johnbuckley Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share #21 Posted July 25, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks Jeff, well sort of. Post #7 uses the words ND filter, which doesn't really answer my question(s). Lawrence and John say they use them (which I missed, somehow - I think I left my browser open, then typed my post without seeing their) - but they don't actually say what strength, what make or much else about how often. Cheers John John - I also use a four-stop B+W ND filter. On really bright days, the filter can cast everything a little blue. Plus, there's no getting around the fact that in the brightest sunshine, there can be problems with chromatic aberration/purple blooming on bright edges. But what can't be normalized in Lightroom is generally hard to see except in 100% crops. JB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Hi johnbuckley, Take a look here My Love Letter To The 0.95 Noctilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
johnbuckley Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share #22 Posted July 25, 2011 I get it, I really do. For me to spend $11 grand on a 50mm lens I would have to convince myself it is absolutely essential for my photography. I'm still working on it... Oh, it's not essential by any means. It is highly enjoyable. Doesn't take much work to realize that part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhrads Posted July 26, 2011 Share #23 Posted July 26, 2011 I use a 0.9 ND filter which according to B+W is 3 stops, they don't make a 4 stop filter, the next step up is 6 stops. I really haven't seen much blue cast at all, but I have seem minimal purple fringing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted July 26, 2011 Share #24 Posted July 26, 2011 I use a 0.9 ND filter which according to B+W is 3 stops, they don't make a 4 stop filter, the next step up is 6 stops. I really haven't seen much blue cast at all, but I have seem minimal purple fringing. You are right, it's actually 3 stops, not 4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SangNguyen Posted July 26, 2011 Share #25 Posted July 26, 2011 0.95 Noctilux is still in my dream. You make my dream being urgent Great works John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 27, 2011 Share #26 Posted July 27, 2011 Jeff - thank you for the snarky response. I've edited the post to state that no other camera and lens combo "that I am aware of" could have captured that image, but I stand by the thrust of the comment. The photo was taken under a shed roof at twilight. It was quite dark. No wine was involved. Yes, a Nikon D3 shooting at ISO X000 or a high end Canon with a fast lens could have gotten a low light shot, but I doubt it could do so with, what is to to me, and I suspect other fans of the Noctilux, the pleasing bokeh that the Nocti produced while shooting at ISO 160. I think you'd find the Canon 85 f1.2 could pretty much replicate that shot on a full frame body. For those who dream of the Nocti, and can tolerate a DSLR, the 85L is a stunning lens at a fraction of the price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastgreenlander Posted July 28, 2011 Share #27 Posted July 28, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am amazed how this lens draws. Below image shot wide open at 0.95 using M6 and ND filter with a 0.85 finder. Film used is Kodak Tri X 400 @ 200. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 28, 2011 Share #28 Posted July 28, 2011 Are you a lonely person? A love letter to a lens? Where is your part in this? And your URL doesn't work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastgreenlander Posted July 28, 2011 Share #29 Posted July 28, 2011 Are you a lonely person? A love letter to a lens? Where is your part in this?And your URL doesn't work. Yes, I am very lonely So happy I have my Noctilux to keep me company 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/157518-my-love-letter-to-the-095-noctilux/?do=findComment&comment=1749644'>More sharing options...
fotolebrocq Posted July 28, 2011 Share #30 Posted July 28, 2011 Thanks Jeff, well sort of. Post #7 uses the words ND filter, which doesn't really answer my question(s). Lawrence and John say they use them (which I missed, somehow - I think I left my browser open, then typed my post without seeing their) - but they don't actually say what strength, what make or much else about how often. Cheers John John, I use a 3 stop B+W ND filter on a 50mm Summilux Asph (M9) pretty much all the time in sunny Crete which enables me to shoot at f1.4. I only take it off when the sun goes down. I did flirt with the idea of getting a Noctilux but the summilux is so good and relatively small I decided against. Tony Documentary, Street and Social Photography in Crete and UK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted July 28, 2011 Share #31 Posted July 28, 2011 Are you a lonely person? A love letter to a lens? Where is your part in this?And your URL doesn't work. A quick look and edit of the url and bingo! I still find it difficult to reconcile spending mega-bucks on a Noctilux then putting an ND filter on so as to go around shooting in sunshine at 0.95. Surely the 'draw'/bokeh/whatever is not that much superior to a 'Lux? Ok, Ok, there are people who profess to need 0.95 for very low-light situations and presumably have done a cost/benefit analysis which to their mind justifies the expenditure. But for common folk...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 28, 2011 Share #32 Posted July 28, 2011 Ok, Ok, there are people who profess to need 0.95 for very low-light situations and presumably have done a cost/benefit analysis which to their mind justifies the expenditure. But for common folk...? Common folk don't buy a £7000 lens I would venture. There's also quite a hard case to be made from a business point of view for the majority of professionals. People with a few quid spare buy it and love it - and why not. But I think many people who dream of owning such a lens would be better served by stopping dreaming at looking at the alternatives, which in many cases will produce near indistinguishable results IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted July 29, 2011 Author Share #33 Posted July 29, 2011 A quick look and edit of the url and bingo! I still find it difficult to reconcile spending mega-bucks on a Noctilux then putting an ND filter on so as to go around shooting in sunshine at 0.95. Surely the 'draw'/bokeh/whatever is not that much superior to a 'Lux? Ok, Ok, there are people who profess to need 0.95 for very low-light situations and presumably have done a cost/benefit analysis which to their mind justifies the expenditure. But for common folk...? Keith -- I love my 50 Summilux. It is a glorious lens. And there's no question, it IS difficult to justify it vis a vis the Summilux. But my belief is -- and I may insufficiently have either stated it in words or illustrated it with photos -- that the Noctilux has capabilities which, if you appreciate the way it draws, can't be replicated by the Summilux. (I don't know about the Canon 85.) But if you look at the photo here, I find the background image of the young boy's mother like something closer to what a painter would produce, than what you ordinarily expect from photographer. Not trying to overstate the case, as again, this is all subjective. But I don't think a Summilux would have drawn like this, as great as a Summilux is. 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/157518-my-love-letter-to-the-095-noctilux/?do=findComment&comment=1750799'>More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted July 29, 2011 Share #34 Posted July 29, 2011 But if you look at the photo here, I find the background image of the young boy's mother like something closer to what a painter would produce, than what you ordinarily expect from photographer. Not trying to overstate the case, as again, this is all subjective. But I don't think a Summilux would have drawn like this, as great as a Summilux is. John, with all due respect, such bokeh peculiarities are also known as "Sonnarisms", you guess why It's obviously a matter of tastes and interpretations, but I'm afraid that the pic you posted doesn't fully depicts the merits of the .95. It's probably due to resizing, but to me that bokeh is a bit... edgy? Mum's arms are out of focus in a different fashion which seems quite abrupt. But maybe it's just me, albeit I have the strong feeling that this is somewhat related to the lens being aspherical. To me aspherical lenses are very sharp with even performance corner to corner but have an odd management of different planes and I feel this ultimately affects bokeh. I admit I've become sorta fanatic of older glass, but I'd respectfully point out that creamy/pictorial bokeh can be achieved by older glories. Pls see for yourself. Top: Summilux 50 PreAsph @ 1.4, below Sonnar 50 ZM @ 1.5. Cheers, Bruno 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/157518-my-love-letter-to-the-095-noctilux/?do=findComment&comment=1750854'>More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted July 30, 2011 Author Share #35 Posted July 30, 2011 Bruno - good point on the arms. At full resolution, the bokeh is less plastic/brittle. JB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2011 Share #36 Posted July 30, 2011 Overdoing it backfires imo. If they want to sell very, very expensive glass, better make a new MATE. Being more expensive and better than the old one. And lots of "Sondermodelle" in general. At least baby-boomers can focus those. Very few people can focus a Noctilux, a whole lot fewer than know Photoshop, or someone who knows Photoshop well. Good thing Leica keeps M10 R&D going, which will hopefully have an automatic exposure mode, that is further developed after 17 years. Matrix light measuring was available when the M6 came out. And selling big expensive glass without having a tele-lens or zoom possibility, while 10-20 years old tiny lenses are still better than all the rest, that is a marketing challenge. In which exaggeration could risk the desired result. Your Noctilux photos are superb John, but your expertise is not included in the premium price of this highly specialized lens. Then again, if your new website makes the Summilux lenses also even more desirable, that's fine . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted July 30, 2011 Share #37 Posted July 30, 2011 Tri,"sondermodelle" in English, please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted July 30, 2011 Share #38 Posted July 30, 2011 Tri,"sondermodelle" in English, please. = special edition Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted July 30, 2011 Share #39 Posted July 30, 2011 Sreve, thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrubs Posted July 31, 2011 Share #40 Posted July 31, 2011 I think you'd find the Canon 85 f1.2 could pretty much replicate that shot on a full frame body. For those who dream of the Nocti, and can tolerate a DSLR, the 85L is a stunning lens at a fraction of the price. Agreed. I actually prefer the images from the 85L. the 85mm f1.8 is an outstanding lens also for the amazingly low price. While I like the Nocti, I don't like it enough to invest that kind of money. A lens would have to leave me absolutely amazed and head over heels in Love to invest that much and unfortunately my excitement levels don't match the price tag. I use a 0.9 ND filter which according to B+W is 3 stops, they don't make a 4 stop filter, the next step up is 6 stops. I really haven't seen much blue cast at all, but I have seem minimal purple fringing. Hoya make a 4 stop, if anyone needs one -That's what i use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.