Lord Fluff Posted September 27, 2011 Share #41 Â Posted September 27, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Â You may not impress people swinging it from your shoulder, but I'd be amazed if most of the 0.95 lenses out there didn't make an appearance at fancy dinner parties, with much talk of 'the fastest lens in the world', German engineering, Cartier-Bresson and so on. Â Whilst in Leica Mayfair I witnessed a man come in to buy an X1 case for his wife and walk out with an M9 and Noctilux, though he'd never used a RF camera before and clearly knew little of photography. I'm doubting he bought the camera for the 'unique signature' or whatever.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 Hi Lord Fluff, Take a look here shooting leica glass wide open one trick pony?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rolo Posted September 27, 2011 Share #42  Posted September 27, 2011 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.  My guess is that if you purchased a 0.95 today at full retail price, you'd be able to sell it tomorrow for more. Such is the supply situation and I predict the backlog will never be satisfied.  The point we're agreeing on is that the cost of ownership is not an issue for the Noctilux and some Summilux lenses. Affording one is a different matter; justifying the cost of one is a personal matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 27, 2011 Share #43 Â Posted September 27, 2011 Whilst in Leica Mayfair I witnessed a man come in to buy an X1 case for his wife and walk out with an M9 and Noctilux.... Â Interesting. Was this when the Noctilux was available to buy from stock? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 27, 2011 Share #44 Â Posted September 27, 2011 Doesn't that make it cheaper to own than any Summarit ...... Etc ? Â Only if and when you sell it. Opportunity cost and other basic rules of economics still apply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted September 27, 2011 Share #45 Â Posted September 27, 2011 Interesting. Was this when the Noctilux was available to buy from stock? Â Just before last Xmas IIRC. Leica Mayfair can be an interesting place to visit as they do randomly have things on the shelf that are supposed to be unobtainable. Â It did mean that I got a chance to have a play with one, which was an interesting experience, though not one I'd part with 7 grand to repeat.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 27, 2011 Share #46 Â Posted September 27, 2011 Only if and when you sell it. Opportunity cost and other basic rules of economics still apply. Â As always. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted September 27, 2011 Share #47 Â Posted September 27, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Whilst in Leica Mayfair I witnessed a man come in to buy an X1 case for his wife and walk out with an M9 and Noctilux, though he'd never used a RF camera before and clearly knew little of photography. I'm doubting he bought the camera for the 'unique signature' or whatever.... I find that rather sad I'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted September 27, 2011 Share #48 Â Posted September 27, 2011 It was slightly unreal to witness. Lots of "so this is good then?" type questions, and seemingly very deep pockets indeed..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 27, 2011 Share #49 Â Posted September 27, 2011 I totally agree, focusing the noctilux is not as hard as people think! Â May we see examples of your wide-open Noctilux photography? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 28, 2011 Share #50 Â Posted September 28, 2011 Off hand, I can't think of any iconic photos that were shot with extremely shallow depth of field. This is not to say that the effect isn't nice at times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted September 28, 2011 Share #51 Â Posted September 28, 2011 Off hand, I can't think of any iconic photos that were shot with extremely shallow depth of field. Â Could this not be, mostly, down to most iconic photos being from an earlier time, when such lenses were not widely available? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted September 28, 2011 Share #52 Â Posted September 28, 2011 OK here's a comment about fast lenses wide open. Take a look at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/111092-cold-new-years-eve.html which is an image taken from the path into the mountains looking down at the end of the day - and I like it personally because to me it is very evocative of the sense of relief and achievement felt as the end point of the day is in sight and feet are longing to stop. It was shot at f/1.4 and is, as such a landscape needs to be, crisp, despite the wide open aperture. It may not be iconic but it captures a scene seen (thankfully in many cases) by walkers and climbers returning after a hard day in the mountains. Â Without a tripod I had to rely on boosting ISO or opening the aperture. Boosting ISO would have created noise which may well have resulted in a unacceptable image. Opening up a fast lens which remains sharp wide open has produced what is, IMHO, an acceptable image, and one which prints up well and remains acceptable even if viewed close up. Â The foreground is soft but its sharpness is not actually particularly important and this is quite acceptable in my view. This 35 'lux lens is thoroughly usable at ALL apertures and has the added versatility of being usable in lower light conditions when a tripod is not available. Fast lenses add versatility. Â As an aside I could have carried and used my 5D2 with 50/1.2 but I did not because of weight and I do not think that it would have delivered as good a result even if I had done so for optical and noise reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted September 28, 2011 Share #53 Â Posted September 28, 2011 Â .......The point we're agreeing on is that the cost of ownership is not an issue for the Noctilux and some Summilux lenses.... Â If there is a point to any such discussion, it would be better placed between those who have recently bought a used f.1 Noctilux! Â 'One trick pony'? Possibly, to a one trick photographer who gives more than a passing thought to the cost of ownership whilst watching who buys what the Leica store. Â I'd rather be making images.........at f.0.95 if I feel like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 28, 2011 Share #54 Â Posted September 28, 2011 If there is a point to any such discussion, it would be better placed between those who have recently bought a used f.1 Noctilux!. Â why's that then ? Â What I am suggesting is that any Noctilux will hold it's value for the forseeable future. Surely, a new in the box Noctilux 0.95 would be worth more than retail price with the demand for the product. Not a cost, a profit however small. It's not a significant depreciation risk. Â I'm with you on the use of f0.95. Â Regarding a comment made earlier about boring apertures: Poor subject content and poor composition lead to boring pictures, apertures can only be inapporiate, not boring. Â The art of the last 5 centuries, at least, demonstrates the use of concentrating detail on the main subject whilst substantially softening the background and reducing the detail. Perhaps the use of the Noctilux is an artist choice, rather than realistic. I actually prefer the artistic approach and the use of shading to encourage the viewer to see what I, as 'the artist' want him to see. Â When you study an Ansel Adams photo up-close, you only see a small area in focus and not the peripheral area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miss_emma_jade Posted September 28, 2011 Share #55 Â Posted September 28, 2011 interesting. the thing I love about my Leica is that that it is comfortable hand held a 25 speed. i guess i tend to leave it at that and adjust appeture to suit, so i guess i shoot as stopped down as i can at any exposure. often that's about f4-f5.6 and i am very conscious of that being where most of my lenses really handle the best. often shooting landscapes, i find that f22 isn't really enough. i wonder how that would change if i bought a camera with an aperture priority setting, would i put it at f2 and just shoot everything like that? no i don't think so. a leica is made for shooting in the dark, and we should celebrate that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted September 28, 2011 Share #56  Posted September 28, 2011 why's that then ?  The current, and rising, second-hand value of a used f.1 Noctilux should give you a clue. How would you consider your money better spent: £4-5K on a used f.1 or £7k on a new f.0.95? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted September 28, 2011 Share #57  Posted September 28, 2011 why's that then ?  ........The art of the last 5 centuries, at least, demonstrates the use of concentrating detail on the main subject whilst substantially softening the background and reducing the detail. Perhaps the use of the Noctilux is an artist choice, rather than realistic.....  There's hardly a technique available that art hasn't demonstrated over the last 500 years at least. I don't get the relevance of the point.  But if there's one thing that art has demonstrated clearly, its that originality of vision and expression is infinitely more interesting than the repetition of a technique.  I have nothing against wide apertures, or small ones, or in-between ones. But I heartily dispute than any aperture or lens is more artistic than any other, or that any style or technique is more "artistic" than any other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 28, 2011 Share #58  Posted September 28, 2011 The current, and rising, second-hand value of a used f.1 Noctilux  should give you a clue.  How would you consider your money better spent: £4-5K on a used f.1 or £7k on a new f.0.95?    My money would go into a 0.95. I would not buy one for the profit opportunity, but for the aesthetic opportunity. I would not buy one either if it dropped 33% in value the moment I opened the box. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted September 28, 2011 Share #59  Posted September 28, 2011 I have no problem shooting wide open when it's needed (very low light levels, slow film loaded in the camera, etc...).  What bothers me is when many pull out a Noctilux just to shoot wide open at the minimum focusing distance for no other reason than to get that look. Whenever I speak to photographers I try to stress the importance of becoming better at our craft by working on composition, use of geometry, context in the images (which most of the time is non-existen if you only shoot wide open to get the pretty bokkeh) instead of automatically setting the Noctilux to f/0.95 just because we can.  It's ok to have fun with the tools we have and to experiment but let's not forget that photography should never be about the cool toys  Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 28, 2011 Share #60 Â Posted September 28, 2011 Could this not be, mostly, down to most iconic photos being from an earlier time, when such lenses were not widely available? Â I don't think so, F1.4 and faster lenses have been around for decades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.