worth buying a Low contrast lens for night photos?

[bene]

My dealer has one1st gen cron for around 800 usd. very clean. not sure if i should get it.
Noctilux F1 or 0.95? I am quite keen on it to replace my nokton

Anyway does anyone know how this shot was made? and how to recreate this.

 

[Tim Gray]

Looks like fog to me.

 

[Wuddy]

I think the most important part is the fog 🙂

 

[ferider]

I let the Lab do the developing. dont plan to learn the dark room. saving and preparing for the M9. will check out Xenon 1.5 =) thanks RFF rocks

I'm new to this, since I started developing only two weeks ago (8 rolls so far).

But if you do B+W, only want negatives and don't print, developing is easy; you don't need a dark room, and have much more control on contrast, etc., then by picking another lens.

And it will save you money for your M9, compared to the lab.


Coming back to your question, the first rigid Summicron is nice and very sharp, a bit flarey, and low contrast - might also give you what you are looking for.

 

[Calzone]

But if you do B+W, only want negatives and don't print, developing is easy; you don't need a dark room, and have much more control on contrast, etc., then by picking another lens.

And it will save you money for your M9, compared to the lab.


Coming back to your question, the first rigid Summicron is nice and very sharp, a bit flarey, and low contrast - might also give you what you are looking for.

Decades ago I use to print a lot. Currently I am without a darkroom, but I develope film using a changing bag. Recently developed 12 rolls in an afternoon (4 roll Stainless steel tank).

I shoot HP5 at 650 and use diluted developement with extended times to soften the contrast. In the process I get nice fine grain.

Although the M9 is a hot camera for shooting in low light, I'm not sure if its the ultimate for B&W low light. Film even without wet printing should be considered more carefully.

The Rigid Cron I mentioned above I recently bought for $499.00 with caps. Add on $49.00 for a 50/2.8 Elmar hood that allows use of the cool original retro Leica metal lens cap. Do not use a filter with this hood or vinetting will occur. I was lucky to get a rare Rigid with clean glass that was likely/recently CLAed.

The OOF transition is smooth. Wide open at F2.0 the center is sharper than the corners. At 2.8 the effect is less. At F4 it is laser sharp. At wider f-stops it is a great portrait lens, but it is heavy and the build quality is very German (overbuilt). Please do not interpete the soft corners to mean that a Rigid is a soft focus lens. It is a extreamely sharp lens, but the flare is not very predictable and is full of surprises. Not sure if this is what you are looking for. For B&W I highly recomend this lens, especially one with clean glass. Classic retro look in B&W.

The 75 Lux I mentioned because, although not low contrast or inexpensive, it was made and designed to deal with harsh/extreame contrast just like the Noctilux. In many ways it is a deriverative that evolved from the Noctilux. There is no reason to own both.

Calzone

 

[ferider]

The Rigid Cron I mentioned above I recently bought for $499.00 with caps. Add on $49.00 for a 50/2.8 Elmar hood that allows use of the cool original retro Leica metal lens cap. Do not use a filter with this hood or vinetting will occur. I was lucky to get a rare Rigid with clean glass that was likely/recently CLAed.

The OOF transition is smooth. Wide open at F2.0 the center is sharper than the corners. At 2.8 the effect is less. At F4 it is laser sharp. At wider f-stops it is a great portrait lens, but it is heavy and the build quality is very German (overbuilt). Please do not interpete the soft corners to mean that a Rigid is a soft focus lens. It is a extreamely sharp lens, but the flare is not very predictable and is full of surprises. Not sure if this is what you are looking for. For B&W I highly recomend this lens, especially one with clean glass. Classic retro look in B&W.

The 75 Lux I mentioned because, although not low contrast or inexpensive, it was made and designed to deal with harsh/extreame contrast just like the Noctilux. In many ways it is a deriverative that evolved from the Noctilux. There is no reason to own both.

Calzone

Agreed on all fronts. Except the following remark:

The 75/1.4 is a lens diagram copy of the v2 pre-asph 50/1.4. And shares the same features: made for journalism type low-light applications, sharper at infinity than close up, very flare and coma resistant, weaker performance close up and personal. The Noctilux is a bit different, mostly in that it distorts more.

I do own DR Summicron, v2 50/1.4 and 75/1.4. Of all 3, the DR has the smoothest OOF, and lower contrast than the other two. But I never felt a Noctilux was necessary, owning the 75.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

Like others have mentioned before, developing yourself gives the option to choose a developer that can give lower contrast. I do just that with higher dilutions of Rodinal.

 

[sevo]

Anyway does anyone know how this shot was made? and how to recreate this.

Find park, get all necessary permits, replace modern street lighting with 30's vintage lamps (even if the old posts are still there, they will contain modern light sources), hire a oldtimer, wait for perfect foggy weather. Place camera, drive prop to appropriate spot. Shoot.

The camera is almost of no consequence - other than that it will probably have had a nice contrasty lens... 😉

 

[Calzone]

Agreed on all fronts. Except the following remark:

The 75/1.4 is a lens diagram copy of the v2 pre-asph 50/1.4. And shares the same features: made for journalism type low-light applications, sharper at infinity than close up, very flare and coma resistant, weaker performance close up and personal. The Noctilux is a bit different, mostly in that it distorts more.

I do own DR Summicron, v2 50/1.4 and 75/1.4. Of all 3, the DR has the smoothest OOF, and lower contrast than the other two. But I never felt a Noctilux was necessary, owning the 75.

Cheers,

Roland.

Thanks Roland for the clarification. I was going on or perhaps exaggerating that Dr. Mandler's built on some of his developements that helped create the Noctilux. I understand the same glass that was developed for the Noctilux was utilized in the 75 Lux.

I too find I have no need for a Noctilux. I also want to point out and thank you. Your posts and threads have helped me greatly. You are instrumental in me getting a 75 Lux. It was just a little over a year ago, during the credit crisis when I bought my Lux in great condition at a great price.

I have a roll of HP5 at 400 shot under the most harsh/extreame lighting. It was in an art gallery photographing a jazz trio playing on a balconey, shooting almost directly into spotlights. I had to shoot at 1/30 wide open while leaning against a wall to help steady myself. So far the negitives look amazing. I'll see if I can print 11x14's when I get to having a darkroom.

Thanks again Roland!!!