Garden, Noct@f1.0, Canon 50@f1.2

[billh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was curious to see the difference between these lenses, so I walked over to my next door neighbors garden and snapped these with the Noctilux and the Canon 50 f1.2.

 

Noctilux at f1.0,

 

Canon 50 at f1.2

 

 

Noctilux at f11,

 

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

Interesting comparison shots. The f/11 shot unsurprisingly has masses more detail, but the two full aperture shots serve a different purpose and are equally interesting.

 

David

[wda]

Oh, and a lovely garden which deserves its own ring of praise.

 

David

[Chuckcars]

Noct@f1.0 is far superior. Background and bokeh not distracting. f/11 is not the way to go, IMHO Swell garden. :-)

[elansprint72]

Canon; in this instance.

[Dirk Van der Herten]

I would almost have voted for Canon at f1.2, if the patch of

sunlight in the nocti shot at 1.0 hadn't been there.

Although I guess nocti at 1.4 might have looked very similar.

A very interesting comparison indeed.

And what a beautiful garden, how nice to have such neighbours, Bill.

[steve kessel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me the comparison can't be about lenses but about picture making. The Nocti at 1.0 appears to have little in sharp focus whereas the Canon at 1.2 has a pleasing balance of orange flowers in left foreground and the silver blue on the right, both with enough sharpness to stand out against the background. Having said that, the overall colour in these two also differs, partly down to varying light perhaps and partly to the colour rendering properties of the lenses. Very interesting post. Thanks.

 

Steve.

[billh]

I took the Canon next door the following day, and indeed the light was a little different. I waited until there was a dollop of sunlight to try to have the conditions as close as possible. I printed these three images on Museo Silver Rag, and the few people who have seen them have all liked the Noctilux at f1.0 best. It is always difficult to equate the web jpeg with the full size TIF, but for me, the color from the M8 is more “eye catching” - and for this scene it simply is more appealing. I sent the files to Brent, along with the three prints, but I don’t know if they have arrived yet, or what his preferences are if he has seen them. However, I will ask!

 

I snapped a few photos the other day using my “mood” lenses (Noctilux, Canon 50 and 85 f1.2, and the 180 Summicron - the latter 3 on a Canon 1Ds2).

 

Here is a 180 at f2.0 shot,

 

 

More are here - the color is bad from the M8, but I bought an Expodisk, and that has improved things considerably. I used it last night to photograph a recording session, and the color is better than anything I have found yet from this camera and difficult mixed lighting conditions. A few of the test shots I did before I went to the recording session are here (I will post some from the recording session last night later today, or sometime this weekend):

 

http://homepage.mac.com/billh96007/PianoCraft/PhotoAlbum240.html

[johnwolf]

The color is so different, with the Canon much warmer. Is the Noctilux's gray stone closer to reality? If so, I would not care much for the Canon.

 

John

[hamey]

No contest Bill.

 

Just observing the background is enough for me.

In the Noct, you can still make out the steps.

The canon version, looks like a bunch of rocks.

 

Most people are fooled by sharpness and in the canon's case, it shows up slightly up front, so I twicked up the sharpness a little on the Noct., hope you don't mind.

 

Looks like a lovely garden.

 

Cheers.

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!