thirdwheel Posted December 10, 2009 Share #41 Posted December 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you can afford it, and want it, buy it! It's pointless to rationalise these things. I do not have the 0.95 Noctilux, but bought the E60 version, and remain very very happy with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Hi thirdwheel, Take a look here Justifying the 0.95 Noctilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stevem7 Posted December 10, 2009 Share #42 Posted December 10, 2009 Interesting review Steve. I prefer your images from the older F/1 Noctilux. I'm not a super-shallow DOF fan, but the older Noctilux images have more character than the more well-behaved F/0.95 version, though obviously the latter is a technically superior lens. For me it seems like a 50 'Lux Asph and an F/1 Noctilux would give you the best of both worlds--modern quality and a classic look. That would be my choice if I had the cash. I don't shoot much with a 50 though, so I'll probably just keep my 50 'Lux Pre-Asph, which also has a lot of character. Larryk34--I think you'll find the 50 'Lux Pre-Asph has a bit more of the old Leica look and is closer to the old Noctilux. I loved it on the M8 and have only briefly tried it on the M9, but I like what I've seen so far. I think it will be an amazing combination. Hey Noah, I agree that the 50 Lux ASPH and old Nocti would make for a GREAT combo and would cover just about any need. Thanks for the comments and your thoughts. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Fines Posted December 10, 2009 Share #43 Posted December 10, 2009 Sorry to break it to you, but once you've asked the 'justification' question it's too late. Might as well go ahead and buy it and be done with the angst. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted December 10, 2009 Share #44 Posted December 10, 2009 Jeez, Steve, I just posted this comment on your site: "No fair! It's not fair to post pictures like this using a $10,000 lens! I guess I better start saving my lunch money..." Sigh. Great review. No wonder Leica sent it to you: you're their best salesman ever. Cheers, JB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted December 10, 2009 Share #45 Posted December 10, 2009 Jeez, Steve, I just posted this comment on your site: "No fair! It's not fair to post pictures like this using a $10,000 lens! I guess I better start saving my lunch money..." Sigh. Great review. No wonder Leica sent it to you: you're their best salesman ever. Cheers, JB To Steve's credit, I think the pictures would have looked just as good with the Voigtlander 1.1, old Nocti or even a 60mm Hex 1.2. The incremental performance of the 0.95 does not justify a €5'000-7'000 price difference, unless of course this represents a slight % of your annual expenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted December 10, 2009 Share #46 Posted December 10, 2009 I hear what you are saying, yanidel. The Nokton is a very, very good lens. And that's before one even considers the price. With that in mind it's hard to justify the extra cost of the new or old Noctilux. But there are some subtle differences between how the lenses draw. There is a difference in focus fall-off, micro-contrast and color (whether that makes the Nokton lens 90%, 95% or 100% as good as the Noctilux is infinitely debatable by the eye of the individual user). For many, especially those who are primarily stop-down shooters, live in a climate with bright sunlight, rely on flash or have girly arms it's an easy choice. For others, not so much. Kurt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokkacream Posted December 11, 2009 Share #47 Posted December 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I tried the Noctilux 0.95 and I definitely do prefer the actual 50 summilux. For me, the 50 summilux is much more useful with its magical bokeh, smaller size, less weight, much lower price (I could buy another M9 body for the difference in price). It is a very relaxing feeling, that having tested the Noctilux has convinced me, that I do not need it. You know, if you have a lot of money, which probably saves you from thinking about if you could afford whatever you wish to have, you could buy the Noctilux and use it for the little suitable situations, where it succeeds the properties of the 50 summilux. Otherwise, if you know, that you really need the optical properties of the Noctilux, it makes sense, buying it. Apart from being faster it is also thought to lengthen certain men's sensible parts. Some need that also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokkacream Posted December 11, 2009 Share #48 Posted December 11, 2009 In case anyone wants more samples from the new Noctilux, I just posted my "real world" review of the .95 Noct and also have some comparisons with the F1 Noct. Is this a photo, which has been made with f/0.95??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted December 11, 2009 Share #49 Posted December 11, 2009 Is this a photo, which has been made with f/0.95??? Yes, wide open as well. Here are a couple more: I have 30+ in my review of the lens. I was shocked at how many keepers I had shooting street wide open with this lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokkacream Posted December 11, 2009 Share #50 Posted December 11, 2009 Yes, wide open as well. Here are a couple more: I have 30+ in my review of the lens. I was shocked at how many keepers I had shooting street wide open with this lens. Unbelievable. Love them. Very well done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spersky Posted December 11, 2009 Share #51 Posted December 11, 2009 Steve, That was a really great review on your website. It was most enjoyable. Amazing results with that lens. thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted December 11, 2009 Share #52 Posted December 11, 2009 Thanks guys! Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahl Posted December 11, 2009 Share #53 Posted December 11, 2009 If you are trying to justify the purchase to yourself you seem to have already achieved this state of calm acceptance. I have 3 degrees of guilt when buying Leica: 1 Moan when I see the credit card statement 2 Mild regret when I am on the way home with my new goody 3 Panic when I am actually signing the credit card slip If you are trying to justify the 0.95 to your other half you just can't they will never understand your need for it. The decision should depend on whether you actually need it; but I admit that reason has not always been my guiding light when lusting after Leica gear. I shoot singers in a dark club and have found the Nocti 1.0 difficult to focus because of slight movement from the singers and because of the long throw of the focusing helicoid needed to improve accuracy, slows me down. I get better results with the 1.4 Lux. If I where faced with the choice you describe I would keep the D3 for macro and telephoto use and get the 1.4 or even a secondhand 1.0. Will selling the Nikon outfit actually make that much difference to your finances or is this part of your attonement for buying the 0.95 ? Will the pain of the Nikin loss reduce the guilt? If you can buy without depriving your loved ones why not just go for it.You will get a lot of pleasure from using the lens,it will stimulate your photography and you will probably get your money back in the future if you have to sell. Sorry I could not come up with a definitive answer but we have all been down this road and I will bet all feel rather guilty of the amounts we have spent. Let us know what you decide and show us the results. Alain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted December 11, 2009 Share #54 Posted December 11, 2009 This isn't meant as a critique of Steve's photos posted here, it's meant as a general statement. Is it me or do lenses shot with these ultra-fast lenses wide-open on digital look very plasticky and fake? I really don't like this look, am I the only one? Everyone seems to go nuts over bokeh but at least in some cases it seems to me like a way to make boring or poorly-composed photographs look decent. It's like instead of carefully choosing and composing the elements within a frame, photographers just open up the lens and blur the background out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAN Posted December 11, 2009 Share #55 Posted December 11, 2009 Just in case you another reason to make the .95 leap...an imminent price increase that will place this baby in the 12K range Act now and save 2 thousand dollars!!! What better incentive than that ......Saving Money! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 11, 2009 Share #56 Posted December 11, 2009 Everyone seems to go nuts over bokeh but at least in some cases it seems to me like a way to make boring or poorly-composed photographs look decent. It's like instead of carefully choosing and composing the elements within a frame, photographers just open up the lens and blur the background out. I agree but that's not to say I don't find some of these wide-open snaps interesting or atmospheric. Lenses like the Noctilux are one of the few instances where the equipment can make a meaningful difference. An otherwise unremarkable composition or street scene will look just like that - unremarkable - if shot at F5.6. However, when shot at F1, the result can (though not always) be quite interesting. I guess that's why well off amateurs are drawn to the ultra fast lenses - it's a fairly lazy (though far from foolproof) way of achieving results that (at least at first sight) look quite compelling. I guess the Noctilux is, in many ways, a rich man's Holga or SX-70. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted December 11, 2009 Share #57 Posted December 11, 2009 This isn't meant as a critique of Steve's photos posted here, it's meant as a general statement. Is it me or do lenses shot with these ultra-fast lenses wide-open on digital look very plasticky and fake? I really don't like this look, am I the only one? Everyone seems to go nuts over bokeh but at least in some cases it seems to me like a way to make boring or poorly-composed photographs look decent. It's like instead of carefully choosing and composing the elements within a frame, photographers just open up the lens and blur the background out. Noah - it's a philosophical question, and maybe another thread should be opened on it. For me, I love shooting with selective focus and a narrow depth of field, really for two reasons. The first is because Leica lenses are so good at it. The second because -- far from being implemented to justify poor composition -- I think when done well it actually creates a level of compositional artistry. It is hard to do well, but when done well, pleasing. I worry that when overdoing it (as no doubt I do, as I shoot wide open a lot) you become a one-trick pony. Having said that -- and this is just an aesthetic disagreement -- I actually quite love the authentic bokeh made possible by fast lenses (as opposed to the artificiality of a LensBaby image.) You've asked a really good question. I'm in the love-Bokeh camp. And when looking at photos like Steve's with the new Noct, I think the artistry is quite high. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 11, 2009 Share #58 Posted December 11, 2009 This is an interesting photo. Has a whiff of Philip-Lorca diCorcia about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted December 11, 2009 Share #59 Posted December 11, 2009 ...I think when done well it actually creates a level of compositional artistry. It is hard to do well, but when done well, pleasing. True. I'm definitely not saying it can't be used well, just that people seem to obsess over it. This being a technical forum it makes sense that there isn't more talk of pleasing, well-composed in-focus backgrounds:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted December 11, 2009 Share #60 Posted December 11, 2009 Noah, I think that you bring up an excellent philosophical question ... what does shallow depth of field mean to you? (Rhetorically speaking of course.) Here's my take. From a photojournalistic point of view, shallow depth of field may actually take away from a story. De-emphasizing the background removes context. For those looking for as much information as they can take away from a photo (landscape, news, etc.) blurring the background might very well subtract vital elements from the window into that moment. To me, deeper depth of field seems to be an attempt by the photographer to provide a defined perspective of that context or to answer questions. A shallow depth of field photo, when constructed without gimmick, strikes me differently. It pulls at my emotions first. I am pointed to a person, place or thing that has been separated from the background for a purpose. I see a smile, an object, a body position or tree that the photographer wishes me to focus on. Background context is still important, but it may provide more of a color wash or hint of motion that provides an emotional landscape. For me, shallower depth of field seems to be an attempt by the photographer to provide a more directed perspective in order to convey emotion or to ask questions. Kurt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.