Jeffry Abt Posted January 21, 2016 Share #21 Â Posted January 21, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Esoteric as in charlatan? Â Pardon by denseness.... I don't understand what you mean by this. Please elaborate. Â Do you think the Nocti is a fraud promising much delivering little? And that those that use it somehow feel themselves a part off some obscure rarefied group? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Hi Jeffry Abt, Take a look here Noctilux Esoteric lenses?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted January 21, 2016 Share #22 Â Posted January 21, 2016 Why sometimes people call Noctilux, esoteric lens? Â I read your entire post. IMHO, some persons call a Noctilux esoteric because of the individuals' impoverished vocabulary or experience. If we consider lenses to include large format, there are a few esoterics and they are some of the most criticized because of their remarkable renderings, for better or worse. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 21, 2016 Share #23 Â Posted January 21, 2016 Why sometimes people call Noctilux, esoteric lens? It's possible to say that is a just a myth for market and etc. I am not interesting with this opinion. I am interesting why only Noctilux has this myth? Â I assume you are talking about the f/1 version. There are 3 different Noctilux versions, with quite different characters. Â It is not a myth, it is the plain truth. By the definition of "esoteric", this is a lens that many don't understand. Describing a lens using adjectives derived from ancient Greek extends the "magic aura" around this lens. Speaking of which, this lens has unusual aberrations rendering a "blue aura" around objects in the right (or wrong ) conditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akaki Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share #24 Â Posted January 21, 2016 I assume you are talking about the f/1 version. There are 3 different Noctilux versions, with quite different characters. Â It is not a myth, it is the plain truth. By the definition of "esoteric", this is a lens that many don't understand. Describing a lens using adjectives derived from ancient Greek extends the "magic aura" around this lens. Speaking of which, this lens has unusual aberrations rendering a "blue aura" around objects in the right (or wrong ) conditions. Very interesting I have to thing about question. I am interesting with Noctilx 0-95 I thing the idea is the same for all Noctilux. But I am not sure as you say about different characters. Thank you. I come back with question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted January 21, 2016 Share #25  Posted January 21, 2016 …because of it's purchase price internet-photographic-gear-scientists decided that the Noctilux is a lens nobody needs.  Make up your own mind. Try one (in most western countries you can rent one), find out if it is for you, look at the pictures and then decide for yourself. I love the Noctilux f1 (the new ASPH version does nothing for me character wise). The internet-photographic-gear-scientists should be regarded as for entertainment and exasperation purposes only. I would not let my purchasing decisions hinge on what these folks have to say about any lens or camera.  Regarding whether or not a person "needs" a Noctilux, it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish in photography. If you are trying to produce images with the look that the Noctilux produces, then yes - you do need a Noctilux. Some will say that the 50mm Summilux is "just as good" (whatever that means) and it does come close to what the Noctiux is capable of. Close, but no cigar, that is.  Regarding needs, human beings need food, water, shelter and medicine. None of us "need" anything Leica makes. However for many of us, Leica cameras and lenses are a quality of life issue. Of course, we could exist without our cameras and lenses that bear the little red dot, but it would be a much less enjoyable existence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 22, 2016 Share #26 Â Posted January 22, 2016 Very interesting I have to thing about question. I am interesting with Noctilx 0-95 I thing the idea is the same for all Noctilux. But I am not sure as you say about different characters. Thank you. I come back with question.\ Â The Noctilux f/1 and the f/0.95 are quite different beasts. The f/0.95 is "a Summilux on steroids", a great lens, modern design tuned for performance. The f/1 is oniric. My favorite lens. Â More info here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/234334-which-noctilux-for-the-m240/?p=2675641 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted January 22, 2016 Share #27  Posted January 22, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) <snip> Regarding needs, human beings need food, water, shelter and medicine. None of us "need" anything Leica makes. <snip>   When people use "need" in a context like this they mean "need in order to satisfy want (or whim)" not "need in order to survive". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akaki Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share #28  Posted January 22, 2016 The Noctilux f/1 and the f/0.95 are quite different beasts. The f/0.95 is "a Summilux on steroids", a great lens, modern design tuned for performance. The f/1 is oniric. My favorite lens.  More info here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/234334-which-noctilux-for-the-m240/?p=2675641 I satrt to read, discussion. will be great to find one image from 3 deferent Nocti. from series LO MM 246 N 0.95 6 stop ND 2015© Koka Ramishvili 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/255843-noctilux-esoteric-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=2974214'>More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 22, 2016 Share #29 Â Posted January 22, 2016 When people use "need" in a context like this they mean "need in order to satisfy want (or whim)" not "need in order to survive". Â Â ...but many here would die without their Leicas... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taosantamonica Posted January 22, 2016 Share #30  Posted January 22, 2016 i like the images i can get with my noct .95.............that's all i need to think about   Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 23, 2016 Share #31 Â Posted January 23, 2016 Let's parse "esoteric" - understood by, or meant for, only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite. e.g. poetry full of esoteric allusions. belonging to the select few. private; secret; confidential. (of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group. Synonyms: abstruse, arcane, cryptic, enigmatic. Â If you don't like those definitions, feel free to look up others - they all come out about the same. Â The only sub-definition in there that really applies to the Noctiluxes is, "belonging to the select few." Which is due to the price - not some enigmatic, arcane mystical character or secret. Â "Understood by, or meant for, only the select few who have special knowledge or interest?" - sorry, that pretty much applies to any photographic lens. The vast majority of humans don't have any special knowledge or interest in any lens - beyond "it's the thing on my phone that takes pictures, and that I don't want to put my finger over." If you understand apertures and focal lengths, you're already in a very "select" crowd. Â (Which - BTW - isn't elitist in any negative sense. That same vast majority without special knowledge are still able to operate their cameras and get pictures they are happy with.) Â Conversely, using the Noctiluxes themselves does not require any additional "special knowledge." They are just another lens, that happens to have a largish aperture that makes them useful in low light, or to get some extra background blur. Dr. Mandler, who designed the first two, would be laughing his rear-element off at anyone who claimed his creations were "esoteric." Â Unusual perhaps, in the normal run of lens apertures - but not even the first, since Zunow, Nikon and Canon ALL made 50mms exceeding f/1.2, years before the first Noctilux appeared. Â https://www.cameraquest.com/5011.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 23, 2016 Share #32 Â Posted January 23, 2016 The only sub-definition in there that really applies to the Noctiluxes is, "belonging to the select few." Which is due to the price - not some enigmatic, arcane mystical character or secret. "Understood by, or meant for, only the select few who have special knowledge or interest?" - sorry, that pretty much applies to any photographic lens. Â I have to strongly disagree with you, adan -- and I am talking about the Noctilux f/1. Â If you offer me to swap it for a myriad Otus 55, I would never. Like dreams, the Noctilux f/1 renders reality in its own unpredictable way. I can't wait to see what it saw. Like dreams, it does not obey. It is difficult to grasp. Those weird pastel colors. The swirly background. Sometimes fuzzy, out of focus, you sadly realize part of the dream is lost forever. If only I did this, and that... And yes, sometimes dreams mutate into nightmares to hate. Sometimes I really hate this lens. Â But like dreams and nightmares, this lens always surprises me. And this is why I love it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted January 23, 2016 Share #33 Â Posted January 23, 2016 ...but many here would die without their Leicas... And those remaining amongst the living would envy the dead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akaki Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share #34  Posted January 23, 2016 In this discussion, we came to the point where art is connected to science. The human eye is able to see in the area of ​​1.2 and Noctilux 0.95. Therefore we do not see that this lens sees, nuances of light and shadow, gradation and outlines. It actually gives destroys the stereotype perception of the structure of light and gives a valid document structure of the light-world. another question is how we will work with this structure. At this point, visible and invisible we are in the area of ​​intuition and on the field of art to a greater extent than other lenses. Price and social status of this lens only muddies the water and takes far beyond of art and science.  I would like to know more about this lens, to have possibility to control or… not control a process Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 23, 2016 Share #35 Â Posted January 23, 2016 Sounds like confusion to me - it's hardly esoteric, I've never read as such, but it is often categorised as exotic. Â " of a kind not used for ordinary purposes or not ordinarily encountered " Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 23, 2016 Share #36 Â Posted January 23, 2016 If you want a label to apply to the Noctilux, try 'specialist' lens. Wide open it has its uses but all too often its 'signature' is used to illustrate is specialist capabilities as opposed to it being used in such a way that its specialist capabilities are used to enhance or create a 'better' image. which IMO is far less often. I had one but never found it of as much use as I'd hoped and whilst I did use it in low light to effect, I did so very rarely. I have no regrets at having sold mine and am quite satisfied with my replacement, the Summilux . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akaki Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share #37 Â Posted January 23, 2016 Sounds like confusion to me - it's hardly esoteric, I've never read as such, but it is often categorised as exotic. Â I am not egree with terms exotic for Noctilux, exotic is something which simply nice, unique, unusual. Â Noctilux is a scientific project for the new perception, to see what you can't see with your eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted January 23, 2016 Share #38  Posted January 23, 2016 Cheshire Cat comes closest to my photographic results. I bought the 50/1.2  and the 50/1 years ago, using the lenses with Kodachrome 25 and 64. The results were often different from what I had anticipated or tried to achieve. Some better, most worse and discarded. The best average was obtained in low level lighting, such as candlelight, Tibetan temple interiors with butter lamp flames, early evening scenes outside in Japanese temple gardens with lanterns etc. Mostly very contrasty and low light. All at  full aperture. As I said, results were - for me - unpredictable - and often disappointing. For the few really memorable pictures I felt and feel it was worth it. The 0.95 is a different beast altogether. If I were forced to part with one, that's the one I would let go because at apertures from about 2.8 it is more or less the same as the 50/1.4 Summilux. The old Summilux 50/1.4, second version is more similar to the Noctiluxes f1 and f1.2 Teddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted January 23, 2016 Share #39  Posted January 23, 2016 As you see (my username), Noctilux 1.0 was my dream lens.  But using it for years I must admit that it's the only lens that would not be "entirely mastered".  When people (photographers) asked me about "what is it ? ", in place of showing photos (that's not practical and useless anyway) or trying to describe this "dreamed lens", I prefered letting them try by themselves.  The results are that after some time using (my) Noctilux 1.0, many people are sure that it's not for them at all. About one of ten are searching for one Noctilux after trying mine.  Myself, I use a Noctilux when a Summilux has not enough light gathering. And the weight difference tend to favor the lighter one.  So it's just a lens to be used like other lenses, with some "bad caracters to live with".  Regards  Arnaud Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akaki Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share #40 Â Posted January 23, 2016 Â The 0.95 is a different beast altogether. If I were forced to part with one, that's the one I would let go because at apertures from about 2.8 it is more or less the same as the 50/1.4 Summilux. The old Summilux 50/1.4, second version is more similar to the Noctiluxes f1 and f1.2 Teddy I did't work with first and second model of Noctilux, but with Summilux 50/14. for me it's a difference between Noctilux (0.95) 2.8 and Summilux (50/1.4). 2.8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.