menos I M6 Posted June 18, 2015 Share #21 Posted June 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is with mixed feelings the old argument people find against superheats lenses such as the Noctilux find every single time again and again whenever a discussion is brought up. Yes, absolutely, there are too many photographs of fences, flowers, … you name it. Whenever one does an image search for "Noctilux" it seems such shots seem to dominate the screen, yet still there is another side a whole other world of how one can use fast lenses, be it due to necessity as of exposure and (lack of) light or be it simply because a certain character of a lens one likes to add to an image to express what one would really like to show with an image. The noctilux and it's peers are not one trick pony lenses. They are not just toys for rich people (some would be surprised how many people who own one do not at all fall into their stereotype of "the Noctilux owner"). They are not (despite often painted otherwise) wither sold on and on from one fence lattice and water hydrant photographer to the next or exclusively languish in wardrobes, dry-cases or the elaborate humidor being glass … many of these lenses are indeed used and loved by photographers. Maybe it is that we have seen so much large aperture lens imaging over the last years that our senses simply are overloaded and our tastebuds turn away in boredom. Yet still for some this type of lens is not only fascinating from a technical standpoint (these truly are special lenses after all), but are still used. I have a confession to make - I don't even have an E60 ND filter and probably never will and yet is the 50/1 Noctilux one of my absolute all time favorite lenses. In fact it has been my most used lens for a long time when the Leica M8.2 was my mainly used camera. I still love this lens (yes, love). Over the years my preferences in focal lengths have changed slightly - what once was a strong favorite with a 50mm on a M8.2 has over time changed to becoming a 50mm on a film or digital full frame M and then gradually changed into 35mm. 35mm is now my most used focal length and I have battled hard for several years to find my favorite 35mm lens - a lens I could love as much as my Noctilux. Now as much as I am fond of the Noctilux f1, I equally have a completely cold shoulder towards the new ASPH 0.95 Noctilux. It doesn't interest me the least bit in fact. As you might guess, it is not optical perfection I am after but there are certain lenses that really capture me with their imperfection - the Noctilux has lots of them, imperfections. None of them can be "recreated" in photoshop or with instagram filters. It has to be used. I would absolutely fall for a 35mm Noctilux should it be created in the spirit of the spherical Noctilux f1 rather than in the spirit of the typical modern Karbe lens which does usually not strike my nerve as strongly. Here is a few samples from the Noctilux f1, CV 35/1.2 v1, 35/2 UC-Hex where I think a 35mm Noctilux would have been interesting: on the edge of light - a really, really dark street with the Noctilux wide open - a slower ISO would have been nicer and a especially a wider 35mm lens would have made the shot easier and added a better perspective: a shot a few years ago with the M8.2 on one of the hottest summer nights in Shanghai - a man loving his dog and vice versa: a candid shot of a stranger - the Noctilux has transformed any substance into a dreamscape, the subject might be in at the very moment: a shot done with what I just happened to have with me that day, a 35/2 UC-Hex - again, very dark, I used all the aperture I had to capture the expression of the subject, I would have liked to have had two more stops (I think this was ~1/30s): Sometimes I use the Noctilux just because it guarantees me a shot I know will work - a shot of German TV celebrity Kai Ebel - I ran into him on my way back to stash my gear into the car and drive home to edit the day's shoot at the F1 track. I got one shot, a few seconds really. You take the Nikon DSLR with zoom? The M body with a 35/2? Of course not, the other M body with the Noctilux - safest bet to get a usable shot - Kai Ebel, a truly nice chap and full professional: or I simply use the Noctilux when I just love how it melts an image: young couple kissing: If there was a 35 Noctilux a crossing in image character between the Noctilux f1, the Voigtländer 35/1.2v1 and the old 35 Summilux ASPH (non FLE !!!) I would buy it for sure. If it would turn out to be as massive and as optically corrected as the .95 Noctilux ASPH I would have zero interest. Too bad Herr Karbe surely has no interest in such an optically compromised lens design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 Hi menos I M6, Take a look here Is it possible a 35mm noctilux 1.0. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted June 18, 2015 Share #22 Posted June 18, 2015 , but what's so wrong with a narrow depth of focus ? Ok here is the challenge, how many magnificent photographs have been made at f/1? Show me. I would say the worlds magnificent pictures come in the f/2 to f/64 range. On the other hand there have been a plethora of photographs made at f/1.4 and below that aren't at all magnificent, they are a cheap way to appear artistic while the ultimate intent is often to demonstrate the lens rather than to demonstrate good photography. This is what attracts people to shallow DOF, not a deep artistic intent but a shallow desire to have the equipment they use appear enigmatic and intersting as a substitute for art. There are exceptions of course, so show me an exception, I will add it to my short list? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 18, 2015 Share #23 Posted June 18, 2015 Ok here is the challenge, how many magnificent photographs have been made at f/1? To do so you would have to define 'magnificent' - tricky. Fast lenses really do have their uses - I quite often shoot wide open, but only when I really need to, and rarely for the thin depth of field. I actually stick at f1.4 lenses these days - I had a f/1 Noctilux but didn't particularly gel with it and I sold it off years ago. I've also had and sold Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2. The 50 just wasn't up to spec as far as I was concerned (I have the 1.4 which is actually perfectly acceptable!) and the 85 had a 50% or less accuracy with AF so it went too. I'm happy with 1.4, use it when I need to and take some pix I'm happy with at that aperture. 'Magnificent' - not so sure about that, but they do what they were intended and that's good enough for me. There are those to whom a 35/1 might well be desirable for actual use. I don't think that I'm one of them myself, but I have no problem with those that do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thestatesman Posted June 18, 2015 Share #24 Posted June 18, 2015 On the other hand there have been a plethora of photographs made at f/1.4 and below that aren't at all magnificent, they are a cheap way to appear artistic while the ultimate intent is often to demonstrate the lens rather than to demonstrate good photography. This is what attracts people to shallow DOF, not a deep artistic intent but a shallow desire to have the equipment they use appear enigmatic and intersting as a substitute for art. There are exceptions of course, so show me an exception, I will add it to my short list? You may find others have their own opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffry Abt Posted June 18, 2015 Share #25 Posted June 18, 2015 I want one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 18, 2015 Share #26 Posted June 18, 2015 To do so you would have to define 'magnificent' - tricky. Not tricky at all, 'magnificent' is something that spreads across genres and is in a photographic language that the majority of visually aware people can relate to, not something that is essentially a photograph of somebody's struggle with having an idea, then representing the outcome with 'look I bought a new lens!', which results in something only your best friends and family may find amusing, but your mother always says 'look, my son is a fantastic photographer!'. So, I'm waiting for 'the magnificence', show me a shallow DOF body of work in the genre you like? Something that has gone before, something that you are working on, but if all you have is 'creamy bokeh at f/1' then Leica did that job for you, so I'm still waiting. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 18, 2015 Share #27 Posted June 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) A bit OT, but for some work I really enjoy the CV 25mm F/0.94 on a Panasonic mirrorless. Very sharp and good contrast. They make fast wide lenses as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 18, 2015 Share #28 Posted June 18, 2015 Ok here is the challenge, how many magnificent photographs have been made at f/1? Show me. I would say the worlds magnificent pictures come in the f/2 to f/64 range. On the other hand there have been a plethora of photographs made at f/1.4 and below that aren't at all magnificent, they are a cheap way to appear artistic while the ultimate intent is often to demonstrate the lens rather than to demonstrate good photography. This is what attracts people to shallow DOF, not a deep artistic intent but a shallow desire to have the equipment they use appear enigmatic and intersting as a substitute for art. There are exceptions of course, so show me an exception, I will add it to my short list? Steve A bit harsh, perhaps, Steve? Shallow DOF is but one symbol in the photographic “language” that serves to draw attention to the subject, not more, not less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted June 18, 2015 Share #29 Posted June 18, 2015 <snip> So, I'm waiting for 'the magnificence', show me a shallow DOF body of work in the genre you like? Something that has gone before, something that you are working on, but if all you have is 'creamy bokeh at f/1' then Leica did that job for you, so I'm still waiting. Steve This seems like a difficult way to see "magnificent" shallow DOF images - by expecting someone else to please your taste. Why not simply look at your own magnificent photographs and imagine they have shallow DOF? And while you are at it, imagine the bokeh to be whatever texture and consistency your heart desires. I really don't understand why you want to be amazed by the Noctilux when you have had plenty of time to discover that you aren't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 19, 2015 Share #30 Posted June 19, 2015 ..... show me a shallow DOF body of work in the genre you like? Something that has gone before, something that you are working on ..... If only it was that simple! You are welcome to look at my website (very much work in progress) where you will find a mix of images shot at ALL apertures (subject to the limitations of size and the web of course) - try the commissioned section - but not sure of the 'magnificent' bit (I wish). Basically I use fast lenses when I need to do so. I'm not actually sure that I ever shoot for 'bokeh' so the creamy, swirlliness isn't really my thing per se, but the ability to deliver detail in a narrow plane of focus that I want to appear crisp and with narrow depth of field, often is. Using a fast wide (35/1.4) wide open works in all sorts of situations, even landscapes. I suspect that you are confusing the abilities of people to use fast optics with the abilities of a fast optic. IMO they are not easy to use effectively unless they are being used to produce images which would be difficult without their full aperture use. Shooting primarily for 'bokeh' is possible I suppose, but far more difficult IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 19, 2015 Share #31 Posted June 19, 2015 I used my Noctilux exclusively when shooting a new baby (well nearly new a few month old from memory) I'll post a few later they were all/most at f1 from memory, ISO 320 again from memory I agree it does provide an artistic look that, can be overdone, but that's true of a lot of things isnt it ? I'm in the process of refurbishing an old house that is definitely decaying grandeur. That look is overdone, but when it's genuine and real it's lovely. Same for me is true of the Noctilux, you don't have to smear soft focus the background and/or over sharpen the eyes for example in photoshop (By the way I personally don't use photoshop) and create something reflecting what you get with a short DOF. You just pick up the lens and shoot. I also recognise that we don't see images in the real world at f11. Im looking at my coffee cup and can see the natural soft out of focus around, so long as I stare and focus on the cup and don't move my eyes. That for me is why bokeh is important Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted June 19, 2015 Share #32 Posted June 19, 2015 , but what's so wrong with a narrow depth of focus ? It can be fine, when it is used to reduce distracting detail from your images. It is less fine, when it become the subject of the picture: interesting pictures usually convey something and induce and emotional connection. Picture of artefacts tend to be no more interesting after the initial novelty, than applying any of those artistic filters to your image in Photoshop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted June 19, 2015 Share #33 Posted June 19, 2015 I find the CV 35/1.2 the 35mm step-brother of the Noctilux 50/1. There is not only Karbe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 19, 2015 Share #34 Posted June 19, 2015 I was about too upload a few photos and realised it's all changed.... I no longer use Photobucket and don't publish on line, anyone know if I can easily post images now ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 19, 2015 Share #35 Posted June 19, 2015 I find the CV 35/1.2 the 35mm step-brother of the Noctilux 50/1. There is not only Karbe. Blasphemy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted June 20, 2015 Share #36 Posted June 20, 2015 I was about too upload a few photos and realised it's all changed.... I no longer use Photobucket and don't publish on line, anyone know if I can easily post images now ! I always was a supporter of sharing photographs by means of hosting them on my own website rather than using any photo sharing websites. The best example for this is flickr.com a website I used for a long time to easily share photographs. These photo sharing sites move images around, change direct links over time, alter photographs and inherit other changes that over time inevitably produce these dead spaces in forums with photographs lost in the cyberspace. When you host your own photos and are committed to keep that site, sharing these on a forum is a much, much more solid way. Since I run my own private website (now impossibly outdated in content - reminder to myself), I have not moved those photos I shared on forums a bit - ALL of them are still intact and properly linked (in fact my own hosted files survived quite a few forum software updates and server moves of forums themselves and lived longer than one or the other forum I shared them on). My point: host your own photos and share them here (this is probably the only trait I do like since the software up (side) grade). If you are not committed to hosting your own files, as a secondary solution, host them here on the forum in a gallery. I find the CV 35/1.2 the 35mm step-brother of the Noctilux 50/1. There is not only Karbe. Very true - the Voigtländer 35/1.2 v1 has a lot of common characteristics with the f1 Noctilux and I truly like it as one of the nicest 35mm around. Just as of this thread I have dug out my sample again and was reminded on both the likes and dislikes about this lens. For now this is the closest we have to a 35mm Noctilux in spirit of the Mandler 50/1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted July 11, 2015 Share #37 Posted July 11, 2015 I'm wondering is a 35mm noctilux possible or why is it impossible ? grtz Peter The Chinese are already making them http://3dkraft.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:adorable-35s-35mm-speed-lens-comparison-leica-slr-magic-mitakon-canon-speedbooster-samyang&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 12, 2015 Share #38 Posted July 12, 2015 Yes. It is immense, and has no RF coupling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted July 12, 2015 Share #39 Posted July 12, 2015 These two pictures are taken from Gunter Osterloh's Leica M book. They are very good use cases for the Noctilux (1.0 version) and are great photographs in terms of technique, composition, and subject matter in my opinion. Both shots were taken wide open at between 1/15 and 1/8 seconds. So there was scarcely any light in the scene and the photographer was really pushing the limits of available light photography That's the kind of situation these ultra high speed lenses for designed for in the first place, when usable film speeds were limited to ISO 800 - 1600 (or 400 for color slides) or when you were stuck with a roll of slow film in your camera. (The color picture for example was shot at ISO 160.) Today, I think the justification for buying the noctliux is very weak for most people. But that's none of my business. What I can say however is as Leica makes more and more luxury oriented products I have less and less respect for the company. A lot of things they make today would have been considered total lunacy as recent as 15 years ago. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/246498-is-it-possible-a-35mm-noctilux-10/?do=findComment&comment=2852452'>More sharing options...
cpclee Posted July 12, 2015 Share #40 Posted July 12, 2015 One of the Leica stores here in Singapore is right next to Vertu. I rest my case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.