A bunch of fast 50/60's between 0.95 and 1.2

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Clash of the Titans! The Ultimate Leica M Super Fast 50/60 lens battle! By Kristian Dowling | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

A nice comparison, shame the article wasnt longer

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Tonki-M]

just finished reading it. the 0.95 didnt receive any love in the 'character' department though The f/1 noct and the hexanon v2 seems to be the most balanced of them all.

[Paul J]

Damn it, these tests are terrible for my bank account. Looks like I need to try out the f1 Noctilux.

 

The worst part of owning two Noctilolz would be having to decide which to use. I mostly prefer the 0.95 but that f1 really floats my boat too. It's just lacking the sharpness which limits it's use for me.

 

It's a good test as you can clearly see the different characteristics of each lens side by side which is great but I ignored the scoring which is subjective.

 

The only part that bugs me, I have to say, is the sharpness test samples of the eyes given that only one of the samples looks actually in focus. The rest being mainly front focussed. He recommends in the article that you should move backwards after focussing with these lenses but given his sharpness test but I would say that didn't quite work! I think that should have been either left out or done more thoroughly.

 

All in all a good reference though as the images speak for these selves in terms of character. Now...about that f1 Noctilux....

[MarkP]

Damn it, these tests are terrible for my bank account. Looks like I need to try out the f1 Noctilux.

 

The worst part of owning two Noctilolz would be having to decide which to use. I mostly prefer the 0.95 but that f1 really floats my boat too. It's just lacking the sharpness which limits it's use for me.

 

It's a good test as you can clearly see the different characteristics of each lens side by side which is great but I ignored the scoring which is subjective.

 

The only part that bugs me, I have to say, is the sharpness test samples of the eyes given that only one of the samples looks actually in focus. The rest being mainly front focussed. He recommends in the article that you should move backwards after focussing with these lenses but given his sharpness test but I would say that didn't quite work! I think that should have been either left out or done more thoroughly.

 

All in all a good reference though as the images speak for these selves in terms of character. Now...about that f1 Noctilux....

 

I've posted on this before:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/252840-50mm-noctilux-f1-0-a.html - post #8.

 

I have a 1.0/50 Noctilux E55 (v3) on permanent loan from a friend. I no longer have any interest in the 0.95 lens - I have the 1.4/50 ASPH FLE.

 

I have my fair share of exceptionally 'sharp' modern Leica lenses but I continue to come back to this lens because of the beautiful way it beautifully draws photographs at all apertures. One does not need to get locked into the mindset that all lenses need to be razor sharp or that as fast lenses that they should only be used wide open, but that they give us the option of being used wide open as required for available light or artistic effect.

 

No it is not as sharp as more modern lenses but as our hero KR () repeatedly states - sharpness is overrated. On this matter he's absolutely right .

 

Go and get one...

[Paul J]

I've posted on this before:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/252840-50mm-noctilux-f1-0-a.html - post #8.

 

I have a 1.0/50 Noctilux E55 (v3) on permanent loan from a friend. I no longer have any interest in the 0.95 lens - I have the 1.4/50 ASPH FLE.

 

I have my fair share of exceptionally 'sharp' modern Leica lenses but I continue to come back to this lens because of the beautiful way it beautifully draws photographs at all apertures. One does not need to get locked into the mindset that all lenses need to be razor sharp or that as fast lenses that they should only be used wide open, but that they give us the option of being used wide open as required for available light or artistic effect.

 

No it is not as sharp as more modern lenses but as our hero KR () repeatedly states - sharpness is overrated. On this matter he's absolutely right .

 

Go and get one...

 

I do sorta agree with you, if it suits the image, if it suits the story. Which is why I'm considering both. Generally though, an editor, an art director or more often than not an account executive will not agree. Good luck telling an Account Executive "I know the client wants a sharp image but you tell them it's over rated".

[MarkP]

I do sorta agree with you, if it suits the image, if it suits the story. Which is why I'm considering both. Generally though, an editor, an art director or more often than not an account executive will not agree. Good luck telling an Account Executive "I know the client wants a sharp image but you tell them it's over rated".

 

Good point. My photographs though are only for me .

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the 0.95 didnt receive any love in the 'character' department.

 

Surely a result of the fact that he used the Hermès edition.

 

I'm surprised how badly the Hexanon v1 did in the MM long-neck test. And I think the MM images generally suffer from very poor metering - exposure is all over the shop on my screen at least.

[Paul J]

My photographs though are only for me .

 

They are very best and most important kind.

[jaapv]

Surely a result of the fact that he used the Hermès edition.

 

I'm surprised how badly the Hexanon v1 did in the MM long-neck test. And I think the MM images generally suffer from very poor metering - exposure is all over the shop on my screen at least.

Screen? You should use the histogram, which is extraordinary on this camera. I find the exposure is as consistent as the M9 (not surprisingly), albeit biased about 0.5 stop under (which is a good thing) A well-exposed MM shot usually looks underexposed to start with.

[philipus]

Screen? You should use the histogram, which is extraordinary on this camera. I find the exposure is as consistent as the M9 (not surprisingly), albeit biased about 0.5 stop under (which is a good thing) A well-exposed MM shot usually looks underexposed to start with.

 

I know nothing about how the MM meters, but that was not what I meant. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

 

I referred to how the metering varies on each image with the long-necked woman. It makes it difficult to compare (to the extent comparing small jpgs is of any use at all, naturally).

[Paul J]

I know nothing about how the MM meters, but that was not what I meant. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

 

I referred to how the metering varies on each image with the long-necked woman. It makes it difficult to compare (to the extent comparing small jpgs is of any use at all, naturally).

 

Much of the comparative character detail has been lost in the exposure differences and I agree it makes it harder to ultimately compare. Still a useful reference though. I was surprised by the V1 Hexanon and that particular shot to.

[IWC Doppel]

I did think throughout the Konica V1 looked poor, but as well as being rare it looked well used, prehaps this is not a good example.

 

I did have a few pictures with a 'tatty' Noctilux f1.2 and the images were soft and poor, the examples in comparison to the others look much better on the SH test. I also note that the MTF's for the 1.2 at 1.2 vs the Noctilux F1 at 1.0 are better so this looks like it was a good example. Perhaps the Konica V1 was not !

[MarkP]

You should use the histogram, which is extraordinary on this camera. I find the exposure is as consistent as the M9 (not surprisingly), albeit biased about 0.5 stop under (which is a good thing).

 

Yes, I completely agree. The histogram is fantastic.

In fact, now that I'm getting the feel for metering the Monochrom I find it relatively difficult to overexpose.