bpalme Posted June 7, 2012 Share #1 Â Posted June 7, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've been doing some testing between the two.. here's a wide open test of the current Noctilux and Summilux. Noctilux vs. Summilux Wide open shootout.: Leica Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Hi bpalme, Take a look here Noctilux vs. Summilux shootout. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kokoshawnuff Posted June 7, 2012 Share #2 Â Posted June 7, 2012 Hard to make any definitive conclusions about the lenses from your photos except that they both perform quite well wide open... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted June 8, 2012 Share #3 Â Posted June 8, 2012 I'd have to agree - it would've been a little more useful to shoot each at say, f/1.4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjames9142 Posted June 8, 2012 Share #4 Â Posted June 8, 2012 I am not sure I have ever seen a Noctilux shot that couldn't have been done with the Summilux, given the enormous flexibility of PP. It's a lot of money for very little difference. If you are Stanley Kubrick, though, it can make a difference to put a Zeiss 0.7 on a movie camera. Check this out :Untitled Document Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted June 8, 2012 Share #5  Posted June 8, 2012 I am not sure I have ever seen a Noctilux shot that couldn't have been done with the Summilux, given the enormous flexibility of PP. It's a lot of money for very little difference. If you are Stanley Kubrick, though, it can make a difference to put a Zeiss 0.7 on a movie camera. Check this out:Untitled Document  In light gathering, an extra stop is an extra stop. Sure, one could increase scene brightness in post, but that also increases noise. It may also mean the difference between a shutter speed that's too low and a faster one that gets you a sharp(er) photo. Then there's the thinner DoF that f/0.95 gives you over f/1.4.  Do any of these warrant a near doubling in price, size, weight, etc.? You're right - it's debatable. But for some folks or in some situations, it's not.  If it were that simple, we'd all be shooting Elmarits or Summarits and just cranking up the brightness in post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjames9142 Posted June 8, 2012 Share #6 Â Posted June 8, 2012 The OP's snaps could have been done with either lens -- there is no meaningful difference to me. You can always up the ISO, and each iteration of LR allows for better noise reduction. As I said, I have yet to see the image that says -- only a Noctilux could have done this. But check out Stanley Kubrick in the link I provided. He went to immense trouble to put a 0.7 Zeiss lens on a movie camera because he wanted to shoot by candlelight in a castle. Fill light would have changed what it was actually like in gthe 18th century. This makes sense to me, I fail to understand why photographers are obsessed with bokeh, a word that didn't even exist 20 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted June 8, 2012 Share #7 Â Posted June 8, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The way I see things, either lens has its own specific use. .. Â As an easy, lovely rendition allrounder, the Summilux is a great lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share #8 Â Posted June 8, 2012 I agree very little difference but to my eyes there is still an edge to the Noctilux. A little more 3D which I like for artsy stuff. The point of the post was to compare "wide open" shots. I see no reason to go around shooting a Noctilux at F1.4 unless DOF gets too shallow. Another thing is these are medium to short distance from subject. The closer you get the more you will notice a difference but also the keeper rate goes down at 0.95 for sure. Disclaimer: I'm in no way trying to say the Noctilux is better and/or worth the money. It is an expensive and fun toy and no one "needs" a noctilux. You gotta admit the sharpness at 0.95 is quite an engineering marvel though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted June 8, 2012 Share #9 Â Posted June 8, 2012 Hmm, true - if you're comparing what f/0.95 looks like compared to f/1.4 - then this is exactly the way to do it. I meant if you were comparing the lenses more directly, performance-wise. Â Either way, all good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share #10 Â Posted June 8, 2012 I know what you mean. People want different things out of their lenses. I've been doing comparisons to convince myself I don't need the noctilux. If it was $7000 and same size as the Summilux it would be no question. Half the fun for me is just trying different lenses. Heck I may just end up with a Canon F1.2 and the Summicron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted June 8, 2012 Share #11 Â Posted June 8, 2012 I know what you mean. People want different things out of their lenses. I've been doing comparisons to convince myself I don't need the noctilux. If it was $7000 and same size as the Summilux it would be no question. Half the fun for me is just trying different lenses. Heck I may just end up with a Canon F1.2 and the Summicron. Â Exactly, it's all in good fun. Truth be told, as much as I love the Noctilux, I'd rather carry a Summilux instead myself. When you need/want f/0.95 the Noctilux is great, but at least in my case - and the majority of the time, the Summilux is the clear choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.