Jump to content

Show us your Noctilux wide open shots


budjames

Recommended Posts

Volcanic memories by JM__, on Flickr

Agua virgen by JM__, on Flickr

Stearing green by JM__, on Flickr

Noctilux 1.2 - M240

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cavalo timido by JM__, on Flickr

Accross the fence by JM__, on Flickr

Noctilux 1.2 - M240

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How successful was this in anything but aesthetic terms? Most landscape photos use depth of field.

Surely the Noctilux was designed for portraits? 

I don't wish to be over-critical and there is good composition. Try the same shot using any old lens at f/11 and it is a great picture. So, sorry, I don't like it. Was it worth paying for a Noctilux to capture a shot that is 95% out of focus?

Now I am going to retreat under the covers as an anticipated load of abuse comes in from lovers of wide open lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the out-of-focus areas of an image is often at least as important as the in-focus areas. In some cases, and with the right lenses, the OOF rendering can almost be a subject in itself. And this is something I love to study in a picture. That’s why I buy lenses like the Noctilux.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Peter Kilmister said:

How successful was this in anything but aesthetic terms? Most landscape photos use depth of field.

Surely the Noctilux was designed for portraits? 

I don't wish to be over-critical and there is good composition. Try the same shot using any old lens at f/11 and it is a great picture. So, sorry, I don't like it. Was it worth paying for a Noctilux to capture a shot that is 95% out of focus?

Now I am going to retreat under the covers as an anticipated load of abuse comes in from lovers of wide open lenses.

Well that comment doesn’t need a response.  Speaks for itself,really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

M10-P  + 50mm Noctilux f/1 v4

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 19 Stunden schrieb Peter Kilmister:

How successful was this in anything but aesthetic terms? Most landscape photos use depth of field.

Surely the Noctilux was designed for portraits? 

I don't wish to be over-critical and there is good composition. Try the same shot using any old lens at f/11 and it is a great picture. So, sorry, I don't like it. Was it worth paying for a Noctilux to capture a shot that is 95% out of focus?

Now I am going to retreat under the covers as an anticipated load of abuse comes in from lovers of wide open lenses.

Peter, this is from my evening walk yesterday. It was the only lens I had with me. 😁 I took some stopped down but didn’t like them as much as the one wide open. Plus, I was looking to do Bud a favor. 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Peter Kilmister said:

How successful was this in anything but aesthetic terms? Most landscape photos use depth of field.

Surely the Noctilux was designed for portraits? 

...I don't wish to eat under the covers as an anticipated load of abuse comes in from lovers of wide open lenses.

Wide open cityscapes with many point source lights can be a challenge for this lens when focused at infinity. To eliminate coma, significant stopping down is required, so the lens wide open at infinity  is best for moody silhouettes and diffuse lighting.

Here is a really ugly f/0.95 example of closer than focus coma.spacer.png

Focussed closer at portrait distances, and distant lights results in a much more pleasing situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chaemono Please don't take my comments as a personal criticism.

Charlie Waite is one of the best landscape photographers and uses lenses with closed aperture rather than wide open. The human eye operates in a similar way. When light is good enough one's eye pupils close to expand the depth of field and allow us to see much more in focus. The Noctilux has such a tiny depth of field when used wide open that it contradicts that natural reaction. I tried using a Noctilux for landscape work and sold it. It was a waste of time. Also carrying 700 grams plus the weight of the camera and trudging around fields was tiresome. It was my least favourite lens. My favourite is the 50mm APO Summicron. My wife agrees so it must be true! 😉

I can see the point of using a heavyweight lens with narrow DOF in a studio for portraiture. There is probably no better tool when mounted on a tripod.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion and to try out things for themselves. I just expressed my personal opinion. You could probably have taken that shot with any lens for it to be more natural. Please don't let me stop your creativity.

Slightly off topic, I was told by a Leica fan about an amazing pair of Nocti binoculars. I asked what was the point. He said enthusiastically that I could see birds clearer in the dark. I replied that birds roost as soon as the sun goes down. Maybe he lives where there are street lights? We don't have those unsustainable things in this beautiful area. Each to their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...