Ro1and Posted November 19, 2009 Share #61 Posted November 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oh, c'mon guys?Any comment? Was that useless? Thank you very much for the posts. To me the boken seemed most natural when each lens was one stop down, F1.4 for the Noctilux and F2 for the Summilux. When wider each showed the lights as football (American) shapped. After that the shapes started to look like stars. For my eyes round light is more pleasing, therefore from my pespective the Nocilux wins the 1.4 contest. thanks again Roland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Hi Ro1and, Take a look here Noct @ f/1.4 = Lux ASPH @ f/1.4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mauribix Posted November 19, 2009 Share #62 Posted November 19, 2009 Hi guys, you're all welcome and I'm glad you appreciated for different reasons each lens. Actually I love Nocti's bokeh the most (at night). Nothing wrong with the lux, but the nocti is really different from all the rest @night. I can see the "disturbing" star shaped dots with both lenses, I guess they're more visible with the lux because of its "corrected" character and sharpness. The nocti's aberrations IMHO tend to "hide" the star shape, but that's still there. Next time I'll try to make some bokeh comparisons during the day. I know that the lux should shine there, while the aberrations of the nocti may be quite difficult to control. I'm anyway sure that the nocti's not to be "buried", it could show some (good) surprises. After all of this, I hope I'll find which one to keep (since I have to leave one of them)! Ciao, maurizio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheewai_m6 Posted November 19, 2009 Share #63 Posted November 19, 2009 Maurizio thanks for doing those tests. they're not scientific and that's good. i'm more interested in actual everyday results. who cares about science when you're after a certain 'look'. they're perfect for what i wanted to know. scientific tests bore me and i don't read them. your's were exactly what i was after. thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted November 19, 2009 Share #64 Posted November 19, 2009 Maurizio thanks for doing those tests. they're not scientific and that's good. i'm more interested in actual everyday results. who cares about science when you're after a certain 'look'. they're perfect for what i wanted to know. scientific tests bore me and i don't read them. your's were exactly what i was after. thanks. Embarassing! Thank you dear! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share #65 Posted November 19, 2009 Thanks for posting this- I do know the Nocti wide open isnt supersharp but I have the feeling that those Nocti images could be slightly OOF?Other than that I am surprized that the bokeh does look so much alike That's exactly my point. In my years of using the old Noct/1.0 and the the few years with the Lux 50mm, I find it quite a challenge to accurately get the focus correct in this type of lighting. Out of the 4 images you posted, I think only 1 is close to the correct focus. Anyone know of any tips to improve this challenge? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnitak Posted November 20, 2009 Share #66 Posted November 20, 2009 That's exactly my point. In my years of using the old Noct/1.0 and the the few years with the Lux 50mm, I find it quite a challenge to accurately get the focus correct in this type of lighting. Out of the 4 images you posted, I think only 1 is close to the correct focus. Anyone know of any tips to improve this challenge? Eat lots of carrots? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted November 20, 2009 Share #67 Posted November 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Eat lots of carrots? Sure, just buy a magnifier while you do so! Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted November 21, 2009 Share #68 Posted November 21, 2009 Eat lots of carrots? Or freeze tge subject as well! I hate moving models! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel Holland Posted November 21, 2009 Share #69 Posted November 21, 2009 Wait - so slow shutter speed reveals that rain drops fall in wriggly lines.? . Slow shutter speed, pulsed lighting from the floursecent lighting plus the stepping effect caused by pixelation caused the wriggly effect. Looks real weird but it's reality for rain photographed under the conditions shown in the image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted November 21, 2009 Share #70 Posted November 21, 2009 I'm open to the idea that at the right temperature and velocity a raindrop could oscillate, being a deformable liquid falling through another 'liquid'. Yes, this might be as far off-topic as one can take a photographic thread! Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.