ldhrads Posted March 19, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 19, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I own what I consider an exceptional version of the Canon 0.95 "Dream Lens". Beautifully converted to M mount, No fungus, haze, or cleaning marks. The lens focuses amazingly nicely. Over last weekend I happened to be in West Palm Beach and went in to the relatively new Leica Store there. I was looking to "touch" a M9 but they didn't have one. What they did have was an exceptional selection of lenses including a Noctilux 0.95 that had been there only 2 days. They were very happy to let me mount it and take a bunch of shots in the store. I mentioned that I had the Canon and quickly took a couple of back to back shots with the Noctilux vs the Canon. Below are two of the shots, the first is with the Canon 0.95 the second is with the Noctilux. Both were printed immediately at the shop on 5x7 glossy. At least in this setting, there was not a huge difference in IQ. At least in my opinion, The guys in the shop took turns guessing which shot was from which lens and it was hit or miss. In the end, I walked out with a new Noctilux and an incredulous wife!!! The Canon goes up for sale at this point, any one interested please PM me... Please note that the Canon had the UV/IR filter, the Leica did not at the time these shots were taken. Canon 0.95 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! Noctilux 0.95 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Noctilux 0.95 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/115852-noctilux-095-vs-canon-095/?do=findComment&comment=1265506'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 19, 2010 Posted March 19, 2010 Hi ldhrads, Take a look here Noctilux 0.95 vs. Canon 0.95. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
twolniewicz Posted March 19, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 19, 2010 Do you have 100% crops? Would like to see that comparison with the lenses also stepped down... How much for the canon on a side note? T. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustafasoleiman Posted March 21, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 21, 2010 well it's obvious which one the lady prefers.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhrads Posted March 21, 2010 Author Share #4 Posted March 21, 2010 Smiling, yes Happy, Cause I'm happy!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redridge Posted March 21, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 21, 2010 both looks great..... Im sure the lux cost alot more though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photoshutter Posted March 21, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 21, 2010 I like Canon, especially color. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 21, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 21, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm not sure I fully understand. You try a lens, find the results not significantly different from the lens you already have, therefore buy the lens and put the older one up for sale. No wonder the blokes in the shop were happy for you to try it out. Incidentally, your camera looks like it might be suffering from a bit of front focus (unless you chose to focus on your subject's fringe rather than her eyes). My first M9 was the same and had to go back to Solms to have the rangefinder properly calibrated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted March 21, 2010 Share #8 Posted March 21, 2010 If i could choose one of both lenses without prior knowledge just based on your 2 sample pictures i would take the Canon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted March 21, 2010 Share #9 Posted March 21, 2010 If i could choose one of both lenses without prior knowledge just based on your 2 sample pictures i would take the Canon Fully agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted March 21, 2010 Share #10 Posted March 21, 2010 to be honest neither of these images would inspire me to buy either....don't think any conclusions can be made... personally I have a Nocti 1.0 but prefer my Old Lux 1.4 for everyday use. andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 21, 2010 Share #11 Posted March 21, 2010 The Canon image is the most appealing in my view also. I'm still waiting for mine to be converted, but as the process has taken almost a year so far, I've been looking at alternatives - where did you get yours converted? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhrads Posted March 21, 2010 Author Share #12 Posted March 21, 2010 Flame me all you want for spending the money, I'm happy with the noctilux. I may not be a professional, but I have a passion for photography and fortunately the means. I wont be buying another any time soon!!! but I look at it as an investment that should last me a more than a few years of pleasure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 21, 2010 Share #13 Posted March 21, 2010 Hard to say. The color balance on the second one is off (IR mauve!) and both images seem to be focussed in front of the eyes. An IR filter would have given the Noctilux the edge in microcontrast and sharpness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinkfloyd Posted March 22, 2010 Share #14 Posted March 22, 2010 Some criticize the color of the Noctilux and favor the Canon, they probably didn't read the part about not having a UV/IR filter on it (the Noct)... Personally, I favor the Canon because I don't have the money for the Noct! (Though I don't have the money for the Canon either, so I'm settling with my Canon 50/1.2 in the meantime). Good on ya LDH! I will soon have my own Noctilux... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhrads Posted March 22, 2010 Author Share #15 Posted March 22, 2010 True about the focus Jaap, I've been in the habit of focusing on the nose, or my wife"s "fringe" or "bangs" as we call them here. I'll have to practice more focusing on the eyes rather than the nose. With this narrow depth of field, when the nose is in focus, the eyes aren't and I realize that's distracting. I' newly returned to rangefinder work after 30 years or more with an SLR. The last rangefinder I had prior to a year ago was my fathers Kodak Retina IIIc that he bought in 1956. And you and Franz are both correct, the noctilux didn't have the uv/ir filter. In fact, in the original photos the magenta cast is much more pronounced than in these. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 22, 2010 Share #16 Posted March 22, 2010 Seems to be an undercurrent in the last few comments that it's simply good old envy that makes people say they prefer the Canon shot. Just for the record - I have a Noctilux myself (not the 0,95) and also the Canon 1,2 as it happens. As I said, Im also waiting for my Canon 0,95 to be converted. I wasn't commenting the color either, for that matter. I simply preferred the look of the Canon shot - particularly the OOF areas. If someone posts these images, then others are naturally going to have an opinion - no need to get defensive about spending choices if everyone else doesn't fall obediently into line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhrads Posted March 22, 2010 Author Share #17 Posted March 22, 2010 Honestly, I've always appreciated the images from the Canon, they are very warm. I took a series of Pow Wow fotos this weekend with the noctilux, they're in the people section. I couldn't be happier with them or the lens. It's all personal preference at this point!!. As far as the conversion, I bought it that way, a guy in the pacific northwest as far as I remember. L Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twolniewicz Posted March 22, 2010 Share #18 Posted March 22, 2010 With the shallow DOF it becomes difficult to focus properly and a completely different technique needs to be applied. Adjusting the focus on the lens becomes next to impossible. The best approach I found with my old Canon 50mm f/1.2L on the 5D was to get the focus in the ballpark, then lean back and forth to get the focus just right due to the DOF. We're talking about one inch forward and one inch back. The DOF is incredibly shallow. It becomes even more difficult if the subject is not stationary. In other words its very hard to shoot, but once you get a hang of it the results can be quite dramatic. here's one example: T. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.