lpeeples Posted April 12, 2016 Share #21 Posted April 12, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have the Nocti and APO. I love the Nocti but its too big to use all the time. My $,02 is if you can afford it, keep the 50 Lux for day to day stuff and take the Nocti out once in a while when you have a itch to use it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Hi lpeeples, Take a look here Nocti vs 50 APO. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hockey44 Posted April 12, 2016 Author Share #22 Posted April 12, 2016 Thank you all for your thoughtful responses and points-- all well taken. And damn, am I confused now..hah! But in a good way. Well since I did do a course with Thorsten Overgaard (which was great by the way-- yes I sure did hear about the Nocti, but in a good way). Since After 40+ years of DSLR and my old Nikon FE2 and Canon 5D2 with loads of L lenses (my favorite 85mm 1,2), yes I am used to slugging around those and it was a joy to "meet" the M 2 1/2 years ago with such a lovely small format and unobtrussive. So I will now "rethink" if I really need a Nocti and can surely easily "survive" with my chrome lux 50-- which is also a very nice piece of kit! Thanks again for helping me think through this "difficult" first world problem....but heck, we love our glass and I couldn't be happier about leaving the DSLR behind-- pity it took me so many decades to reach this decision. Best wishes all! 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted April 12, 2016 Share #23 Posted April 12, 2016 My Noctilux has found a new home on my SL, where it is a joy to use and has less purple fringing than when on the M. The SL also has ISO 50, with little or no DR loss so I don't need filters. The 0.95 is fantastic on the SL. This has allowed me to use my 'lux on the M as my 50 and I am happier for it. I love the look of the Noct but I think the M isn't the best camera to show it off. Gordon 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan1985 Posted April 12, 2016 Share #24 Posted April 12, 2016 I have Nocti and APO. I love both. I have 2 Monochroms in silver-chrome and on one i have always Noctilux and on the other APO. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Posted April 13, 2016 Share #25 Posted April 13, 2016 I have all three 50's. As I've said here many times before, my APO is my go to lens, I love it and would always recommend it to anyone willing to fork out that much on a lens. The Noctilux comes out on those rare occasions when I feel 'creative' enough to make use of 0.95 and strong enough to lug it around. My 50 Lux hardly ever gets used and is likely to feature on my 'px' list as and when a successor to the M240-P appears. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted April 13, 2016 Share #26 Posted April 13, 2016 ...........The Noctilux comes out on those rare occasions when I feel 'creative' enough to make use of 0.95 ......... Surely you need to be even more creative when trying to make good photos with lenses that don't get an injection of 0.95 don't you? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted April 13, 2016 Share #27 Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Surely you need to be even more creative when trying to make good photos with lenses that don't get an injection of 0.95 don't you? I didn't understand Jennifers post as that. I think she meant it as in, it's not always appropriate and you should have a reason to use it. But in saying that, I don't think there is much more work in either, they are just different. I think you do have to work exceptionally hard to create a valid image at 0.95, because most people have switched off to bokeh-for-the-sake-of-bokeh shots. You need to make sure it's relevant and appropriate to the image and actually saying something other than a hollow and vapid "look at my lens". Edited April 13, 2016 by Paul J 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted April 13, 2016 Share #28 Posted April 13, 2016 I'm a huge fan of the Noctilux 0.95 and have traipsed all over Italy with it around my neck. Yeah...it's big and it's heavy, but I've also toted a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 around so it's not a huge deal for me. And the tradeoff of wonderful photos is certainly worth it. It's dreamy, it's creamy, and it can be razor sharp stopped down. If you love the lens' rendering character, then you will be delighted with what it'll give you. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted April 13, 2016 Share #29 Posted April 13, 2016 I didn't understand Jennifers post as that. I think she meant it as in, it's not always appropriate and you should have a reason to use it. But in saying that, I don't think there is much more work in either, they are just different. I think you do have to work exceptionally hard to create a valid image at 0.95, because most people have switched off to bokeh-for-the-sake-of-bokeh shots. You need to make sure it's relevant and appropriate to the image and actually saying something other than a hollow and vapid "look at my lens". Look, horses for course. Thorsten von Overgaard has made a career of the Noctilux because of the look that his clients prefer, I imagine. Living in Nieuw Amsterdam, I rent one from Adorama when the need arises, perhaps twice or thrice a year when they offer free days on the rental--it's BYONDF (bring your own neutral density filter). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flu Posted April 13, 2016 Share #30 Posted April 13, 2016 If you come from the DSLR world and don't really worry about the weight of the Nocti 0.95 and want a gorgeous render of the OOF areas, then I think the Nocti 0.95 is a must have for situations like these. Natural window light, smallish bakery interior, LR edited only. Wide open mounted on the SL. 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! 11 Quote 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/259180-nocti-vs-50-apo/?do=findComment&comment=3025839'>More sharing options...
Peter H Posted April 13, 2016 Share #31 Posted April 13, 2016 If you come from the DSLR world and don't really worry about the weight of the Nocti 0.95 and want a gorgeous render of the OOF areas, then I think the Nocti 0.95 is a must have for situations like these. Natural window light, smallish bakery interior, LR edited only. Wide open mounted on the SL. I hope I can make a comment on a photo without it being seen as a personal slight, because it certainly isn't intended as such, just an expression of a personal preference. I would much prefer to see the background to a photo as part of an overall composition in which all the details work together. I appreciate it might be very hard to accomplish, and perhaps even impossible in the particular circumstances. But that is what I mean by saying it's harder to get a good photo without an injection of 0.95. But I also take the point that sometimes all we want is a pleasant photo without having to work too hard, and there is value in that too. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 13, 2016 Share #32 Posted April 13, 2016 I rather agree with Peter. A photograph can be over-separated to the point that the viewer's eye and mind get distracted from the main subject by trying to figure out the background. That is what is happening to me here. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vhfreund Posted April 13, 2016 Share #33 Posted April 13, 2016 The Summilux has character that is not all that different from the Apo when stopped down. The Noctilux has great character that is not all that different than the Summilux when stopped down. The weight is frequently mentioned with the Noctilux, and it is heavy, however I would describe the lens as having great density. It is a medium sized lens by 35mm standards, other than Leica, so it's heft is quite dense and there is an imbalance on the Leica M bodies. I find it's not difficult to carry, I will change to a more substantial strap (currently the S body strap) or use the grip. Currently the prices are soft and availability is good, it's a great time to purchase this lens. I disagree, the Summilux and the APO have remarkably distinct characteristics, even when stopped down. I have both. The APO has almost no fingerprint! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted April 13, 2016 Share #34 Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) I agree with the gentlemen above me. That is one of the flaws of many wide open Noctilux shots. The images tend to emphasize the lens and the way it renders rather than the subject, scene or content of the photograph. The rendering effect is so pronounced that it takes focus away from the subject. The rendering effect (and the cost and emotional feeling of the object because of the cost of it) also tends to lead to many uninteresting pictures being posted... Where it's all about the rendering of the lens without any good subject at all. Completely uninteresting and boring pictures. A canvas and a paint brush would be a better choice for this type of work. Edited April 13, 2016 by indergaard 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted April 13, 2016 Share #35 Posted April 13, 2016 I rather agree with Peter. A photograph can be over-separated to the point that the viewer's eye and mind get distracted from the main subject by trying to figure out the background. That is what is happening to me here. Well, in Flu's photo the background is far from interesting, therefore the more blurred, the best. A wide-aperture lens helps against the issue you are talking about. But yes, taking good photos with a Noctilux is difficult because people will always say: "Nah, that is not a good photo, you like it just because of the creamy background."... or "Real photographers shoot f/8"... or "Bokeh is for noobs"... and other BS (= Banal Statements) people who don't own a Noctilux say 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 13, 2016 Share #36 Posted April 13, 2016 Yes, Cat, but the image is clearly a portrait in an environment, after all 60% of it is background and it is taken in landscape format. That means that 50% has been blurred into insignificance, making the viewer guess and pulling his eye away from the intended subject. Now if the portrait is meant to emphasize the lady, as one might postulate from the fact that this amount of blur was used, it would have made a far better photograph to frame more tightly and then deemphasize the background by shooting wide open. So, either shoot at 2.8 or so to create context, or move in. The use of a Noctilux for Noctilux' sake creates this kind of effect. It should be the other way around: use the Noctilux when needed to fulfill the concept of a photograph. That is indeed not easy. 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlinman Posted April 13, 2016 Share #37 Posted April 13, 2016 I sold my 50lux for an 50APO after a lot of tests. The Apo is a absolut wonderfull lens. After a while I added a 1.0-Nocti. I like this pair - very different. It is for me one of the greatest advantages with Leica that you have so much different lenses from different times and with different renderings. Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flu Posted April 13, 2016 Share #38 Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) Ladies and gents, you are over analyzing this pic. It was just a 10-30 sec shot - taken as I was heading out the door of this bakery. It's not a studio controlled environment obviously as the light was natural from window, there's only a few angles to get a lit face within the space. The photo I posted was just to show the OOF renderings of the 0.95. If I had to do it all over again, I would still shoot wide open because if you think the background is busy as depicted, just imagine it semi-sharp. The display/art on the wall directly behind her head to the top and right would be even more pronounced and look like it was attached and sprouting out from her head... But I do agree that this might have worked better tighter in and in portrait orientation. Edited April 13, 2016 by Flu 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted April 13, 2016 Share #39 Posted April 13, 2016 But I do agree that this might have worked better tighter in and in portrait orientation. I am for square, purse cropped "in half'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 13, 2016 Share #40 Posted April 13, 2016 It was not really meant as critique, after all one cannot suppose that you would claim artistic merit for an image that was meant as demonstration of the Noctilux' OOF rendering, and demonstrates it well. However, it is a good demonstration of the pitfalls of Noctilux photography as well. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.