roberth Posted January 18, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted January 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The Noctilux is an amazing lens, http://www.leica-camera-user.com/other/13860-vehicles-only.html and http://www.leica-camera-user.com/other/13944-fordomatic.html show this on film (CLE). These shot on Reala, can I speak film here ??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Hi roberth, Take a look here M8 + noctilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
waterlenz Posted January 18, 2007 Share #22  Posted January 18, 2007 Let us not forget that the Noctilux is also good for low light level photography! Shot done with 50/1.0 at f/1.0 yesterday morning ~2 hours before sunrise as I arrived at my workplace. Snow was being blown off the adjacent dock. Blow-up is a 100% (at least this is my assumption using C1LE because indicated crop size = selected output size) Tom 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/13695-m8-noctilux/?do=findComment&comment=145063'>More sharing options...
j. borger Posted January 18, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted January 18, 2007 FIrst of all: I love my Noctilux and do not want to take anybodies noctilust ... but ... There is a risk using it because at first you think shooting any scene at F1 is enough to end up with a nice picture ......... well after using it some time you will find out it is not so. The Noctilux F1 look becomes easily a "gimmick" (comparable to the lensbaby and TS lenses used for selective dof) if not coupled to interesting and appropriate content ............ This is probably one of the reasons a lot of Noctilux lenses finaly end up for sale after the first thrills are gone. Â Problem with the Noctilux on the M8 and R-D1 is you loose the vignetting ..... which is part of the unique Nocti-look! Â Just my experience ..... i use it more sparcely and conscious now after i used it almost exclusively for a couple of months after buying it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted January 18, 2007 Share #24 Â Posted January 18, 2007 Problem with the Noctilux on the M8 and R-D1 is you loose the vignetting ..... which is part of the unique Nocti-look! Â Can't just just add that using "lens correction" in PS..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 18, 2007 Share #25  Posted January 18, 2007 I'm seeing too many Noctilux images where the lens is being used as an upscale LensBaby  Agreed.  When I owned a Noctilux a couple of years or so ago I found that the most pleasing 'signature' look was achieved at mid-focus distances. It had a kind of larger format 'look' which worked well in some situations. In the near focus range, you get a much more gimmicky effect that rarely makes an uninteresting subject look very interesting (particularly once the novelty of F1.0 DOF wears off) and sometimes spoils what would otherwise have been a good shot. I have been tempted to buy another Noctilux (the 30% discount is a decent opportunity) but, with the M8 1.33x crop factor (for me, a less useful field of view and without the attractive vignetting), I'm not sure it will bite Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted January 18, 2007 Share #26 Â Posted January 18, 2007 Can't just just add that using "lens correction" in PS..... yep .. that's what i do ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted January 18, 2007 Share #27 Â Posted January 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hell leica should just send me one. Probably sold more Leica's than there reps. LOLÂ Â Seriously though i would never recommend something that i truly did not use myself and was not happy with the results. To me these are the best out there in this format the DMR and the M8 Â You're a good one to talk Guy, Because of you I have a r9/DDMR, a bag full of R lenses, an m8 (I already had a bag full of lenses, and a mac desktop with about everything you can put iinto it. Good thing i am 70 years old because i can't afford a long retirement. Â Woody Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted January 18, 2007 Author Share #28 Â Posted January 18, 2007 So, I've been reflecting on the comments about near focus images of the noctilux at F1 as being "gimmicky" or otherwise not representing the best use of the lens. And frankly, I not only disagree but find the comments a bit over-reaching with a touch of snobbery. As I see it, this is a very specialized lens, really to be used at F1 or 1.4 only. The other leica 50mm lenses outperform it stopped down beyond this point, and are lighter, and much faster to focus. So, given the very narrow range that this optic is suited for, are we to further limit it to only night shooting, high Iso, or middle distance? That seems absurd to me. I can't say anything to those who don't like the look of very selectively focused images with prominent bokeh, but that really is a personal artistic decision, not a rule for using the lens. best....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony C. Posted January 18, 2007 Share #29  Posted January 18, 2007 So, I've been reflecting on the comments about near focus images of the noctilux at F1 as being "gimmicky" or otherwise not representing the best use of the lens. And frankly, I not only disagree but find the comments a bit over-reaching with a touch of snobbery. As I see it, this is a very specialized lens, really to be used at F1 or 1.4 only. The other leica 50mm lenses outperform it stopped down beyond this point, and are lighter, and much faster to focus. So, given the very narrow range that this optic is suited for, are we to further limit it to only night shooting, high Iso, or middle distance? That seems absurd to me. I can't say anything to those who don't like the look of very selectively focused images with prominent bokeh, but that really is a personal artistic decision, not a rule for using the lens. best....Peter  Peter,  I can't speak for the others, of course, but my earlier comments were simply a reflection of my reaction to that particular image. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the Noctilux isn't suited to near focus images, and agree completely that the use of any lens is, as you put it, a personal artistic decision. I also agree that it is best used wide open (or close to).  My point about the Noctilux being a specialized tool is that it allows the user to perform under conditions (i.e. hand-held, low light) which might otherwise be impossible, and that under those conditions, the results can be uniquely satisfying.  Your reaction, by the way, is the same one I have when people complain about too much noise. Some of us, of course, want higher noise at times, and I wonder, smiling to myself, what those critics think of paintings by Cezanne or Monet?  Best regards,  Tony C. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 19, 2007 Share #30 Â Posted January 19, 2007 So, I've been reflecting on the comments about near focus images of the noctilux at F1 as being "gimmicky" or otherwise not representing the best use of the lens. And frankly, I not only disagree but find the comments a bit over-reaching with a touch of snobbery. Â Fair enough, I can only offer my own opinion on the matter (not quite sure how it makes me a snob?). Â The thing about the Noctilux (and lenses like the Canon 85/1.2, etc.) is that you have to ask yourself whether the extremely narrow depth of field is actually doing something for the image beyond simply adding a vaguely interesting optical effect. My own personal take on this is that the Noctilux has a certain dreamy quality about it (generally to do with the inherent softness and pronounced vignetting when used wide-open) which begins to be lost once the slither of DOF starts to become a pronounced feature of the image itself. This is probably why I think it often (not always) works better at middle distances rather than at near focus. Just my snobbish opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share #31 Â Posted January 19, 2007 Ian- thanks for the thoughtful reply. when will i ever learn that adjectives are trouble makers with as good a chance as being "objectively" accurate as a noctilux image? best....peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share #32 Â Posted January 19, 2007 Have you printed this image and if so how did it look in real life?[/size] Bill - as promised i can report that the print was quite lovely to my eye (epson 4000). in fact as is often the case, i much prefer the print to to the screen image. best....peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted January 19, 2007 Share #33  Posted January 19, 2007 I don't like the photo at all.  And I know I will get flamed for this valuation but I find the plane of focus so narrow the vase dissolves into (and I've said this about someone else's Noctilux image) an almost hallucinatory bokeh which is quite unsettling. I'm seeing too many Noctilux images where the lens is being used as an upscale LensBaby http://www.lensbabies.com/index.php?page=lbo/galleries Malcolm  This is not a lens issue, but a taste issue. He could close it down eight stops (if he wanted) for an entirely different look. He didn't want to. I personally like it, and think the shallow DOF makes the photo. But that's taste, not the lens.  JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.