, NC that you're an American citizen, they'll let you right in.

No, I am here on a work visa - and that's the issue.

And EU travel is, pardon my language, damn difficult to us third world citizens...

 

[YYV_146]

Hi,

I never realised, until I read all the advice offered, just how many of you were single...

Regards, David

My girlfriend is giving me practically free rein until we get married, so hopefully I have some years of gear indulgence left....

But she likes the Noct - maybe I can convince her that it's also an investment vehicle?

 

[YYV_146]

"Nobody needs" -- oh boy. "I don't want/lack the imagination to use" = "Nobody needs".

A kind friend loaned me an f/1 for a year. I loved it. I half wish I'd bought it off him. But I didn't. I bought his Thambar instead. Do I regret the choice? No. But I half wish I'd found the money for the Noctilux as well.

By all means rejoice in your "also ran" lenses. But it's not very realistic to pretend that a $20 f/2 Rikenon amounts to much.

Veblen goods are akin to potlatch: proof you can afford to waste money. Anyone who thinks that Leicas are necessarily "Veblen goods" is, in my book, unclear on the concept of "luxury" and "special purpose".

What else does the same as an f/1 (or f/0.95) Noctilux? Or indeed a 90/2.2 Thambar? Can you not see the difference?

Cheers,

R.

For some equipment there are many alternatives. For example, just look at how generic the 24-70 standard zooms of Canikon have become. I could never tell them apart, even if I mounted them on the same body.

But the Thambar, as well as many other lenses of the era, are indeed unique. It's much more difficult to find unique modern lenses, unless they outperform every other comparable model or deliver an unusual FOV/DOF

 

[Koolzakukumba]

By all means rejoice in your "also ran" lenses. But it's not very realistic to pretend that a $20 f/2 Rikenon amounts to much.

The Rikenon will produce better photos in the hands of a good photographer than the Noctilux will in the hands of an "also ran" photographer. The Rikenon basically amounts to as much as the photographer.

Much to my chagrin (otherwise I'd be using a lovely Leica M film camera of some description) I don't get on with rangefinders so the Noctilux wouldn't figure in any camera outfit I'd have even if I could afford one.

However, consider its cons: blocks the viewfinder, weighs a ton, hopeless edges until f2.8, loads of vignetting at wide apertures. Now consider it's main pro against that of a cheaper lens:

DoF 50mm Noctilux f1 @ 3 metres 21.3cm
DoF 58mm Rokkor f1.2 @ 3 metres 18.7cm

I'm a libertarian and believe people should be able to make their own choices so good luck to the OP with the Noctilux. However, if you can't afford one then don't think that you can't produce around the same results for approximately 2.5% of the price.

 

[Michael Markey]

However, if you can't afford one then don't think that you can't produce around the same results for approximately 2.5% of the price.

I can`t afford one but I`m not clear what "around the same results " means.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Different people have different priorities. If I had 9K to burn, and somebody suggested I buy a lens with it, I would probably laugh at them. But then again they might laugh when they've seen I've gone and wasted it on a 2-stroke SAAB 96...

You cannot waste money on a Saab 96! 🙂

 

[hepcat]

No, but if the camera is big enough, heavy enough - maybe you could drop it and break someone's neck 😀

I really love large aperture glass. Back in '93 or '94 I had a Canon USM 50mm f/1 L lens. It was absolutely the most gorgeous thing I'd ever seen. And I used it twice in the two years I owned it 'cause it weighed over two pounds itself. Attached to an EOS1 with battery grip, the whole camera was like carrying a five pound bag of flour around... not pleasant, and certainly was not a neck-camera. I bought it for a couple of thousand dollars and made about $500 on it when I sold it. I'm sure if I'd kept it I could have doubled my money today. But it still wouldn't have gotten used.

People have different priorities and different obligations in life. Those people who say you are wasting your money are viewing the matter through their life's lens.

I think it boils down to whether you actually need such a diverse range of equipment .

These two quotes hit it on the head. I have the Voigtlander f/1.1 rather than a Noctilux because every nickel I spend on equipment is a nickel that isn't income. I look for the best buys in equipment that will do the jobs I need to do. It would take a LOT of paid work to make up the <roughly> $8,000 difference between the Nokton and Noctilux; and for me, the Nokton's performance is perfectly acceptable and brings home the images. Actually I have several CV lenses rather than the "official" lenses for that reason.

I'd rather pour my money into a 21' long hole in the water surrounded by fiberglass that I own. Or on bikes.

That doesn't mean that anyone else should share my perspective about either lenses or boats, nor would I ever tell anyone that their choices are bad because I declare it to be. Frankly I really don't [care] what anyone else thinks about my gear. I'm happy with my gear and how it performs and that's all that matters to me. If your gear works for you, more power to you!

 

[YYV_146]

The Rikenon will produce better photos in the hands of a good photographer than the Noctilux will in the hands of an "also ran" photographer. The Rikenon basically amounts to as much as the photographer.

Much to my chagrin (otherwise I'd be using a lovely Leica M film camera of some description) I don't get on with rangefinders so the Noctilux wouldn't figure in any camera outfit I'd have even if I could afford one.

However, consider its cons: blocks the viewfinder, weighs a ton, hopeless edges until f2.8, loads of vignetting at wide apertures. Now consider it's main pro against that of a cheaper lens:

DoF 50mm Noctilux f1 @ 3 metres 21.3cm
DoF 58mm Rokkor f1.2 @ 3 metres 18.7cm

I'm a libertarian and believe people should be able to make their own choices so good luck to the OP with the Noctilux. However, if you can't afford one then don't think that you can't produce around the same results for approximately 2.5% of the price.

Well, I will say that DOF is only one aspect, and an F1 will not be the same as a F1.2 lens for low-light shooting.

Also, with the F0.95 at least you get a world-class lens stopped down, as well as very decent sharpness across most of the frame wide open and smooth, Gaussian bokeh. And of course, a 58mm lens is not a 50mm lens - but the difference may be trivial to some.

If the question is "can I explore similarly shallow DOF with a lens 2.5% of the price of a Noctilux", I would say yes. But if the question is "can I get a high-performance superfast lens with a 50mm FOV for 2.5% of the price" - I would say no. Maybe for 40% of the price (Konica's cult 50mm F1.2), though...

 

[Addy101]

The notion that someone would spend this kind of money on a camera lens, especially a fixed lens, as much as I like photography, seems preposterous -- a vulgar Veblen item. Nobody needs an f1:1 lens -- thousands for an extra stop or two? In fact, I regard most all Leica as Veblen goods -- straight down to their lens caps. That said, I wouldn't offend anyone who purchase something like this, though I might "smh" to myself as I read it. You must "really" like shallow dof the width of a human hair -- whatever. Nothing I'd spend thousands on. Seems silly. While I'm certainly not trying to take the "moral"(?) high ground here, I get satisfaction from the exact opposite -- finding overlooked/undervalued "cachet-less" photographic tools, like the mint XR Rikenon f2.0 k-mount lens I got in the mail yesterday for $20. Allegedly, "the sharpest 50mm ever produced". Sure, I'll drop an Andrew "for ducks" to see if it lives up to its billing. Not thousands, though. I hear Greece is very nice this time of year.

"preposterous", "vulgar", "nobody needs", "seems silly" - but you "certainly not trying to take the moral high ground"? Sounds weird with all these big words. If somebody has the disposable income to buy one and he enjoys it, why would you call that preposterous?

Greece is. I always fancied a trip to South Europe, but visa issues are a huge headache...

I guess that NC in Durham, NC stands for North Carolina in the US - US citizens don't need visa to travel to Europe. So, please visit Europe and I think our friends in Greece could use your money 😉

 

[YYV_146]

"preposterous", "vulgar", "nobody needs", "seems silly" - but you "certainly not trying to take the moral high ground"? Sounds weird with all these big words. If somebody has the disposable income to buy one and he enjoys it, why would you call that preposterous?


I guess that NC in Durham, NC stands for North Carolina in the US - US citizens don't need visa to travel to Europe. So, please visit Europe and I think our friends in Greece could use your money 😉

I am a PRC citizen with resident status in Hong Kong (but no Hong Kong citizenship), so I will need a EU travel visa, which (knowing from the last time I was in the EU, France to be exact) is a pain to get. There is definitely some kind of proof of affordability (bank statement up to $50k) involved just in case you want to be an illegal immigrant, and people as young as me usually don't have that much spare money lying around.

In the US I have a work visa - which itself is enough hassle for any person to live with.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Well, I will say that DOF is only one aspect, and an F1 will not be the same as a F1.2 lens for low-light shooting.

Also, with the F0.95 at least you get a world-class lens stopped down, as well as very decent sharpness across most of the frame wide open and smooth, Gaussian bokeh. And of course, a 58mm lens is not a 50mm lens - but the difference may be trivial to some.

If the question is "can I explore similarly shallow DOF with a lens 2.5% of the price of a Noctilux", I would say yes. But if the question is "can I get a high-performance superfast lens with a 50mm FOV for 2.5% of the price" - I would say no. Maybe for 40% of the price (Konica's cult 50mm F1.2), though...

I've never owned a Noctilux so this is just based on what I've read online. However, reviews I've seen say it is decent in the centre wide open but soft at the edges. Bokeh is OK in the centre and strange at the edges. It's obviously fast but I don't see where the high-performance (speed aside) comes in. The lens blocks around a fifth of the field in the viewfinder. It may be excellent stopped down but so are many lenses!

You can get much the same optical performance from, say, a 50mm (same focal length) f1.2 Zuiko for around £300 as opposed to what a Noctilux costs so about 5% rather than 2.5%. OK, you're around a half-stop slower but you get not far off 100% viewfinder coverage as compensation. I would certainly expect the Noctilux to perform a little better than the Zuiko (don't know, just guessing) but I'm sure the Zuiko would deliver around the same overall performance in terms of sharpness and bokeh (the Olympus has better bokeh) and DoF.

Please don't think I'm knocking the Noctilux: it's a magnificent beast. I'm just saying that those of us on a more restricted budget needn't feel like we have to miss out on anything.

 

[zvos1]

In a prefect world everyone should be able to use whatever piece of equipment they want without people crticising them. Just because someone chose to spend $10k on a lens it doesn't mean they are rich, it could mean they've given up on a lot of other things to be able to afford one. If that lens (or camera) makes them happy and if they get better results by using it then more the power to them. In my profession (accounting) I see people blowing obscene amounts of money on idiotic things or bad investments, 10k lens by comparison is a pocket change and something you can always sell for a similar amount of money if you dont want it any more.
I mean just buying a brand new $50k car and driving it out of the dealership you've lost $10k without even blinking.