50mm Noctilux f/1 or 50mm Summilux ASPH both $3500, which one?

[leicashot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is an interesting quote amd I agree. Most Nocti pictures I have seen could be titled "guy walking in the street" and rely almost 100% on the blur and signature of the lens.

Yet, I do believe you can do story telling with these lenses and wrap them in the great atmosphere created wide open. My nocti is the 60mm Hexanon 1.2, because wide open it behaves like a mix of Nocti and 75 Lux (and is much smaller) and at F1.4 it is as sharp and contrasty then the 50mm Lux asph. So my answer to the OP, get an Hexanon

 

 

...and the image you are presenting has enough dof at that distance to tell enough of the story due to all the foreground elements as well. I have the Konica 50/1.2L and have bought/sold 3 Nocts in my time. I prefer the Konica for sure...though I wouldn't knock back the 0.95 if it was shoved into my hands.

[leicashot]

True. But don't overlook the fact that anyone photographing 50 years ago worked with fewer choices. If people had 1/8000 as a top shutter speed, rather than 1/1000, or in some cases 1/500, I wonder whether their styles might have explored the potential of wider apertures?

 

There is a simple answer for this. No

 

Throughout history and even in today's society picture editors have the same priorities - to tell a story with the images they chose for publication. I work with them every day, and the images they need images require content, not just an isolated subject. How often do you see images in the media with totally blurred out backgrounds? (besides sport) Imagine history shot with blurred backgrounds, that don't identify the surroundings correctly?

 

For me, shooting at max aperture for a blurred background is for the following reasons:

1. To wipe out distracting elements in backgrounds.

2. No choice in low light

3. Shooting a portrait for the blurred effect where background elements are not important.

 

From a news/documentary point of view the background is imperative to the story, and should be left with some kind of DOF/focus, allowing to place the subject within it's scene.

 

For amateurs, or hobbyists, it's totally acceptable to shoot at max aperture, but over time you may get bored of this too, as I did when I owned the Noct. You feel compelled to shoot at f/1 all the time and fail to make the best decisions for the photograph each time it's on the camera....but for those that only care to shoot this way, go right ahead and just enjoy the art.

Edited July 9, 2010 by leicashot

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[kidigital]

Leicashot, interesting argument.

 

My opinion would differ a bit, however, as I think a narrow dof aesthetic has crept into journalistic photos and commercial video over the past few years. It's stylistic and certainly doesn't work in all instances, but it does tend to provide more subject isolation to guide the eyes of viewers who have lesser attention spans. Narrow dof is also being used to add a layer of ambiguous emotion onto the top of images that can otherwise appear flat with too much dof. More arty, perhaps, but there are photographers who are using the look to differentiate their work from others.

 

For instance, check out the narrow depth of field photo by Ayman Oghanna on the front of the New York Times today. There are several other shots within just the first section of the paper that effectively blur the foreground or background to isolate the subject in order to drive home a story.

 

Kurt

[leicashot]

Leicashot, interesting argument.

 

My opinion would differ a bit, however, as I think a narrow dof aesthetic has crept into journalistic photos and commercial video over the past few years. It's stylistic and certainly doesn't work in all instances, but it does tend to provide more subject isolation to guide the eyes of viewers who have lesser attention spans. Narrow dof is also being used to add a layer of ambiguous emotion onto the top of images that can otherwise appear flat with too much dof. More arty, perhaps, but there are photographers who are using the look to differentiate their work from others.

 

For instance, check out the narrow depth of field photo by Ayman Oghanna on the front of the New York Times today. There are several other shots within just the first section of the paper that effectively blur the foreground or background to isolate the subject in order to drive home a story.

 

Kurt

 

Without seeing the images its hard to tell but I would bet they were shot with a long lens, which usually have blurred backgrounds by compression and the backgrounds were probably irrelevant to the news story. Im more so referring to wide angle and 50mm use at wide apertures. Magnum photographers are referred to as being the best at documentary, and I rarely see these effects in their work.

 

Yes for motion the effect is nice refreshingly welcome change, but thats entirely different to documentary and it's requirement to show the surroundings of a subject, to some extent.

[ndjambrose]

There is a simple answer for this. No...

 

There's an even simpler answer: you're wrong. :-)

 

The thing is, you're focusing on an isolated medium - news. There's more than one kind of story. Try looking at magazines, especially lifestyle and editorial. It's very rare to find any image in a lifestyle context that doesn't use shallow depth of field as a compositional tool. It's a valid choice, and in many cases a far more appropriate one than one that depicts the entirety of the environment. Ditto fashion. Ditto shelter. Ditto food. Ditto most forms of product advertising. These are all stories: they have subject, audience, a message and the criteria for success is how well the photographer can communicate them. In most cases, disregarding the potential of selective focus would be grounds for failure.

Edited July 9, 2010 by ndjambrose

[leicashot]

There's an even simpler answer: you're wrong. :-)

 

The thing is, you're focusing on an isolated medium - news. There's more than one kind of story. Try looking at magazines, especially lifestyle and editorial. It's very rare to find any image in a lifestyle context that doesn't use shallow depth of field as a compositional tool. It's a valid choice, and in many cases a far more appropriate one than one that depicts the entirety of the environment. Ditto fashion. Ditto shelter. Ditto food. Ditto most forms of product advertising. These are all stories: they have subject, audience, a message and the criteria for success is how well the photographer can communicate them. In most cases, disregarding the potential of selective focus would be grounds for failure.

 

I am wrong? You're getting it all mixed up. I am not saying to use the opposite and shoot at f/16. I am saying that extreme use of ridiculously shallow depth of field (like f/1) has limited uses in editorial. Try shooting food or products at f/1. The picture editor will throw it away. Besides most product and food photography is shot at f/5.6-11 and still has shallow depth of field. I am referring specifically at the use of the Noctilux in an editorial sense.

 

While it has it's uses, it is limited in editorial publication as it is 'extreme'. Unfortunately the Noctilux and other similar lenses are used to turn a boring image into something interesting. This technique can be effective but doesn't exactly stand for 'superb' photography. Most of the time, people are more interested in how the background looks, how smooth it is, how crazy it looks etc etc. I'm sorry but I see way too many boring Noct images online that people are astounded by only because of the background, which happens to be out of focus.

 

Don't get me wrong. Used in it's right application, the Noct is a valuable piece of kit, but most of the time I don't see it being used in this way.

[ndjambrose]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fair enough. I agree an image that has nothing to it except for extremely narrow depth of field is a one trick pony. But I don't discount the fact that there are many photographic applications where limiting depth of field is important, and there are many occasions when f1 works extremely well. The noctilux is a specific tool that needs to be used judiciously. But, for those uses, it's pretty hard to find anything else quite like it. And don't forget, the extreme shallow f1 effect you're talking about only exists inside 1.5 meters; beyond that, the effective depth of field gets quite wide. At moderate distances, it's plenty wide enough to be useful, even at f1.

Edited July 9, 2010 by ndjambrose

[leicashot]

Fair enough. I agree an image that has nothing to it except for extremely narrow depth of field is a one trick pony. But I don't discount the fact that there are many photographic applications where limiting depth of field is important, and there are many occasions when f1 works extremely well. The noctilux is a specific tool that needs to be used judiciously. But, for those uses, it's pretty hard to find anything else quite like it. And don't forget, the extreme shallow f1 effect you're talking about only exists inside 1.5 meters; beyond that, the effective depth of field gets quite wide. At moderate distances, it's plenty wide enough to be useful, even at f1.

 

Ok, now we agree :-) Trust me, I shoot to isolate my subjects frequently, but do so according to the importance of the subject to background relevance. isolating to an extreme of f/1 does have it's limited purposes but if used effectively and in the right situation can provide great effect no doubt.

[zlatkob]

This has been a great discussion — one of the best threads I've read in a while! :)