Nocti and the 75mm lux Image look compare

[timothy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shooting portraits at wide apertures to blur out the background and to isolate the subject is hugely overdone to become a cliche. [. . .] Also, I feel some of the pictures above would look better at a somewhat smaller apertures; but that is a matter of taste.

 

Although I appreciate seeing the differences between these lenses at wide apertures (that is the assumed point of this thread), I have to agree with Mitch Alland.

 

As for his picture, I think it's great, and I applaud Mitch Alland for not only choosing more depth of field but also choosing to focus on the background rather than the face in the foreground. This slight out-of-focus quality actually accentuates the dark, forbidding appearance of the face. (The face would have appeared less forbidding if in focus or would have been rendered a blob with extremely shallow depth of field). The result is a picture that has dynamic relationships between planes of focus. (See Alberti, Luigi Bertolotti, and Sean Reid's comments in the thread "Do you 'see' a photo differently with an M8?"

 

With my rendition of Mitch Alland's picture, I've gone a step further in the direction of the enigmatic.

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[wlaidlaw]

Portrait. Summilux 75mm wide open:

 

 

A link to a bigger copy:

 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/482477434_cf95af4c4b_b.jpg

 

Ruben,

 

No - no - get thee behind me Satan - I really don't NEED another lens.

 

Wilson

[tom0511]

I hope its not too much off topic.

just for fun: 75lux vs Nikon 85/1.4 at f1.4 (M8 and D200, both processed in C1, M8 image slightly cropped)

which is which without looking at exif?

 

A)

 

 

C)

 

D)

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Leica first than Nikon

[tom0511]

75lux and 85/1.4 both 100% crop and same processing in C1:

 

 

[Guest malland]

Although I appreciate seeing the differences between these lenses at wide apertures (that is the assumed point of this thread), I have to agree with Mitch Alland.

 

As for his picture, I think it's great, and I applaud Mitch Alland for not only choosing more depth of field but also choosing to focus on the background rather than the face in the foreground. This slight out-of-focus quality actually accentuates the dark, forbidding appearance of the face. (The face would have appeared less forbidding if in focus or would have been rendered a blob with extremely shallow depth of field). The result is a picture that has dynamic relationships between planes of focus. (See Alberti, Luigi Bertolotti, and Sean Reid's comments in the thread "Do you 'see' a photo differently with an M8?"

 

With my rendition of Mitch Alland's picture, I've gone a step further in the direction of the enigmatic.

Interesting, Timothy. Here is another picture which uses the same concept more radically:

 

 

My feeling is that anything that is done too much, too repititively, ultimately becomes formulaic and uninteresting — and that is often the case with the idea of always blurring out the background of portraits to make the figure or the head "stand out" by isolating it from the background. I'm not against the Noctilux and the Summilux 75, but take the following shot with the latter lens, which I liked at first but quickly grew bored with:

 

 

Of course the difficulty of this discussion of bokeh is that it is a matter of taste: the bokeh of many of the pictures ealier in the thread, which are meant to illustrate the o-o-f rendition of the Nioctilux leave me cold. My own feeling is that it may be more interesting to use the Noctilux at f/1.0 the way it is in the two attached pictures, which unfortunately are very small JPGs.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, I don't know why the two attached pictures didn't show up: here's another attempt.

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!

[tom0511]

Leica first than Nikon

 

the answer is here: test Photo Gallery by TOM at pbase.com

 

I have to say I am impressed about the d200+85/1.4 in this case.

 

cheers, Tom

[ho_co]

I have to say I am impressed about the d200+85/1.4 in this case.

Thomas--

Extremely interesting comparison!

 

Despite the fact that Nikon's advertising (at least in the US) always stresses how many diaphragm blades a lens has (apparently to keep out-of-focus bright spots from calling attention to the diaphragm shape), the main difference I see is that the o-o-f spots from the Nikkor are more noticeable and, in at least some cases, have countable edges.

 

The flowers were at f/2.0 with the Nikkor--similar with the M8? Shutter speed quite different between the two according to the EXIF.

 

Thanks for posting. They're both impressive lenses!

 

--HC

[lightpainter]

yet another interesting thread started by Guy; don't have the time to read it all, but would like to contribute my point of view and my favourite pic with my Nocti made in Canada (the one with the detachable hood) ; I own both the 50 lux asph and the Nocti, and it's quite simple: if I open more than 2.8, I go for the lux if I want it as sharp as it can get, and I take out my Nocti if I want that "dreamlike" look which I like in this portrait of my nephew Sean (M8, Noctilux 1.0):

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!

[tom0511]

Thomas--

Extremely interesting comparison!

 

Despite the fact that Nikon's advertising (at least in the US) always stresses how many diaphragm blades a lens has (apparently to keep out-of-focus bright spots from calling attention to the diaphragm shape), the main difference I see is that the o-o-f spots from the Nikkor are more noticeable and, in at least some cases, have countable edges.

 

The flowers were at f/2.0 with the Nikkor--similar with the M8? Shutter speed quite different between the two according to the EXIF.

 

Thanks for posting. They're both impressive lenses!

 

--HC

 

HC,

I think the Leica was f1.4, and I thought I would have used f1.4 with the Nikon as well - but obviously did not. So the one image: Nikon f2, Leica f1.4. Sorry, my fault

[tom0511]

yet another interesting thread started by Guy; don't have the time to read it all, but would like to contribute my point of view and my favourite pic with my Nocti made in Canada (the one with the detachable hood) ; I own both the 50 lux asph and the Nocti, and it's quite simple: if I open more than 2.8, I go for the lux if I want it as sharp as it can get, and I take out my Nocti if I want that "dreamlike" look which I like in this portrait of my nephew Sean (M8, Noctilux 1.0):

 

Wow, I really like this image!

Cheers, Tom

[carstenw]

Back again, with a portrait comparison. These shots are very representative of what the Noctilux and 75 Summilux can do with natural light. The Noctilux has a slighter nicer look, but the 75 Summilux can move closer, and is a bit sharper, wide open. All are near the close limits, but not quite at them, to allow me to focus with the lens, rather than swaying my body. I don't quite have the hang of the latter yet.

 

First Noctilux, then 75 Summilux, then Noct crop and 75 Lux crop, and finally a pure Noctilux portrait. I love that lens for portraits. It is already wearing a bit for me for other uses. It is just so large, and so un-M in a sense, but for portraits, especially of women and children, it is truly awesome. Everyone comments on the special look.

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!

[carstenw]

Here are two more Noctilux shots. The first was stopped down a bit, to see how sharp it gets, and it does, but not to compare with the ASPH lenses. The second one was taken while I was walking behind two business men, without breaking stride, and I just shot when I was relatively steady, while still walking. The f/1 allows you to use much higher shutterspeeds than you are normally used to, which opens up some possibilities like that. Try that with a 90 Macro!

 

.

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!

[Tony C.]

Very nice examples, Carsten. Thank you!

 

Here's my father at 87, under less than ideal lighting conditions. I used my Noctilux wide open, and did some adjusting in Lightroom.

 

Regards,

 

Tony C.

 

[carstenw]

That's a great portrait, Tony.

[timothy]

That's a great portrait, Tony.

 

Agreeing with Carsten, I would add that this is a truthful portrait of your father, Tony.

[Tony C.]

Thank you both, Tim and Carsten.

 

Yes, I agree that it is a revealing and honest portrait. My father is a retired professor of philosophy, and I'm quite sure that he is aging so well because of the regular exercise which he gives to his still sharp mind! And, as the image above suggests, he often uses his mind in attempts to solve difficult problems.

 

Regards,

 

Tony C.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[timothy]

Interesting, Timothy. Here is another picture which uses the same concept more radically:

 

 

Mitch,

 

I'm especially taken by the beauty of the out-of-focus face and shirt.

 

Here's a cropped version to illustrate the same concept used yet even more radically. Imagine if the eyes of the in-focus man where peering over the out-of-focus man's shoulder. Wouldn't that make an very interesting and very different picture?

 

In some of your future pictures, I dare you to fill your frame mostly with out-of-focus human face or form. I have in mind two-thirds to three-quarters of the frame or more. With so little room for what is in-focus, it then becomes a challenge to position yourself to show essential elements of the story. In effect, you tell the story differently if not tell a different story. Do you accept my dare?

 

Cheers,

 

Timothy

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!

[Guest malland]

Mitch,

 

I'm especially taken by the beauty of the out-of-focus face and shirt.

 

Here's a cropped version to illustrate the same concept used yet even more radically. Imagine if the eyes of the in-focus man where peering over the out-of-focus man's shoulder. Wouldn't that make an very interesting and very different picture?

 

In some of your future pictures, I dare you to fill your frame mostly with out-of-focus human face or form. I have in mind two-thirds to three-quarters of the frame or more. With so little room for what is in-focus, it then becomes a challenge to position yourself to show essential elements of the story. In effect, you tell the story differently if not tell a different story. Do you accept my dare?

 

Cheers,

 

Timothy

Timothy:

 

Interesting thought but my feeling is that I'm not likely to be able to do thin until I'm back in Bangkok, which is likely to be several weeks from now. The other thought is that I would not normally go out shooting with such a thought in mind but, rather be driven to do it, when I saw it. Nevertheless, now that you've planted the idea in my head it's likely to surface one day.

 

It's like when I wanted some years ago to shoot something in a Ralph Gibson style, and never succeded when I was thinking about that, and then one day shot the following Gbson-type picture when I was thinking about it consciously:

 

 

 

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD