Jump to content

MS Optical Sonnetar MC f1.1 V Noctilux V1 f1


jaques

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

this test is first day playaround stuff. Images RAW straight from the camera with no changes: noctilux at f1 and sonnetar at f1.1.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

crops:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm—would you mind telling us which is which ... or are we supposed to take guesses?

 

And, by the way, "raw straight from the camera with no changes" is a concept that does not exist. Your pictures shown here are not raw, they're not straight from the camera, and they're not without changes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that smug, patronising and completely unnecessary correction o1af...:confused: I really appreciate it...:rolleyes:

 

I think it goes without saying that you actually understood what I meant by 'raw without changes'?

 

Just in case you didn't: I meant I shot in RAW (not JPEG) and did not adjust anything before outputting these obviously not RAW and obviously downsized jpegs. :eek: more clear for you?

 

the first of each image is the noctilux one- which I think/thought should have been easy to guess? And if it wasn't easy to guess: I actually named each image according to the lens used and said 'noctilux and sonnetar' in the opening post- in that order- the same order as the images...

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think it goes without saying that you actually understood what I meant by 'raw without changes'?

No, it doesn't. I think I understand what you meant ... but I don't know it.

 

 

I meant I shot in raw (not JPEG) and did not adjust anything before outputting these obviously not raw and obviously downsized JPEGS. :eek: more clear for you?

Yes, more clear now, thanks. Still meaningless, as you still don't tell us which raw converter you're using and what your defaults are. After all, it's impossible to "not adjust anything." Obviously you simply relied on your raw converter (whatever that was) to pick adequate adjustments for you by default.

 

I am insisting because I feel it's important, generally, to understand that using a raw converter's default settings is not (repeat: NOT) the equivalent of "not adjusting anything". Unfortunately, people keep using this utterly wrong notion. Rather than saying, "not adjusted anything", you might say, "using Lightroom's (or whatever's) default settings", and things would be perfectly clear and unambiguous.

 

 

The first of each image is the Noctilux one—which I think/thought should have been easy to guess?

It's not how easy it was to guess. It's that you forced your audience to guess in the first place.

 

Anyway—glad to hear the first is the Noctilux. That's what I hoped for. The order of names in the thread's caption suggests otherwise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

cheers- no worries Paul. For now I have only had the lens for a few days and one chance to try it out. My example is #127. The lens is amazingly small and light for a very fast lens. I wasn't expecting much of a contest between it and the Noct but actually for what it is it stands up on it's own I think.

 

The lens is quirky (no aperture stops and when you change aperture focus will change as well, etc) but the functions are very smooth, the quirks workable, the glass and aperture blades look superb, focusing is great, my example seems to be well calibrated out of the box: short focus throw but feels precise, and there is a small focusing 'lever' that works well. The hood doesn't cut off much of the view through the finder. The alloy body certainly doesn't have the feeling of a brass lens- but it doesn't feel crumby either and it looks great on the camera.

 

01af: from a purely pedantic point of view I guess most of what you wrote is quite correct ;-)

 

Here are a few quick snaps from the first 20 shots- all wide open:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

01af: Sherlock Holmes you are not. For someone so versed in the finer points of RAW conversion semantics surely you are aware of another thing called metadata?

 

of course- the noctilux is unsurprisingly superior in the out of focus areas.. however for what it is I think this lens is pretty good. Size wise it is a marvel: this alone is a reaosn to buy the lens if you ask me. Sure the bokeh may be somewhat noisy at f.1.1 - but at least I might actually have the lens with me! Size matters (to me) and the Noctilux is just too big to get taken on many occasions...

 

Also I think in those indoor low light images above where there are no/few highlights in the backgrounds the bokeh is not so bad. sharpness and ease of focusing wise it does compete with the noctilux and is easier (for me) to focus. I also haven't changed the coma setting (?) in these shots... I think it is set on 2 meters...

Edited by jaques
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this comparison seems to show just HOW difficult it is to design an overall good lens of this specification. While the Sonnetar may be be better in some respect (e.g. center sharpness at full aperture), it does not seem to be as well balanced as the Noctilux (which by the way is a much, much older computation). Dare I say that the bokeh of the Sonnetar is downright awful? And its color rendition seems to be on the cool side. Still, given the difficulties in designing such a lens, the result is respectable.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

the Sonnetar has to have some of the most chaotic, disrupting bokeh i've ever seen. Instead of putting things in the background, the strength of the bokeh is almost distracting from the areas in focus. Not digging it at all.

 

thanks for the comparison! nice to see a direct one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...