massimom Posted December 26, 2009 Share #141 Â Posted December 26, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) At the other end of the spectrum, and for those who can't or don't want to spend $10K on a new lens, I have recently picked a clean Summar with the usual slight haze and it gives me a nice glow, softness, that is not unlike the Nocti. Obviously don't have that razor thin DOF but for the $125 that it cost me, I am surely enjoying it. Â The only thing I don't love about my f1 is the long focus throw, which takes a while to get comfortable with. It is one of those lenses that requires a fair amount of bonding with in order to take it to its full potential. Â This was taken with a 1936 Summar, some overhead lighting @ f2 and iso 400 (I think). Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 Hi massimom, Take a look here Justifying the 0.95 Noctilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bo_Lorentzen Posted December 26, 2009 Share #142  Posted December 26, 2009 I must say this is the most magical lens I have ever had the pleasure to own. I love the 50 'lux, but the way the Nocti draws is actually very different. Its got nothing to do with an extra stop here or there - its something I cannot describe.  The 0.95 is a no compromise lens with a price tag to match. I just wish it was 1/4 of the price tag so photographers who are infinitely more talented than I am could make the best use of this lens for all to see.  Googaliser  Googaliser,  Agree 100% - I would love to see that lens in the hands of a lot of people. I have not bought one so far, but picked up the Nokton 1.1, which is NOT a noct by any means, but it is fast, and I have seen a lot of cool stuff done with it. and like your noct, it renders differently even stopped down than other lenses. I like it and its constantly being used.  I have a theory about the noct rendering, there is something about the "glow" of even tack sharp fine details... the thought is that the enormous glass elements cause this, even when stopped down the light passes through more solid glass than any other 50mm, this have got to cause some modeling of the light... whatever it is, the results are spectacular. I feel that the nokton 1.1 deliver a lot of that, but I also see a definate different rendering from the .95 noct. to be honest I kind of like the nokt's dirtier render, but am pretty sure that, If I happen across a used .95 it is very likely to get snatched up.  Looking forward to more of your noct shots.  . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted December 27, 2009 Share #143 Â Posted December 27, 2009 I think its very easy to see what you want to see. This talk of the 0.95 rendering being unique even stopped down and the 1.1 Nokton being unique at smaller apertures etc. Really? Unique enough to select the 1.1 Nokton for f5.6 over something else? Â The 0.95 is darned fast, but would anyone really attempt to justify its uniqueness even at 1.4 and smaller, over say a 1.4 asph lux or pre asph further down the scale? If there are differences surely they are fairly academic? I dont own one and will stand corrected, but the new 0.95 looks like a very well behaved modern lens but with exceptionally neautral bokeh i.e like the 21 and 24 lux asphs and 24 3.8 with their super smooth bokeh compared to some other, earlier asphs. Â To get too excited about the 0.95 at 1.4 and beyond I think is straying into the territory of silliness considering the 1.4 lux asph at $6.5K less. The 0.95 is surely justified on the basis of what cannot be done with anything else and sheer desire. I'd be interested in seeing images (identical) from a tripod mounted camera with the 0.95 at 1.4 and the lusx asph at 1.4. I suspect any differences would be completely academic, but I could be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted December 27, 2009 Share #144 Â Posted December 27, 2009 To get too excited about the 0.95 at 1.4 and beyond I think is straying into the territory of silliness considering the 1.4 lux asph at $6.5K less. The 0.95 is surely justified on the basis of what cannot be done with anything else and sheer desire. I'd be interested in seeing images (identical) from a tripod mounted camera with the 0.95 at 1.4 and the lusx asph at 1.4. I suspect any differences would be completely academic, but I could be wrong. Â It's kind of pointless to compare these lenses at 1.4, yes? Â A few years back when I started shooting commercial jobs with a 5D and 85 1.2L, I readily noticed that in really low levels of light, the subtly of ambient fill sources came alive. Something as insignificant as a cigarette lighter's fleeting burst of light across the room made a much bigger difference in the way the subject looked than ever before. I suspect that a 58 1.2 Noct Nikkor on a D3S would really kick this effect up several notches as at this point, any one stop gain above ISO 6,400 makes a *tremendous* difference in how light paints across a scene in low light levels. For what it is worth, I rarely used the 85L at anything other than 1.2. Â So a .95 lens on the M9 at ISO 1,600 in this light should be quite a dramatic look as well. I have yet to see this effect in anyone's work to date, but I am sure in time it will surface. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted December 27, 2009 Share #145 Â Posted December 27, 2009 It's kind of pointless to compare these lenses at 1.4, yes? . Â Yes, thats precisely the point I was making in response to earlier posts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googaliser Posted December 27, 2009 Author Share #146  Posted December 27, 2009 I think its very easy to see what you want to see. This talk of the 0.95 rendering being unique even stopped down and the 1.1 Nokton being unique at smaller apertures etc. Really? Unique enough to select the 1.1 Nokton for f5.6 over something else? The 0.95 is darned fast, but would anyone really attempt to justify its uniqueness even at 1.4 and smaller, over say a 1.4 asph lux or pre asph further down the scale? If there are differences surely they are fairly academic? I dont own one and will stand corrected, but the new 0.95 looks like a very well behaved modern lens but with exceptionally neautral bokeh i.e like the 21 and 24 lux asphs and 24 3.8 with their super smooth bokeh compared to some other, earlier asphs.  To get too excited about the 0.95 at 1.4 and beyond I think is straying into the territory of silliness considering the 1.4 lux asph at $6.5K less. The 0.95 is surely justified on the basis of what cannot be done with anything else and sheer desire. I'd be interested in seeing images (identical) from a tripod mounted camera with the 0.95 at 1.4 and the lusx asph at 1.4. I suspect any differences would be completely academic, but I could be wrong.  Unfortunately, the only person who can balance this equation is you. If you so desire, shoot with both (although admittedly easier said than done at the moment) and figure out whether the 0.95 makes sense for you. Its highly subjective and there is both an emotional and large financial element in play too. The only thing I can say objectively is that it works for me. rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander †Posted December 27, 2009 Share #147  Posted December 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration)  … I'd be interested in seeing images (identical) from a tripod mounted camera with the 0.95 at 1.4 and the lusx asph at 1.4. I suspect any differences would be completely academic, but I could be wrong.  The results of these tests where published in LFI 5/2009 July (on an M8). There was little difference between the two lenses at F1.4.  Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimom Posted December 27, 2009 Share #148  Posted December 27, 2009 I think its very easy to see what you want to see. This talk of the 0.95 rendering being unique even stopped down and the 1.1 Nokton being unique at smaller apertures etc. Really? Unique enough to select the 1.1 Nokton for f5.6 over something else? The 0.95 is darned fast, but would anyone really attempt to justify its uniqueness even at 1.4 and smaller, over say a 1.4 asph lux or pre asph further down the scale? If there are differences surely they are fairly academic? I dont own one and will stand corrected, but the new 0.95 looks like a very well behaved modern lens but with exceptionally neautral bokeh i.e like the 21 and 24 lux asphs and 24 3.8 with their super smooth bokeh compared to some other, earlier asphs.  To get too excited about the 0.95 at 1.4 and beyond I think is straying into the territory of silliness considering the 1.4 lux asph at $6.5K less. The 0.95 is surely justified on the basis of what cannot be done with anything else and sheer desire. I'd be interested in seeing images (identical) from a tripod mounted camera with the 0.95 at 1.4 and the lusx asph at 1.4. I suspect any differences would be completely academic, but I could be wrong.  Like I said above, in my opinion, the f1 seems more justifiable because it's a "classic" lens in its softer, dreamy glow and how it paints edges. I did spend 10K but on a f1 Nocti and a 50mm Summilux and, in my view, it makes more sense. To mount the Noctilux as a "do it all lens" and use at anything past f2 makes little sense because it's a bulky lens that blocks a decent amount of viewfinder and with a long focus throw. Street-shooting with it is a challenge but it can give great results when you nail it. The 50 Summilux is a perfect lens and it could certainly be one's only, where both Noctilux are specialty lenses that draw you in with their wide open performance and unique look. To even compare those to other lenses at anything past f2 it really is academic and of no use to a practical photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted December 27, 2009 Share #149 Â Posted December 27, 2009 Yes, thats precisely the point I was making in response to earlier posts. Â It's kind of pointless to compare these lenses at 1.4, yes? Â Absolutely NOT POINTLESS! Â With all the people bashing the Noctilux because the 50 lux asph is so much smaller (not true) and so much bettetr at f1.4 (not true), I think a good comparison that shows the Noctilux to be as performing at f1.4 is a MUST. What's pointless in that? Â I don't know if some of you are like me, but I'm quite fed up by the internet myths being spread around and recuperated by other people, who are all clueless (mainly for not owning the said equipment and yet recommending it like they owned it). Spreading ignorance is not cool. Â Like the Lux Asph being too "clinical". Now there is the worst thing I ever read in my whole photographic life, next to the Noctilux critics. Just for the record, the 50mm summilux asph is a very special lens. It's sharp and contrasty but yet it is NOT "clinical" (man I hate that term). Besides its sharpness, it is very hard to distinguish from the old pre-asph in its general image rendition. But I own the asph and the noctilux, so I guess this disqualifies me, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted December 27, 2009 Share #150 Â Posted December 27, 2009 LOL NB23, Â YES clearly owning the lenses you are talking about definitely disqualifies you from knowing what you are talking about. Â Since the rest of us only can dream of such luxury, we can only assume you are blinded by being able to purchase these lenses while still alive and still able to actually lift them. Â BTW. cool shots on your website. Â . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted December 27, 2009 Share #151  Posted December 27, 2009 LOL NB23, YES clearly owning the lenses you are talking about definitely disqualifies you from knowing what you are talking about.  Since the rest of us only can dream of such luxury, we can only assume you are blinded by being able to purchase these lenses while still alive and still able to actually lift them.  BTW. cool shots on your website.  .  Thanks Bo. I'm far from being rich. And instead of buying a new car, I decided I'd stretch the old one a few years more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted December 27, 2009 Share #152 Â Posted December 27, 2009 NB23, Â HA.. that is even worse, you "claim" to be a normal bloke who was smart enough to balance your budget and buy what you wanted.. we all know that then you clearly must be stretched and are now desperately justifying your purchase... dude, you can't win, its the curse of owning anything leica, Somebody somewhere said "never admit to owning anything more expensive than a used 35mm cron". Im starting to think that is good advise. Â Besides, I DO believe you and do agree, there is meaningful reasons to use the new noct, and it do draw differently than a 50cron. But Im pretty sure the issue of actually being right is not the subject of the discussion. Â . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_m Posted December 28, 2009 Share #153 Â Posted December 28, 2009 Bo, I would like to think you are correct about the very large amount of glass in the Nocti 0.95 as one of the reasons it seems to create something extra but I do not know enough about optics. As I mentioned before the 2 ASPH elements may contribute as well. Â Â In regard to other recent comments, I have some thoughts that may be of interest based on a substantial amount of time using both the 50 1.4 ASPH and the Nocti 0.95. I also owned the last pre ASPH 50 1.4 before trading it for the lux ASPH. I have no experience with other 50 mm Leica lenses. I'm not a tech guy so the following are based on my unscientific observations and I could be wrong. These thoughts are just my opinion but I'm posting them because they could help someone figure out what is best for them. Thus,if you don't agree please don't trash me for trying to provide observations that may be helpful to some. Â The lux ASPH is the best lens for the money that I have ever used but it is still not cheap. It is easy to focus, has almost no flare, and is pretty darn small. Since it focuses down to 0.7M it is a great portrait lens when used on the M8. However, it can also be used for portraits on the M9 if one is willing to crop and I think the extra MP on the M9 allow for this. The lux ASPH is incredibly versatile -because of the above attributes and the fact that the IQ is consistently good from 1.4 on which was not the case with the pre ASPH 50 lux. Â The Nocti 0.95 is absurdly expensive and very heavy. It is clearly harder to focus than the lux ASPH. That large amount of glass can do magic but it also can throw weird bright images around an image when used at night with bright lights in the scene. It seems that this phenomenon is worse (or maybe even only seen) when the lens is used with filters. The Nocti 0.95 seems to have much more flare and chromatic aberration than the lux ASPH, when shot wide open, but this is likely to be unavoidable considering the large amount of glass The CA also improves as one stops down. If new to rangefinder photography I would not get the Nocti 0.95 as my first lens unless I was also very wealthy and prepared to be disappointed. And if money was really no issue for a newbie perhaps they should buy the 50 1.4 ASPH first and then "advance" to the Nocti 0.95 later after they get the hang of using a RF. Â However, after getting used to the Nocti 0.95, I find the shallow DOF, superb OOF areas and low light benefits of this lens to be unequivocally more amazing than any other lens I have used. I also agree with Googaliser that its too bad that more skilled photographers can not purchase one. The more this lens is used the easier it is to focus but focusing accurately at 0.95 definitely takes time to learn. Without having done any scientific tests, my subjective impression is that the Nocti 0.95 also performs better than the 50 f1.4 ASPH when stopped down to the f4 to f8 range. This "better" performance seems to be less at f1.4 to f 2.0 and may also be present at f2.8, but I'm not sure. The areas just out of focus and a bit beyond the just OOF zone seem to render better than the lux ASPH but it may not be a fair comparison since this is noticed most at 0.95. Â The Nocti 0.95 only focus down to 1M and this can definitely be a drawback when compared to the lux ASPH. But I think the Nocti 0.95 is at least as good as the lux ASPH from 1.4 down, and as stated above, it even seems to be better from about f4 to f8. Its great to do a shoot with so much versatility. Although I'm sure a Nocti 1.0 plus lux ASPH combo is a great set, going out with one lens (Nocti 0.95) clearly has its benefits. Â Â In my opinion, Steve Huff has it about right in his Nocti ASPH review when he states how great the new Nocti is. The Nocti 0.95 may or may not be worth the expense. However, digital M bodies will come and go (M9,M10, etc.) but the M mount will likely be around for a very long time. Perhaps the purchase might even turn out to be a good investment for those that are fortunate enough to be able to buy one. Since everyone on this forum wants Leica to survive, the more Noctis they sell the better it is for all of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted December 28, 2009 Share #154 Â Posted December 28, 2009 With all the people bashing the Noctilux because the 50 lux asph is so much smaller (not true) and so much bettetr at f1.4 (not true), I think a good comparison that shows the Noctilux to be as performing at f1.4 is a MUST. What's pointless in that? Â I was not bashing it, I have to make choices in my life, the Nocti I borrowed from my friend blocked the V/F too much for much of the work I would do with it. Besides, I spent my Nocti money on this, a much better investment for me: Â http://kodachromeproject.com/blog/archives/71 Â Come on Christian E, loan me a .95 and I will show you what I can do with it with Kodachrome 25...there will *never* be another chance for this to happen, ever.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googaliser Posted December 28, 2009 Author Share #155 Â Posted December 28, 2009 Dan, I think what you are doing is great. If I lived in the US, I would lend you the 0.95 without hesitation. Transatlantic is a bit more challenging though. Feel free to send me a PM if you don't get a local offer or if your travels take you to Europe at some point. Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted December 28, 2009 Share #156  Posted December 28, 2009 Noctilux?     nice photos =) u said u have 80 photos to upload. just hurry. =)  i think 4000$ for old nocti is not so expensive when i look at the new one.. well times are changing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted December 28, 2009 Share #157 Â Posted December 28, 2009 Â http://kodachromeproject.com/blog/archives/71 Â awesome Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartie Posted December 28, 2009 Share #158 Â Posted December 28, 2009 If you can afford a lens like this you don`t have to justify it to anyone,so if you got the cash buy it...you can`t take it with you. Â Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mah Posted March 27, 2010 Share #159 Â Posted March 27, 2010 M9+ Noctilux 0.95 samples: Â Good morning Chicago on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Noctilux version of The Lady of Peace at night on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Under the Lady blessing.. on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Deir Mar Takla (Monastery Saint Takla) on Flickr - Photo Sharing! M9 first week festivity! on Flickr - Photo Sharing! My niece Maria on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Midnight lightening... on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Maher on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Â Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted March 27, 2010 Share #160  Posted March 27, 2010 If you can afford a lens like this you don`t have to justify it to anyone,so if you got the cash buy it...you can`t take it with you. Andy  I'm considering "investing" in this lens too, it's difficult to put down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.