Voigtlander 50/1.1 Nokton Images !

[maddoc]

I always thought that fast lenses are made for "available darkness" photography .... So far, regarding this 50/1.1, I see only photos taken in bright light with shallow DoF. So, how does this lens perform at night ?

 

[Thardy]

I always thought that fast lenses are made for "available darkness" photography .... So far, regarding this 50/1.1, I see only photos taken in bright light with shallow DoF. So, how does this lens perform at night ?

Light levels can be deceiving. The interior of this piano was extremely dark, but I got the shot by using ISO 1250, and slow shutter speed, while trying to brace the camera.

Some of those shots above may have been in lower light than we think. I know that some were shot indoors without much (any in some cases) sunlight coming in.

 

[maddoc]

Light levels can be deceiving. The interior of this piano was extremely dark, but I got the shot by using ISO 1250, and slow shutter speed, while trying to brace the camera.

Some of those shots above may have been in lower light than we think. I know that some were shot indoors without much (any in some cases) sunlight coming in.

Thomas, your interior of a piano shot is very very good !

Shots from dusk to dawn using fast lenses often have a special atmosphere and colors, that I really like. Hope to see some kind of these photos taken with the new 50/1.1 soon.

 

[mrisney]

Just dropped of a roll of Ektachrome 100. In the meantime, I switched it over to the Lumix G1 with the 4/3 adapter. JPEG, all wide open. Japanese Gardens, Portland Orgeon, this evening.

Voigtlander Nokton 50mm 1.1 @ f/1.1 250 sec
Panasonic Lumix G1



Fast Lens!

 

[issa918]

As an user, i have one thing to complain that the 5m - infinity range is too short. It made me focus to the back or front when focusing to 5m or above sometimes esp. taking street photos. Look at Noct, it has a 10m in-between which should be much better. Maybe it's my personal problem.

 

[thrice]

Popped a couple on the end of a roll of superia 200, you can see the mild falloff in the second shot.

 

[bennyng]

I always thought that fast lenses are made for "available darkness" photography .... So far, regarding this 50/1.1, I see only photos taken in bright light with shallow DoF. So, how does this lens perform at night ?

Almost all my shots I've shared so far are taken at night with the exception of of the earliest 2 portraits.

Here's another taken a few days ago..


Handheld exposure at ISO 100, 1/39 sec, f/1.1 on Epson R-D1.

Cheers,

 

[gavinlg]

Looking at these pics, this lens reminds me ALOT of the canon 50mm f1.2L, which is an excellent lens.

Looks like the nokton is going to be amazing.

 

[LeicaTom]

Hmmm well, I feel it`s totally lacking character, it seems to work very very sharp, but with a wider DOF it has at f1.1 defeats it`s purpose which makes it all look like something shot at f2 or more

There`s no defined signature, no pleasing Bokeh, it`s just not a very exciting lens, the Nocti`s/Hexanon/0.95 and the Canon f1.2 all have separate signatures that are distinctive, and set each other apart from the rest. ~ some for the better or the worst, but they all have something that stands out, this lens just seems to be there and not really looking like it is a f1.1.

Ohh, fellow RFF`ers I`m not commenting on the photos here as being badly photographed , they are all very finely , executed but just as I see them this lens just comes over quite dull, no matter how you shoot it, (this is the lenses fault not the Photographer`s!).
*Those last few shots with the superia 200 look very nice, the Bokeh just seems too smooth and has no definition......as for sharpness it`s got it down dead on, but at the sacrifice of an artistic signature*

I think that this lens will need to be one of those lenses that a Photographer will be needing to work an even better eye and have much more patience to tweak it out, also with an additional serious command of photoshop ~ I`m sorry, lot`s of speed, lot`s of sharpness, but no soul ~

I`m satisfied with my dreamy/fuzzy Canon f1.2.

Tom

 

[fleetwoodjazz]

Hmmm well, I feel it`s totally lacking character, it seems to work very very sharp, but with a wider DOF it has at f1.1 defeats it`s purpose which makes it all look like something shot at f2 or more

There`s no defined signature, no pleasing Bokeh, it`s just not a very exciting lens, the Nocti`s/Hexanon/0.95 and the Canon f1.2 all have separate signatures that are distinctive, and set each other apart from the rest. ~ some for the better or the worst, but they all have something that stands out, this lens just seems to be there and not really looking like it is a f1.1.

Ohh, fellow RFF`ers I`m not commenting on the photos here as being badly photographed , they are all very finely , executed but just as I see them this lens just comes over quite dull, no matter how you shoot it, (this is the lenses fault not the Photographer`s!).
*Those last few shots with the superia 200 look very nice, the Bokeh just seems too smooth and has no definition......as for sharpness it`s got it down dead on, but at the sacrifice of an artistic signature*

I think that this lens will need to be one of those lenses that a Photographer will be needing to work an even better eye and have much more patience to tweak it out, also with an additional serious command of photoshop ~ I`m sorry, lot`s of speed, lot`s of sharpness, but no soul ~

I`m satisfied with my dreamy/fuzzy Canon f1.2.

Tom

Ditto, ditto...I feel that this lens will win many hearts especially of lens testers, or those obsess about sharpness but it's quite lacking in the definition.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Ditto, ditto...I feel that this lens will win many hearts especially of lens testers, or those obsess about sharpness but it's quite lacking in the definition.

Totally disagree. The pictures are much more pleasant to the eye than the Hex and Leitz lenses, were the out off focus areas many times distract from what one should see and what is really important in the picture. This lens, at least from what I see here gives much more rest to the eye and the eyes are more bound to focus on the fucussing spots. Really an outstanding and much more pleasing rendering than the noctilux and the haxanon. I agree that it tends towards the much pleasing canon 1.2, but is - of course - much sharper. Sure it is also a matter of taste.

 

[nzeeman]

i always thought that people buy fast lenses to be able to get sharp results in dark conditions - this lens do that from what i see. but still people talk about character - if you want character and deformities in photos - you can always use cheap lenses or holgas...

 

[kross]

i think the nok has one distinct character or signature and that is being really sharp wide open with a smooth oof transition. any other lenses can
do that at f1.1?

unfortunately, to me at least, stopping down this lens means getting the oof
highlights with sharp edge bokeh bubbles is a bit of a turn off. they should
have curved the aperture blades.... nevertheless, still an awesome lens in my books...

 

[fleetwoodjazz]

i always thought that people buy fast lenses to be able to get sharp results in dark conditions - this lens do that from what i see. but still people talk about character - if you want character and deformities in photos - you can always use cheap lenses or holgas...

It's difficult as one can see. Fast lens also used for portrait, like it or not, if size or price don't matter many people would chose a fast lens over a slow one for portraiture. Wide open or stop down depends on the taste like one poster said.

Nonetheless, just to point out that the Noctilux is a not a cheap lens, nor Holga. Similarly Zeiss 50mm Sonnar is nowhere near sharp wide open.

 

[thrice]

Hmmm well, I feel it`s totally lacking character, it seems to work very very sharp, but with a wider DOF it has at f1.1 defeats it`s purpose which makes it all look like something shot at f2 or more

It is lacking in the aberrations that give those other lenses their "character" I would say it probably wasn't in the lens designer's interest to design a lesser lens in the name of satisfying those looking for a particular look. Also, we haven't seen that many shots from this lens, it may have other defining characteristics that become apparent over time. A lack of focus shift is also a nice thing to see.

As for the DOF I prefer having the ~f2 DOF with more diffuse OOF areas. You criticise it for having super diffuse OOF then criticise it for not having a shallow enough DOF. For street light and other low light applications for which this lens was designed I feel the extra DOF will be a boon rather than a burden.

I do agree that the content of a picture taken with this lens will have to speak louder than "funky bokeh" or swirly rendering... which should always be the photographer's intention shouldn't it.

To each their own I guess.

 

[Pablito]

Hmmm well, I feel it`s totally lacking character, it seems to work very very sharp, but with a wider DOF it has at f1.1 defeats it`s purpose which makes it all look like something shot at f2 or more

There`s no defined signature, no pleasing Bokeh, it`s just not a very exciting lens, the Nocti`s/Hexanon/0.95 and the Canon f1.2 all have separate signatures that are distinctive, and set each other apart from the rest. ~ some for the better or the worst, but they all have something that stands out, this lens just seems to be there and not really looking like it is a f1.1.

Ohh, fellow RFF`ers I`m not commenting on the photos here as being badly photographed , they are all very finely , executed but just as I see them this lens just comes over quite dull, no matter how you shoot it, (this is the lenses fault not the Photographer`s!).
*Those last few shots with the superia 200 look very nice, the Bokeh just seems too smooth and has no definition......as for sharpness it`s got it down dead on, but at the sacrifice of an artistic signature*

I think that this lens will need to be one of those lenses that a Photographer will be needing to work an even better eye and have much more patience to tweak it out, also with an additional serious command of photoshop ~ I`m sorry, lot`s of speed, lot`s of sharpness, but no soul ~

I`m satisfied with my dreamy/fuzzy Canon f1.2.

Tom

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Virtually everything you cite as a negative I see as a positive. I am finding the lens more and more attractive even though I was not interested at first because I thought it would create images that looked too mannered.

I don't believe any lenses have soul. The greatest attribute I hope for in a lens is that it be neutral. I like sharpness. The last thing I want viewers thinking about when they view my images is what lens I used.

 

[fleetwoodjazz]

We should open a poll as:

"Had the Noctilux been as cheap as the VC 50 mm1.1 which one would you choose?"

Expect some interesting answers

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I just wonder how many people actually use these lenses after the initial frenzy of bokeh busting shots have been made? They are big and heavy (at least in the RF world).

 

[Chiif Ho]

I just wonder how many people actually use these lenses after the initial frenzy of bokeh busting shots have been made? They are big and heavy (at least in the RF world).

I would... it's actually not as heavy and big as it seems. Mounted on the RF body, it's actually well balanced and good to shoot with.

 

[Krosya]

I just wonder how many people actually use these lenses after the initial frenzy of bokeh busting shots have been made? They are big and heavy (at least in the RF world).

Well, I have a CV 35/1.2 - also not a small lens for rf, yet it remains one of my most used lenses. size and weight dont bother me at all with it.