Alighx Posted August 29, 2011 Share #1 Â Posted August 29, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi everyone, Â long time ago, when I did not even think about buying a Leica or having one, I discovered these pictures: click here. My response: After I recollected, I recognized that these photos were taken with a lens called Noctilux 50/1.0. I knew that Leica is expensive but was shocked when I saw the price for this peace of glass. After I recollected again it was a pleasure to scroll through the huge amount of pictures. I think they're all phenomenal. I mean to me it was a real pleasure to walk through the gallery. Â Today I've got some more money than yesterday and I find myself thinking of buying this dream of a lens. Â First I would like to hear your opinion about the pictures I linked to above and second I would like to know whether anyone of you knows if the photographer is a member of this forum. For sure I searched for his flickr username here as well but that wasn't successfull. Â Regards, Alex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 Hi Alighx, Take a look here Bokeh Favourites. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
azzo Posted August 29, 2011 Share #2 Â Posted August 29, 2011 '' Unpredictable'' Bokeh .. Sometimes, way too much that it hurts. .. Â But that's just me of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alighx Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share #3 Â Posted August 29, 2011 Sometimes it fits the rough life outside, I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoBoBrussels Posted August 29, 2011 Share #4 Â Posted August 29, 2011 Frankly, I find the bokeh in those pictures anything but pleasant. Much too harsch with an outer ring of light/colour. Really good bokeh should be creamy and soft and not dominate the picture. This lens has other advantages, I would certainly not buy it for the bokeh (aka out-of-focus blur). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alighx Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share #5 Â Posted August 29, 2011 I have to agree that the bokeh sometimes is dominant. Might be the result of extensice post production? On the other hand some images show a really nice rendered melting bokeh. I haven't seen such reproduction with any other lens. CV 50/1,1 is a bad joke. Well, also check out the other few pages and don't stick to the first one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted August 29, 2011 Share #6 Â Posted August 29, 2011 One page was more than enough. Thanks! .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted August 29, 2011 Share #7 Â Posted August 29, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Bokeh is a matter of personal taste. Some love soft creamy Bokeh, some love harsher contrasty Bokeh, and both will describe their preference as awesome. I prefer softer creamy Bokeh but since I have an even higher preference for sharpness in a lens, that usually means compromising on the Bokeh. If I were a rich man I could own both the latest version of the Nocti and the Summilux ASPH. When soft creamy bokeh was paramount, I would use the Nocti, but alas (sigh) I am not a rich man. Compromise is the only option so I went for the Summilux, what a lens! In all honesty, we can easily get obsessive compulsive about stuff like this. In the greater scheme of things, it really doesn't matter unless a creamy Bokeh was an absolute necessary signature stamp in your photography with no room for compromise. Â PS Seal is one of those guys who can easily afford both lenses http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/03/26/a-night-out-in-recife-brazil-with-the-leica-noctilux-f0-95/ In the shots here, the Bokeh of the Nocti is rather lost and obviously not the top priority. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 29, 2011 Share #8 Â Posted August 29, 2011 Typical Noctilux 50/1 bokeh. What i call "false" bokeh as remote light sources appear totally irreal and much closer than they are actually. Matter of tastes of course. Not mine but nobody cares but me. If you like this, i would try a less expensive lens with same kind of bokeh, the Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.1. Edit: I see that you find the Nokton a "bad joke" so i don't insist to sell it to you. I would have to buy it before though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alighx Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share #9  Posted August 29, 2011 Sure it's a matter of preference. But isn't it the Noctilux 50/1 having the most creamy bokeh and shallow dof of all lenses?  The Voigtländer (CV) 50/1,1 is well known but I don't think that it is a serious alternative to the noctilux. Nothing but the price seems attractive to me.  Last night I found a few comparison pictures between the CV and Nocti and for sure even a person not being addicted to photography can tell you that the Nocti looks creamier respectively better.  Edit: Yes, in my opinion the pictures taken with the CV 50/1,1 can easily be separated from those taken with the Nocti. "Bad joke" might a bit exaggerated but I really like the bokeh of the Nocti. Plus, the CV suffers from focus shift. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted August 29, 2011 Share #10 Â Posted August 29, 2011 The Nokton CV 1,1 doesn't have the same creamy Bokeh as the Nocti. I purchased one and returned it after a week. I was looking for sharpness and wide open it was soft (at least the one I purchased was) and to get a really satisfactory image I had to punch it up in PP. Since my ultimate goal was sharpness, I paid a small fortune for the Summilux ASPH (way cheaper still than a Nocti) and I can say, it is the most spectacular lens I've ever owned - of course this is all subjective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 29, 2011 Share #11 Â Posted August 29, 2011 I meant same kind of rendition of OoF light sources of course. I thought it pleased to the OP... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1276587-post64.html http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1242308&postcount=16 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uroman Posted August 29, 2011 Share #12 Â Posted August 29, 2011 I have the nokton 1.1, and I think it is great. A great value, mine has little if any detectable focus shift, and the ability to take shots in low light is superb. I think the lens is really nice, one of my favorites. And yes, I have tried the noctilux - liked it too. BUt not for the price. Dont count out the nokton, maybe I just have a good copy, who knows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alighx Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share #13 Â Posted August 29, 2011 I meant same kind of rendition of OoF light sources of course. I thought it pleased to the OP...http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1276587-post64.html http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1242308&postcount=16 Â The second is problematic. Bokeh looks awful to me. Unfortunately it suffers from high iso which is not getting the bokeh better. Â I have the nokton 1.1, and I think it is great. A great value, mine has little if any detectable focus shift, and the ability to take shots in low light is superb. I think the lens is really nice, one of my favorites. And yes, I have tried the noctilux - liked it too. BUt not for the price.Dont count out the nokton, maybe I just have a good copy, who knows. Â Thanks! Possible that you present some results with shallow dof? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 29, 2011 Share #14 Â Posted August 29, 2011 It's perhaps that optical blur is not part of your photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alighx Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share #15 Â Posted August 29, 2011 It's perhaps that optical blur is not part of your photography. Â Obviously that's true. For me bokeh is as important as the in focus area. Â Apart from that I couldn't decide which lens is going to be mine in the next time. Testing the two against each other is nearly impossible and I don't like to buy both. Another positive point for the Nocti is the swirl bokeh. To me, the CV's bokeh is static. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 29, 2011 Share #16 Â Posted August 29, 2011 Sure but OoF rendition is sometimes very different. Look at the Noctilux pics above for instance. You won't have the same at all with say a Summicron or a Summilux pre-asph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 29, 2011 Share #17 Â Posted August 29, 2011 It s not a matter of DoF if remote light sources look sharp as if they were in front of you. Now there are less differences at medium apertures for sure but they can be disturbing as well when OoF parts of the image draw the attention more than in focus ones. Unless the photog wants this effect of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 29, 2011 Share #18 Â Posted August 29, 2011 But isn't it the Noctilux 50/1 having the most creamy bokeh and shallow dof of all lenses? ... It's the first time I've heard that said about the Noctilux 50/1. Shallowest depth of field (for Leica lenses) would logically be the Noctilux 50/0.95. Shallowest for all lenses would probably go to the Zeiss 50/0.7 that Kubrick used to shoot Barry Lyndon. Â The Noctilux 50/1's bokeh is commonly called "swirly" rather than "creamy" and is characteristic of that lens alone. It's not to my taste and I've seen pictures shot with it where the out of focus areas bring to mind motion sickness. Â Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alighx Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share #19 Â Posted August 29, 2011 Thanks, Pete! You're absolutely right, but I guess that the shallower dof of the 0.95 is not really visible except under laboratory conditions. The Zeiss - haven't heard from that in the past but good to know that something like this exists as well:o. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holybasil Posted August 30, 2011 Share #20 Â Posted August 30, 2011 Thanks, Pete!You're absolutely right, but I guess that the shallower dof of the 0.95 is not really visible except under laboratory conditions. The Zeiss - haven't heard from that in the past but good to know that something like this exists as well:o. Â The zeiss 'exists' yes, but they really only made it to show off. Not for practical use. It may have been used by austronauts, but don't quote me on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.