Photo challenge 50mm f/0.95 vs f/1.4

[ShotCapture]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you have access to both the 50mm f/0.95 noctilux-m ASPH, & 50mm f/1.4 summilux-m ASPH lenses, could you post photos taken by each of the same subject, taken wide open? 0.95 and 1.4. These shots would not be strictly direct comparison photos since the f stops would be different, but would compare the different looks possible. Your focus would need to be the same distance.

We've been discussing this on another post http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/148456-compress-not-compress.html and it would be nice to see comparison photos. Thanks.

Moderator please merge these posts if it is inapropriate to have started a new post.

[jagsiva]

2 sets from different angles. First pic in each is the Nocti, second the lux. Both about 1m. No processing, I adjusted exposure by 0.5 on all, converted in C15P.

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!

[ShotCapture]

Thanks. Just what I was hoping for. There is a visable difference that is much easier to compare with your photos.

Others out there. Can you send more?

[ShotCapture]

Also, as more photos arrive, what do others think about what you see in terms of DOF, ect. between the two lenses?

[lars_bergquist]

As should be obvious, the background is somewhat less unsharp at 1.4 than at 0.95 -- because depth of field is less at 0.95. Those old tiresome laws of physics, you know.

 

So, how pictorially all-important is that marginal increase in background unsharpness? My guess (but it is supported by a mounting mountain of evidence) is that if you see the picture, you can get it with a Summilux, and if it isn't there, or you can't see it, a Nocti won't help you. Remains the bling factor.

 

True, no boring picture can be made less boring by being made sharper -- but also no boring picture can be made less boring by being made less sharp.

 

The old man from the Age of Non-Boring Photography

[fotolebrocq]

As should be obvious, the background is somewhat less unsharp at 1.4 than at 0.95 -- because depth of field is less at 0.95. Those old tiresome laws of physics, you know.

 

So, how pictorially all-important is that marginal increase in background unsharpness? My guess (but it is supported by a mounting mountain of evidence) is that if you see the picture, you can get it with a Summilux, and if it isn't there, or you can't see it, a Nocti won't help you. Remains the bling factor.

 

True, no boring picture can be made less boring by being made sharper -- but also no boring picture can be made less boring by being made less sharp.

 

The old man from the Age of Non-Boring Photography

 

Interesting point Lars. Do you think the same applies to the differences between the 35 cron and 35 lux? That is, would it really be worth the upgrade?

 

Tony

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As should be obvious, the background is somewhat less unsharp at 1.4 than at 0.95 -- because depth of field is less at 0.95. Those old tiresome laws of physics, you know.

 

So, how pictorially all-important is that marginal increase in background unsharpness? My guess (but it is supported by a mounting mountain of evidence) is that if you see the picture, you can get it with a Summilux, and if it isn't there, or you can't see it, a Nocti won't help you. Remains the bling factor.

 

True, no boring picture can be made less boring by being made sharper -- but also no boring picture can be made less boring by being made less sharp.

 

The old man from the Age of Non-Boring Photography

 

Huh?

 

What "Mounting mountain of evidence"? I see mole-hills of circular rhetoric, but no towering mountain in sight : -)

 

The M8/M8.2/M9 cameras are not the best high ISO, low-light machines out there, therefore it seems reasonable that the more light gathering power the better for certain shooting conditions (that pesky law of shutter-speed physics at work again) ... so, while you may be able to see it in the available light, you may not be able to hold it still enough.

 

Out-of-focus areas are a two sided story. Back unsharpness, and the much over-looked front unsharpness ... both of which add to the subject isolation. The Nocti's are famous for this visual or pictorial trait.

 

The other snicker I get from these discussions is that they are punctuated by shots better done with a Macro. Who shoots flower close-ups with a rangefinder and 50mm lens that doesn't even focus very closely?

 

Bling? Perhaps, but personally I like my bling to weight less ... but it's the price you pay to walk on the dark side ... and still be able to take photos ... LOL!

 

-Marc

[M'Ate]

Huh? ... both of which add to the subject isolation. The Nocti's are famous for this visual or pictorial trait. ... LOL! -Marc

 

Agree completely with everything you say, but in support of Lars there seems to be a rise in the number of images where if you ignore the bokeh for a second, the subject is ordinary, or less.

 

Bit like those doughnut making mirror lenses my Dad used and we got tired of quickly, an overused gimmick and passing fad. In capable hands, or for essential light gathering, the Noctilux is good.

 

Close focus is it's achilles. The 75 'Lux focussed at 0.75m provides a much bigger image of a subject with pleasant OOF.

 

M

[kidigital]

Well said, Marc. Having used the older Noct on the M8 and now the newer version on the M9, I'd say that Leica has created a spectacular lens (the new Noct) for isolating subjects from their backgrounds ... but it's so much more than a one-trick pony. The bokeh of the newer lens is less swirly providing a look that is modern, yet unique. Wide-open you get some of the characteristics of the old Noct. Stopped down, however, it performs the same or better than the 50lux.

 

Because it's a favorite focal length, I think of it as the perfect "light zoom". I simply slip an ND filter in my pocket and it's the only lens I need for nearly all of my shooting from morning to night ... indoors and outdoors.

 

If I wanted to utilize maximum depth of field like millions of other point and shoot drones, that's the kind of camera I'd carry around. Maybe it's just me, but I'm always more intrigued by photos with less depth of field ... provided they tell a story or relay an emotion. Especially, when they can make subject areas literally pop out of a photo. I love the idea that the more others try to define what it is that makes up a great photo ... the more that it eludes their grasp. It's the battleground between art and science, light and dark.

 

Here's a photo from earlier this summer with the new Noct.

 

The young man from the age of before I'm too set in my ways.

 

Kurt

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!

[k_g_wolf ✝]

Great shot, Kurt, thx for sharing !

 

 

 

Best

GEORG

[kidigital]

Hi Pico,

 

Yes the tilting in this image (and a general tilting at windmills) was intentional. I wanted to try to get the bird and the trampoline in the image all while keeping a few people in front of me to the left out of the frame.

 

Kurt

[mwilliamsphotography]

Agree completely with everything you say' date=' but in support of Lars there seems to be a rise in the number of images where if you ignore the bokeh for a second, the subject is ordinary, or less.

 

Bit like those doughnut making mirror lenses my Dad used and we got tired of quickly, an overused gimmick and passing fad. In capable hands, or for essential light gathering, the Noctilux is good.

 

Close focus is it's achilles. The 75 'Lux focussed at 0.75m provides a much bigger image of a subject with pleasant OOF.

 

M[/quote']

 

Well, we can't blame any lens for boring photos can we? Or ... that odd logic could be applied to forced perspective wide angle lenses and long focal length compressed image lenses, etc. etc.

 

Not sure what "overused" means in this context. A fast aperture lens is hardly a Mirror lens with donut specular highlights. The Nocti's "light vampire" aperture is there if you want or need it. However, it isn't just a single aperture lens, you can actually shoot the Nocti at something other than .095. In fact, I rarely use .095 when the subject is very close. DOF is almost non-existent. My favorite application is mid-range where you can use .095 effectively.

 

A 75 Lux has a different perspective than the 50. Yes, it focuses closer ... but again ... it's hardly a macro lens.

 

The Nocti is a highly utilitarian tool for me ... as is the 21/1.4 and 75/1.4. I HAVE to shoot in dark places, sometimes in places that won't allow flash. Often in places where I don't want to use flash even if I could. Here are a random selection of available light Nocti wedding shots and a night-time engagement session shot where I had to get the shutter speed up a bit.

 

-Marc

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!

[lars_bergquist]

Well, I stick my old head out, and watch out for falling objects.

 

Great pictures. Were they all shot wide open? What would they have looked like done with a Summilux ASPH wide open? Would they have been less great?

 

The point is, I see various pictures, great or not so great, and then the text says "look, this was shot with a 0.95 Nocti, look Ma, no hands!" and except for that information, I would not have guessed that. In my book, the salient difference between the lenses is that the Nocti is c. 1 1/4 stop faster (a speed advantage we practically never need) and less sharp at 1.4.

 

P.S. that basketball shot -- was it done at 0.95? In that case, what ND filter did you use? I am hard put to use my 'lux wide open in broad daylight.

 

The old man from the Age of the 5cm Elmar

[LeicaBraz]

As to the photographs in the second post, the ones with the Summilux 1.4 please me better. Was that the question?

Rgds

[kidigital]

Hi Lars, you are correct, the basketball shot was with a .9 ND filter. One could easily use the summilux to take similar photos. Personally, however, I think that I can get just a bit more separation with the noctilux versus the summilux in such settings. Whether or not that alone is worth the difference is up to the individual shooter.

 

What I like most about using the Noctilux is that I was able to shoot this in the late afternoon at a festival, take off the filter and use the camera throughout the evening without bringing a flash or anything else. Again, I could do the same with the summilux ... but I like the added versatility and extra flexibility the Noctilux gives me.

 

Kurt

[ShotCapture]

As to the photographs in the second post, the ones with the Summilux 1.4 please me better. Was that the question?

Rgds

Yes,that was part of the question.

Anyone else able to shoot some direct comparrison wide open photos?

[ShotCapture]

FOTOGRAFZ did you shoot the third photo of the bride looking over her shoulder wide open?