shooting leica glass wide open one trick pony?

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i agree with lord fluff.. why buy a 0.95 lens and not use it @ 0.95..

 

for my most of my shooting i do @ biggest aperture unless i choose not to focus where i set it to hyperfocal distance.. so everything is sharp.

 

That;s the same philosophy as buying a zoom lens and only ever using it at 28 or 90... It doesn't attest to an understanding of the subtlety that your tools are capable of delivering.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[wstotler]

as i do shoot a lot of my leica glass wide open most of the time and i know many/most leica shooters do the same, but just wondering if ever leica shooters feel it gets to be like a one trick pony shooting at 1.4 and .95 much of the time?

 

shots look great at .95 and 1.4 but maybe a little cheap or predicable. kinda of like easy when the background is blurred. just saying sometimes i feel like maybe its too easy to shoot at these wide apertures and make on otherwise boring shot more dramatic.

 

like i said i do like to shoot wide open and it is part of my style but sometimes i do wonder if it is just an easy way out.

 

I'd argue it's harder to use shallow DOF meaningfully, not an easy way out. One must partially pre-visualize how the backgrounds and foregrounds will react to the shallow DOF, especially how the light/surfaces will render, and then work to get that out of the lens. But, I do know exactly the kind of shot your comment refers to.

 

Technically, I use very shallow DOF to manage two conditions: low light and to smooth background/foreground appearance. The former is needed to offset ISO limitations of the M8, the latter is used to accentuate perspective and composition, while leaving me with smooth "copy space" for text that can lay over the image.

 

From a "look" point of view, smooth shallow DOF areas tend to react well to B&W grain treatment in post--these areas really reveal grain. Additionally, vignetting (natural) and sharpness on the subject (but very soft focus everywhere else) approach an emulation of the "faults" of a vintage lens look. With all three factors in play, plus some treatment too add discoloration, you can approach a good vintage look in the work.

 

Provided you've leveraged the OOF areas to get the best effect.

 

See below for a few vintage examples.

 

Design Project: LOOK Magazine Spread - Cover by willstotler, on Flickr

 

Design Project: LOOK Magazine Spread - pgs. 4 & 5 by willstotler, on Flickr

 

Vintage Magazine Spread Design Project - Pgs. 12 & 13 by willstotler, on Flickr

 

Thanks,

Will

[Jager]

As many have mentioned, shooting wide open - absent those occasions when low light compels that choice - is an artistic consideration. I think all good photographers envision what their iso/f-stop/shutter speed/subject distance/quality of light combination is going to produce before they fire the shot. I'd argue it is that pre-visualization, more than anything else, that separates serious photographers (mostly interested in the image) from camera aficionados (mostly interested in what their gear can do). Not that there is anything wrong with being a camera aficionado.

 

I also agree with Lord Fluff that certain edge-of-the-spectrum tools probably warrant use in those areas where they do things that other tools can't. When I mount my Noctilux, I almost always shoot it at f1. I'll use my 50 Lux ASPH or 50 Cron if I'm envisioning a broader palette of possibilities. Similarly, if using my Nikon system I'll only mount my 200/f2 if I need or want the speed, subject isolation, or bokeh it renders wide open. My 70-200/f2.8 is vastly more convenient for everything else.

 

I'd agree that razor thin depth-of-field is often overdone by many photographers. But I'd also offer that out in the broader world of pictures, the ubiquity of small-sensor digital point-and-shoots and cell phone cameras has produced just the opposite effect - a burgeoning multitude of images where everything is in focus. Alas.

 

Here's an example of a shot taken wide open with a Noctilux - not because of a desire for particularly narrow depth-of-field - but rather for the unique signature that lens provides at f1.

 

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!

 

 

 

And here's an example of another image, likewise shot wide open (f2, using a 50 Summicron), where subject isolation was important, IMHO, to the resulting image.

 

 

 

 

In the end, though technology evolves and fashion changes, photography is what it has always been - the vision of the guy or gal behind the camera.

[luigi bertolotti]

The above examples do explain weel the reality : DOF, in many pics, can be finely calibrated to obtain the mood that is in the mind of the taker - and achieving this is imho distinctive of a GOOD photographer.

But there is also the reality of Leica passionate lovers... ... a person who spends a lot for a superfine lens as, say, the Summilux 50 asph, will naturally like to enjoy it at 1,4... even if it can be not the best stop for a certain image... : that's life, nothing to be ashamed of.... many times happened that I was PROUD to have taken a shot with my Summarex 85 at f 1,5, with focus ok... even if few of them were FINE pictures...

[250swb]

If you've spunked 7 grand on a Noctilux and are spending more than a fraction of your time NOT shooting at f0.95, then I'd say you've rather over-invested...While it may be a fine lens stopped down, the only truly appropriate f-stop is f0.95.

 

Yeah, I can see how you can translate that into the real world. Always drive your car at its maximum speed, always play your hi-fi at maximum volume, it all starts to make sense as a lifestyle, the more you pay the more you need to justify the cost.

 

On the other hand you may get the whimps who think there are such things as an appropriate speed, or a reasonable volume, but that is not very hard core. I agree with you after thinking about it, shoot at f0.95 and each shot is worth 7k, its far better than each shot being good.

 

Steve

[PayPerView]

as i do shoot a lot of my leica glass wide open most of the time and i know many/most leica shooters do the same, but just wondering if ever leica shooters feel it gets to be like a one trick pony shooting at 1.4 and .95 much of the time?

 

shots look great at .95 and 1.4 but maybe a little cheap or predicable. kinda of like easy when the background is blurred. just saying sometimes i feel like maybe its too easy to shoot at these wide apertures and make on otherwise boring shot more dramatic.

 

like i said i do like to shoot wide open and it is part of my style but sometimes i do wonder if it is just an easy way out.

 

I think yes it can often and easily be an easy way out...Not to take anything away from shooting wide open...

 

I get bored of 'pretty pictures', that do use light well, do make correct use of depth of field, often wide open...For me personally most images I capture like that are great for photojournalists and for print, etc. But for my own vision of what I like to do most, it seems much harder to do when taking out depth of field from the equation and dealing with the diffculty of taking a great compelling photograph minus shooting open...

 

The content, timing, irony or whatever is sometimes harder to capture when most things are in focus. I was recently discussing this with another photographer after using my new 35 1.4 wide open much of the time...Sometimes I feel shooting open is cheating...lol at myself...but this is all so personal...and of course the need for shallower depth of field in many aspects of photography is necessary and appropriate..but over used? well, to me it becomes more of a 'trick' or an 'effect' and gets old quickly. But for the ability to shoot in lower light? Gotta love that..would be nice if the M9 were better at higher ISO's...(had to throw that in...)

 

Harder to rely on timing, and to capture irony and the like with most of the image in focus..

 

Interesting thread.

[billib]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For the first time I'm considering getting the

Nocti f/0.95. The reason is that it is not only

excellent wide open but its also excellent

stopped down. I'll use it stopped down

most of the time like a regular 50mm lens

because thats what it is. The Nocti would

simply give me an extra stop or two when

I needed it. I thought (and still think) thats

what fast lenses are for. Not just for isolating

your subject but getting a shot when its to

damn dark. Fast lenses also help out when

your Digital Camera doesn't perform well

with very high iso's.

 

I thought all of this was obvious......I guess it isn't.

[wstotler]

Yeah, I can see how you can translate that into the real world. Always drive your car at its maximum speed, always play your hi-fi at maximum volume, it all starts to make sense as a lifestyle, the more you pay the more you need to justify the cost.

 

On the other hand you may get the whimps who think there are such things as an appropriate speed, or a reasonable volume, but that is not very hard core. I agree with you after thinking about it, shoot at f0.95 and each shot is worth 7k, its far better than each shot being good.

 

Steve

 

Steve--no need to be cranky. Your work on Flickr is solid and quite interesting--nicely done. DOF is a just a tool, right? You have a strong handle on this in your work!

 

It's widely accepted that if you pays the money for a Noctilux that you learn to shoot it wide open appropriately. Damn straight, drive that glass as fast as that glass will go. Does everyone use it well? No. But are some? Yes. It is what it is.

 

I'd love to have 0.95 in my arsenal--I'm limited to f/1.2. (Not that it's really that limiting, but you get the idea.) It's not a "crutch" in everyone's case. I think it would be very interesting to see what 0.95 could make. Leica can ship me some glass to test. LOL.

 

And I think it's OK to look at something like a Nocti in terms of cost per shot. Doesn't take away from the photography, just gives one more variable. If I bought a Nocti, my first shot with it woud be a $10K photo, right? So, why not shoot it at 0.95. And learn what to do with that. Until bored. Maybe it's no good, but I can still value it. I get the nonsense of "I have a Nocti, therefore my shots are worth X"--but it's just a POV, whatever. Good takes practice and a spot of luck that's made. The people that are working toward "good" here are the choir, in this case.

 

Meh. Respect your opinion, in any case.

 

Cheers!

Will

[thompsonkirk]

Tastes & styles certainly differ, but IMO the tool is for the task & not for its own sake. For street photography, consistently shooting wide open would severely limit what I could accomplish.

 

I regard my Summiluxes as heavier nuisances that I need indoors or at twilight. I like to walk – sometimes for hours – with a light camera in my hand on a wrist strap. The Summiluxes don't balance as well. They're more conspicuous & generally aren't helpful for street photography, where providing some DOF & locating the subject in an identifiable context are part of the usual challenge.

 

I use a tiny 40 Summicron more than any other lens. On the occasions when I use it wide open it's surprisingly sharp & offers simple undistorted bokeh. But I don't encounter many wide-open situations. Normally I try to balance sufficient DOF with lowest possible ISO & a fast-enough shutter speed for moving subjects. I bring along a Summilux only if I anticipate going indoors.

 

For street photography I've never seen the point of a Noctilux. From focusing 50 & 75 Luxes wide open, I know that at f .95 or f1 I'd miss way too high a proportion of the shots I want to bring home.

 

Equipment is just a component of a style & shouldn't be the driving force. It depends on what & why you want to shoot, & what your projects & prints are meant to look like. For my style, such as it is, I wouldn't be tempted to shoot wide open all or most or even very much of the time. But if your preferred subjects always stay in the same focusing plane & ask to be isolated from their backgrounds (& you have tireless hands), then it would make sense to go about consistently with a fast lens wide open.

 

Kirk

[StephenPatterson]

For the first time I'm considering getting the

Nocti f/0.95. The reason is that it is not only

excellent wide open but its also excellent

stopped down. I'll use it stopped down

most of the time like a regular 50mm lens

because thats what it is. The Nocti would

simply give me an extra stop or two when

I needed it. I thought (and still think) thats

what fast lenses are for. Not just for isolating

your subject but getting a shot when its to

damn dark. Fast lenses also help out when

your Digital Camera doesn't perform well

with very high iso's.

 

I thought all of this was obvious......I guess it isn't.

 

Twice the weight, three times the cost and ten times harder to focus than the Summilux. Seriously?

[250swb]

And I think it's OK to look at something like a Nocti in terms of cost per shot.

 

Its an appalling superficial way to look at photography. I know you qualified your remark Will and I see what you mean, but the intrinsic idea that how much a lens costs dictates the style of photograph is a prime case of the cart pulling the donkey.

 

It comes back to posts that start with a title like 'f0.95 Nocti goes to the seaside' followed by lots of lovely shallow DOF photo's of driftwood or something. The title and the following photo's don't say 'look what I can do, look at what I have to communicate' they say 'look what my lens can do'. Its as if they just went out and bought some talent for 7k.

 

Steve

[insomnia]

and ten times harder to focus than the Summilux. Seriously?

Have you experienced that on your own? With the Noctilux you have more in hand, longer focus throw and no annoying focussing tab that can't be 100% accurately focussed without going back and forth 2-3 times. So I think the Noctilux can be handled more accurately (but not faster) than the Summilux at the same aperture.

 

I have absolutely no problems focussing the Noctilux, I don't know where all the talk comes from - of course from .95 to 1.4 DOF is a bit shallower, but you're not always on minimum distance where it may become a bit icky when the subject moves (note that you can still close the aperture!).

[mardag]

Have you experienced that on your own? With the Noctilux you have more in hand, longer focus throw and no annoying focussing tab that can't be 100% accurately focussed without going back and forth 2-3 times. So I think the Noctilux can be handled more accurately (but not faster) than the Summilux at the same aperture.

 

I have absolutely no problems focussing the Noctilux, I don't know where all the talk comes from - of course from .95 to 1.4 DOF is a bit shallower, but you're not always on minimum distance where it may become a bit icky when the subject moves (note that you can still close the aperture!).

 

I totally agree, focusing the noctilux is not as hard as people think!

[StephenPatterson]

I will concede the point and stay with twice the weight and three times the price. My own experience with the Noctilux is limited to a single afternoon, so I can see where focusing could become more accurate with additional time behind the lens.

 

I do still think that for the vast majority of people the benefit of the Noctilux is far outweighed by the extra cost and bulk, but it's become a status symbol.

[Posto 6]

That (bulk) was what made me sell mine all those years ago...

[bill]

"...spunked..."?

 

Oh please...

 

Perhaps this is one of those terms that does not travel well across the Atlantic...

 

...oh wait... you are in the UK...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[bpalme]

I have a Noctilux on order and can't wait to get it. Not sure if I'll keep it as the bulk/weight may eventually get to me. But I can't and will not knock anyone for owning it. It's a special tool just like an expensive tool in a sculptors kit. It's special niche(0.95) may not even be used as much as the other tools(F1.4-16) but it has it's place. Only the artist can decide if he/she will use it often. For myself It definitely won't be a one trick pony. My photos vary depending on the situation. Just because it's a crazy expensive lens for the extra stop won't make me feel like I have to only use it at F0.95 to get my money worth.

As far as focus issues.. it's a matter of knowledge about your tool and practice. If you're not getting a decent keeper rate you are probably using it on the edge of it's limits. If the field of focus is only 6 inches and your subject is moving then your chances of getting a keeper will of course be pretty low. Every situation is different of course but a lot of practice is necessary with a tool like this.

BTW I promise not to post photos of a fence with only one plank in focus just to show off shallow DOF.

[Rolo]

From what I've read on this forum, most Noctilux lens owners could recover more for their lens than they paid for it. Doesn't that make it cheaper to own than any Summarit ...... Etc ?

 

The Noctilux is not a big lens compared to any zoom lenses and although it's heavy, it's not as heavy as many Canon or NIKON lenses.

 

I frequently choose to shoot my 35 & 50 Summilux lenses at f1.4 because I like to "isolate and emphasise" the principal subject and it automatically provides a different character to the majority of shooters out there. I never, ever shoot at f11 and beyond and rarely beyond f4. I shoot for me, not for you, and I like subject isolation and what Leica lenses do when they are wide open, or near.

 

Frankly, if I wanted small aperture images, I'd buy some batteries for my Olympus ED. I shoot Leica M for the glass it brings and I wish I had the opportunity and time to explore the full lens offering and understand what each bring. If ever a Noctilux sits on the front of my M9, or MP, it'll be at 0.95 for quite some time.

[pgk]

I do still think that for the vast majority of people the benefit of the Noctilux is far outweighed by the extra cost and bulk, but it's become a status symbol.

But there are so few people in the real world appreciate exactly what it is and how much it costs - surely to be a status symbol it would need to be recognised as such. I don't and probably never will own the f/0.95 although I owned an f/1 for a short while. These days f/1.4 is quite adequate for my needs (when I owned the f/1 I was working on Velvia 50) especially at ISO160, but the added versatility of that extra stop+ will undoubtedly appeal to some, and if they can afford to accept the law of diminishing returns regarding cost then so be it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Lord Fluff]

From what I've read on this forum, most Noctilux lens owners could recover more for their lens than they paid for it. Doesn't that make it cheaper to own than any Summarit ...... Etc ?

 

If you bought a while back and sell now then yes you stand to gain. Those who buy now and are faced with paying at least £4000 have less of a guarantee in this respect.