The Noctilux f1 is still magical

[swamiji]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I said before, web tests are pointless. I do all my testing A3 or larger.

[Al_OOF]

Here, in a blind test can you tell the following 3 images apart (taken with the 3 Noctis, f1.2, f1, and f0.95:

Looking at these images (without seeing the headlines) I have thought that the A was from the 0.95 because the air is more trasparent (also if there is more red) and there is a more clear differentiation in colors and in shapes.

To me the others have a little veil in comparison (less in 1.2)

[farnz]

Here, in a blind test can you tell the following 3 images apart (taken with the 3 Noctis, f1.2, f1, and f0.95: ....

I can tell that they're all underexposed and poorly focused; it looks like focus and recompose error has knocked the focus off the eyes in each case; which hides plenty. Even so, side by side there are discernible differences to my eye. I would normally look for the f/1's characteristic vignette versus the 0.95's brighter corners but the underexposure has obscured that. As stated earlier, internet posted pictures are hardly the best medium for comparison especially taking into account resolution throttling caused by file size limitations.

 

Pete.

[BerndReini]

Here are two shots from yesterday's outing with the Noctilux f1, one at f4 and one wide open at f1. In my opinion, even at f4 it still shows some of its painterly qualities. If I had to describe it analytically, I would refer to the bokeh IN FRONT of the plane of focus. This picture was focused on the writing in the background and look how nicely the guy's back and metal shutters in the foreground are drawn.

 

The rendering of out-of-focus areas is always a compromise, and I believe that the older lenses without aspherical elements sometimes have the upper hand.

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!

[jbl]

To me the signature of the f/1 is a sort of swirl just off center towards the left upper corner. I'm sure it's there in other corners too, that's just where I always see it.

[Herr Barnack]

Heres from someone with plenty of experience assessing lenses:

 

"At f/2 and smaller, the current LEICA 50mm f/2 SUMMICRON-M has clearly superior performance. Unless you need f/1.4 or f/1, leave this old NOCTILUX-M to armchair enthusiasts."

 

LEICA 50mm f/1 NOCTILUX (1976-2008)

It seems to me that this line of thinking misses the point of the Noctilux. If you want sharpness at or near maximum aperture, there are any number of M lenses that are sharper than the Noctilux; no surprises there.

 

If you want more sharpness and depth of field from the Noctilux, stop it down to f/5.6 or f/8. At these apertures, the Noctilux approaches - and nearly equals - the sharpness of the 50 Summicron (the pre-ASPH APO version).

 

The real strengths of the pre-ASPH Noctilux are found at f/1, those being shallow depth of field, bokeh and its overall fingerprint. It renders in a way that no other lens does or can.

 

I think the magic is most evident when used wide open.

True.

 

If you want another kind of magic, start shooting wide open in daylight with an ND filter.

Also true. Edited July 8, 2014 by Carlos Danger

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To me the signature of the f/1 is a sort of swirl just off center towards the left upper corner. I'm sure it's there in other corners too, that's just where I always see it.

 

 

it's pretty uniform actually, you just have to get the distance right

 

 

 

 

[DigitalHeMan]

it's pretty uniform actually, you just have to get the distance right

 

 

 

These photos immediately show the benefits of the Noctilux, rather than something shot at 5.6

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

 

The real strengths of the pre-ASPH Noctilux are found at f/1, those being shallow depth of field, bokeh and its overall fingerprint. It renders in a way that no other lens does or can.

.

 

Which I why I said its only advantage is when shot wide open - otherwise any of the other Leica lenses will give you the same or better result.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

These photos immediately show the benefits of the Noctilux, rather than something shot at 5.6

 

There is no doubt it has some unique qualities - but shooting wide open with virtually no DOF soon become a rather boring effect (similar to using a filter) that I don't think accounts for any of the great photographic work of the past century. Its just "perfume" as Cartier Bresson would say - the real magic is in the actual image you capture.

[DigitalHeMan]

There is no doubt it has some unique qualities - but shooting wide open with virtually no DOF soon become a rather boring effect that I don't think has been present in any of the great photographic images of the past century. Its just "perfume" as Cartier Bresson would say - the real magic is in the actual image you capture.

 

 

That's very true, but the occasional use of the effect can be nice. Still, makes it an expensive outlay for occasional wide open usage...

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I think Steve Huff summed it up very nicely when he said:

 

"As a photography coach I always stress one important factor to my students – The photographer should be very mindful of one important factor when using these ultra fast lenses…..a blurred background does not necessarily make the photo a better picture! It’s very easy to get carried away, focusing on the bokeh attributes of a picture, when in fact, the background may be of high importance to the subject and may require some depth of field to establish the relationship between subject/background. Take history’s best pictures for example. I can’t think of many that were shot with such shallow depth of field. The background is a very important element to a photographer and should be taken seriously when creating pictures"

 

noctilux 1.2 | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

[Gerard]

A skilled photographer can make any Leica lens shine.

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

Objective and the right tool.

 

If it's the effect you want, you can have it at f1

 

If you want to shoot street or need DoF, just stop it down to f5.6 or lower if needed and you're good to go

 

What the lens offers is the flexibility and choice of f1 and very good image quality at f5.6

 

How this is leveraged and put to use is where the skill of the photographer comes into play

[Exodies]

A skilled photographer can make any Leica lens shine.

 

Is that the same as flair?

[Herr Barnack]

I think Steve Huff summed it up very nicely when he said:

 

"As a photography coach I always stress one important factor to my students – The photographer should be very mindful of one important factor when using these ultra fast lenses…..a blurred background does not necessarily make the photo a better picture! It’s very easy to get carried away, focusing on the bokeh attributes of a picture, when in fact, the background may be of high importance to the subject and may require some depth of field to establish the relationship between subject/background. Take history’s best pictures for example. I can’t think of many that were shot with such shallow depth of field. The background is a very important element to a photographer and should be taken seriously when creating pictures"

 

noctilux 1.2 | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Nor does a blurred background necessarily make the photo a worse or lesser picture; there's two sides to that coin.

 

The OOF background that the Noctilux produces at f/1 has to be looked at in a different way than the elements of the image that are in focus. The OOF areas are somewhat akin to an abstract or impressionistic painting; they need to be evaluated as such, otherwise the viewer is missing the point of the OOF elements and the motivation behind rendering those elements in that manner.

 

Most of the time, minds that have been trained in western thought usually have great difficulty with this. The western eye seeks out the "main subject" of the image and everything else in the image is relegated to lesser importance or even thought of as expendable.

 

As I have read, the eastern eye sees all elements present in the image as equally important. The out of focus elements attract more scrutiny and interpretation than the more obvious elements that are in sharp focus.

 

It is a different visual viewpoint, a different way of looking at and studying photographs - and (IMHO) a way that the Noctilux is inherently capable of addressing.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Carlos Danger

[jbl]

it's pretty uniform actually, you just have to get the distance right

 

 

That's exactly what I was talking about. Thanks for finding the examples.

 

What distance do you tend to see it?

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

That's exactly what I was talking about. Thanks for finding the examples.

 

What distance do you tend to see it?

 

 

You're welcome

 

Two distances to keep in mind:

 

1. Distance to the subject

2. Distance of background from subject

 

If you can keep the subject around 1-1.5 meters and the background around 1-3 meters, I find the effect is most pronounced.

 

Of course, at f1

 

You could also play with closer distances from the subject and the background but the effect isn't so pronounced

 

Example:

 

If the background is well separated from your subject, there is no trace of the swirl

 

Example:

 

If the distance to your subject is well separated, there is no trace of the swirl again even if the background falls into the swirl distance

 

Example:

 

Beyond the swirl entertainment, the f1 is by far my most used lens on the Monochrom.

 

The combination is absolutely amazing! It really brings out "silver tones" in black&white

 

Example:

[Herr Barnack]

@TheGodParticle,

In your post #38, images #1 and #4 are my favorites - just outstanding!

 

This thread has jump started my interest is shooting with my f/1 Noctilux which has been in hibernation of late. It has also renewed my commitment to really learning this lens, and has carved in stone my commitment to never let this masterpiece in glass slip away.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

As I said before, web tests are pointless. I do all my testing A3 or larger.

 

LOL. Well, if you can only see a difference at A3 printed, then I would suggest that the difference is very hard to discern and inconsequential for most uses.