Question on Noctilux 50 f/1.0

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

mark: why would you buy the Noctilux if you don't shoot at F1? Wouldn't a Summilux be a better choice then?

 

Who said I bought the noctilux?

The lens is on indefinite loan (three years now) from a friend who never uses it, and every time I offer to return it he says no.

 

I rarely shoot at f1.0 because of the strong vignetting and almsot zero depth of field. I don't want my subject's cornea in focus but the ears, nose and eyelashes blurred.

 

Nevertheless the images it produces at any f-stop are quite extraordinary and so different to any of my other lenses.

I have a 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH (FLE) as my standard 50mm lens but the two lenses render images entirely differently.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

 

ps I agree with Algrove that the 1.0/50 Noctiux is extraordinary on the Monochrom as it just takes the edge off that razor sharp sensor but maintains an extraordinary tonal range.

[iedei]

Who said I bought the noctilux?

The lens is on indefinite loan (three years now) from a friend who never uses it, and every time I offer to return it he says no.

 

I rarely shoot at f1.0 because of the strong vignetting and almsot zero depth of field. I don't want my subject's cornea in focus but the ears, nose and eyelashes blurred.

 

Nevertheless the images it produces at any f-stop are quite extraordinary and so different to any of my other lenses.

I have a 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH (FLE) as my standard 50mm lens but the two lenses render images entirely differently.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

 

ps I agree with Algrove that the 1.0/50 Noctiux is extraordinary on the Monochrom as it just takes the edge off that razor sharp sensor but maintains an extraordinary tonal range.

 

ahhhh! I see

 

it doesn't get much better than free use of a Noctilux!

[jow]

mark: why would you buy the Noctilux if you don't shoot at F1? Wouldn't a Summilux be a better choice then?

 

My copy of the Nocti 1.0 at f/1.4 gives me a smoother out of focus rendering and a perception of slightly shallower DOF compared to my 50Lux pre ASPH at f/1.4. Here is a sample shot from both. I really like my 50Lux-pre ASPH but f/1.0 is like akin to insurance for low light, sometimes, often very rarely.

 

I believe the actual T stop of a lens is always slightly less then stated f stop, especially when shot at full aperture?

 

Joe

 

Nocti 1.0 at 1m @ f/1.4

 

 

50Lux pre ASPH (E46) at 1m @ f/1.4

 

and here's a repost of the Nocti 1.0 @f/2 for comparison to the 50Lux pre-ASPH at f/1.4

 

Here's a color sample Nocti 1.0 at f/1.4. Unfortunately I did not have my 50Lux on hand for a comparison.

[jow]

Who said I bought the noctilux?

I rarely shoot at f1.0 because of the strong vignetting and almsot zero depth of field. I don't want my subject's cornea in focus but the ears, nose and eyelashes blurred.

 

I actually like the strong vignetting at f/1.0. It is "natural" and part of the lens signature and saves me a step at post processing . The vignetting and other quirks were also part of the reason I decided to get the f/1.0 instead of the marvelous f/0.95. But I agree, DOF at f/1.0 is really thin and its easy to miss focus.

 

Joe

[MarkP]

...vignetting at f/1.0. It is "natural" and part of the lens signature...vignetting and other quirks were also part of the reason I decided to get the f/1.0 instead of the marvelous f/0.95.

 

Joe

 

I agree, but losing 3-4 stops of light at f1.0 is just a bit too much for my liking. Already acceptable to me by f1.4 though....