Please correct me if I'm wrong about 75mm APO-Summilux-M ASPH f/1.4

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 f:8 or f:11 comes quite close to the normal reception of - say - a landscape by the naked eye.

 

 

But not of a near subject.

Your retina is not a flat sensor, and only has "high resolution" in the center.

But most importantly, when you are in front of a person and look at his/her face, your brain will also "bokeh-out" everything in the background, also thanks to the "3D" processing of information coming from both eyes.

For me, this is best approximated with a high aperture lens.

But we are all different, and certainly I agree that both eyes must be in focus.

[NB23]

Nothing wrong with f8 at all.

 

Look at yanidel's collection of pictures (ran into them om google a fee days ago). The massive blur all over the place was making me sick, as a viewer. All his pictures would have been improved by closing the lens down substantially.

 

The only time that massive bouquet will look good in a photograph is in low light, where it naturally occurs.

 

Massive bouquet in broad daylight? Huge error.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Matter of tastes. Blur is an important part in photography.

[Herr Barnack]

 

 

Actually, it was slowly cooled by Mandler himself, gently blowing on the glass 24/7 with a special technique he had invented.

When Mandler died in 2005, Leica had to resort to ultra-rare unicorn farts in order to cool the last batch, which finished cooling in 2008. There was just enough glass to produce 100 copies of the lens.

Due to the ultra-expensive unicorn-fart process, the last 100 Noctiluxes were sold as a ultra-expensive special edition in a special wooden humidor which preserves the fragrance of unicorn-farts.

 

Roger Hicks has a nice article on the f/1.0 Noctilux on his website, but no information on the annealing process for the glass used http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20king.html

 

It would be nice to learn some factual information on the annealing process employed for the glass used in the f/1 Noctilux; I have searched but have come up empty handed so far.

[NB23]

Matter of tastes. Blur is an important part in photography.

There is batural blur and then there is forced blur that makes me sick.

 

Shooting at iso 100 and using f2@1/1000 can be acceptable. But I would always prefer f4.0@250 or 5.6@125. Seems more natural.

 

But shooting at f1.2 with stacked ND filters in the middle of the day? This is pure amateurism. The images that those photographers produce talk by themselves: uninspired photography with an attempt to wow the viewer solely with massive bouquet all over the image.

 

The true skill is in the composition. There is no special skill inusing a lens wide open.

[lct]

[...] But shooting at f1.2 with stacked ND filters in the middle of the day? This is pure amateurism. The images that those photographers produce talk by themselves: uninspired photography with an attempt to wow the viewer solely with massive bouquet all over the image.

The true skill is in the composition. There is no special skill inusing a lens wide open.

 

Just different skills or no skills at all, who cares really? Some people prefer shooting at f/8, others af f/1.4 and there are even fools shooting both ways like yours truly. I was in my garden, liked what i saw, grabbed my cam and shot, that's all. No special skills, uninspired photography, crappy pics i guess but a lot of pleasure in trying to catch a bit of beauty. 

 

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!

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by lct

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Look at yanidel's collection of pictures (ran into them om google a fee days ago). The massive blur all over the place was making me sick, as a viewer. 

 

 

You probably have some kind of viewing disorder.

 

Pictures like this look very natural to me, as if I was there:

http://www.yanidel.com/pictures/portrait%20of%20marie%20HR.jpg

 

Some others pictures he has may look better stopped down, but it all boils down to personal taste.

[pgk]

IF:

 

we didn't need fast apertures, lenses would be a lot cheaper, and

 

we didn't shoot in low light we wouldn't need fast apertures

 

A short essay please, on the validity or otherwise of the above two statements . (I'm kidding right!)

 

Aperture is simply a tool in the photographer's toolbox, no less no more. If you don't need fast apertures don't include them amongst your tools. Simple as that, but don't think that they aren't useful, they most certainly can be.

[CheshireCat]

It would be nice to learn some factual information on the annealing process employed for the glass used in the f/1 Noctilux; I have searched but have come up empty handed so far.

 

 

Why, you don't find my unicorn-farts process explanation detailed enough ? 

 

Fair enough. Then please read this interesting article by Marco Cavina with lots of details on the production process - alsa he does not specify the annealing time (use Google Translate if needed):

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Leica_Noctilux_M__50_1,2/00_pag.htm

[NB23]

You probably have some kind of viewing disorder.

 

Pictures like this look very natural to me, as if I was there:

http://www.yanidel.com/pictures/portrait%20of%20marie%20HR.jpg

 

Some others pictures he has may look better stopped down, but it all boils down to personal taste.

I stumbled on his mega-blurry stuff.

[CheshireCat]

Roger Hicks has a nice article on the f/1.0 Noctilux on his website, but no information on the annealing process for the glass used http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20king.html

 

I think Roger has a bad copy, or postprocessed the photos like that on purpose.

The Noctilux f/1 is much sharper than that.

[NickR]

The human eye has a focal length of about 17mm. The diameter of the pupil at daylight is between 1.5mm and 2mm. That's between 1:8 and 1:11. Unnatural, of course.

 

I believe that's the object focus.  The image focus is 22mm.    Still, it only makes sense to talk about 22mm focal length at f11 at the standard eye chart range of 20 feet and beyond where a relaxed eye is in focus from there to infinity.  Within 20 feet, however, the eye must change shape to focus.  We really can't say what the dof scales are for our own eyes at any length of focus within twenty feet.  (although, I'm sure it could be mapped out in a lab setting).  Unfortunately, we can't focus on the out-of-focus things in our field of view in the same way we can examine those same areas in a photograph shot with limited depth of field.  That makes it hard to know when we've got it right in a photo.  Maybe it's as simple as, if it looks right, it probably is.  

[pop]

... it only makes sense to talk about 22mm focal length at f11 at the standard eye chart range of 20 feet and beyond where a relaxed eye is in focus from there to infinity.  Within 20 feet, however, the eye must change shape to focus.  ...

The aperture expression is just the ratio of the opening over the distance from the lens to the image. Since the distance between lens and image does not change in a human eye, the aperture remains constant with the same pupil diameter. However, as the focal length of the lens changes, the depth of field may change, anyway.

[jaapv]

But has a photograph to mimic the rendering of our eye?

[pop]

But has a photograph to mimic the rendering of our eye?

Not if you want to make sense of it.

[pgk]

But has a photograph to mimic the rendering of our eye?

 

It can't can it? How can a two-dimensional image mimic a stereo view which is processed in real time, has an experience factor thrown in too and to say nothing of it being a constantly scanning, updating and reassessing process. Colour temperature multi-auto-adjust built in to say nothing of instant and extraordinarily good and very responsive autofocus. What we perceive probably looks very different from the image formed on the back of the eye.

 

Look on the bright side, some fish with two eyes can simultaneously see both in front and behind themselves. Most of their brain must be used up simply processing and evaluating data to avoid becoming a meal, to say nothing of general living. We really do have it easy being able to discuss photographs don't we?

 

Can I just add that whilst I have no problem with anyone disliking shallow depth of field in images taken using a wide aperture, we are all different and our preferences vary. Once photography becomes prescriptive (no pun intended) it rapidly becomes boring.

Edited February 17, 2016 by pgk

[CheshireCat]

This is for all who think shooting wide open with a Noctilux in daylight is crazy stuff.

M9 + Noctilux f/1 wide open with proper post-processing.

Happy with my copy

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!

[CheshireCat]

Another M9 + 50/1 wide open, 1/30s ISO 800 handheld.

I don't notice the "disgusting bokeh typical of these nonsense ultra wide-aperture lenses"

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!

Edited February 17, 2016 by CheshireCat

[jaapv]

CheshireCat, on 17 Feb 2016 - 18:32, said:

This is for all who think shooting wide open with a Noctilux in daylight is crazy stuff.

M9 + Noctilux f/1 wide open with proper post-processing.

Happy with my copy

But what was the rationale of taking this shot @ f 1.0 ?  I'm sure the contrast would have been more pleasing a few stops closed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[CheshireCat]

But what was the rationale of taking this shot @ f 1.0 ?  I'm sure the contrast would have been more pleasing a few stops closed.

 

I love the 3D look of it.