Jump to content

M10 plus Noctilux like having a brick around your neck


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Otto could be right. There are variations on the aperture ring of the Noctilux (or of the APO 😁). f/2 on the Noctilux seems to be more like f/1.7 and f/2.4 matches f/2 on the APO, at least on my two lenses. I opened these in LR with default settings and only adjusted Vignetting a bit. AWB by the camera. There are links to the RAW files anyway.

M10 + Noctilux @f/2 DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g950365432-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=J1v-jvD6AcBUYEHsa6gY0NFm9Gt6hC0BrCKQgzUm3oo=

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!

 

M10 + Noctilux @f/2.4 DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g1029618561-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=DxImjAIEHwblld8LMg-UsCkrzVwFhY9ypGywNMLxZNI=

 

M10 + APO @f/2 DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g648931717-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=3Pu4MJZ_Xd9RfassQM0JCs6ee06cOkX6q3oK7j_oo_8=

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And  now the Noctilux shot at f/2.8 vs. the APO at f/2.4 and at f/2.8. To my eyes the Noctilux at f/2.8 matches the APO at f/2.4.

Edit - I adjusted Vigneting and Exposure in LR to try to match.

M10 + Noctilux @f/2.8 DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g705170006-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=VZgG8dAnm2BiLEPBtG2-G2OPB4g0N4obxCM6Ratj2jE=

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!

 

M10 + APO @f/2.4 DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g800723663-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=zxn7t8ikn78PCfrKunjJfXN4UyvmkAL7tloJFGDHNgs=

 

M10 + APO @f/2.8 DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g717185428-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=VYA00jSAs6UsDB41oHLZDaZ4CgvqewH5RGvKj4Aixp0=

Edited by Chaemono
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the Noctilux at f/4 vs. the APO at f/3.4? Well, to my eyes the Noctilux OOF areas show a bit more detail. So, let's say f/4 on the Noctilux is more like f/3.7 on the APO. 😁

Edit - Again, I adjusted Vignetting and Exposure in LR to try to match.

M10 + Noctilux @f/4 DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g565353212-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=GiBXhBQFm1CLYVgXGrW5VdwbUIXfWR_2RZvS9Zz-cxQ=

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!

 

M10 + APO @f/3.4 DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g572452925-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=LwFeyfkIVTnamUE0tixioZXuvzepNagC7AcToWz6Orw=

Edited by Chaemono
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

These tests will never approximate the rigor of lensrentals’ testing (using incredibly expensive equipment, tons of expertise and years of experience), let alone the sample variations that they routinely experience, even on very expensive lenses.   Conclusions and broad generalizations are dangerous.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/testing-nasa-optical-lenses-how-we-measure-sharpness-and-accuracy/

Jeff

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

These tests will never approximate the rigor of lensrentals’ testing (using incredibly expensive equipment, tons of expertise and years of experience), let alone the sample variations that they routinely experience, even on very expensive lenses.   Conclusions and broad generalizations are dangerous.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/testing-nasa-optical-lenses-how-we-measure-sharpness-and-accuracy/

Jeff

I looked over Lensrental's testing procedure. I found it to be very rigorous, very nerdy, and nothing like the optical industry's standards for lens evaluation. I am sure that it works for their own needs, but I am not sure that you can extrapolate any general conclusions from their results. Whether NASA does or not.

I would also question "their years of experience" compared to Leica, Zeiss, or Panavision. 

Harry 

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, hmathias said:

I looked over Lensrental's testing procedure. I found it to be very rigorous, very nerdy, and nothing like the optical industry's standards for lens evaluation. I am sure that it works for their own needs, but I am not sure that you can extrapolate any general conclusions from their results. Whether NASA does or not.

I would also question "their years of experience" compared to Leica, Zeiss, or Panavision. 

Harry 

I linked to only one article...they have dozens, covering tons more on testing and more, including the rationale for all.  They rent the gear and tear it down routinely (even Leica lenses), so they have practical insights that don’t exist elsewhere.  Roger is the best.... and funny, too. He cuts through the bs others spew.

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I linked to only one article...they have dozens, covering tons more on testing and more, including the rationale for all.  They rent the gear and tear it down routinely (even Leica lenses), so they have practical insights that don’t exist elsewhere.  Roger is the best.... and funny, too. He cuts through the bs others spew.

Jeff

In my experience (extensive in evaluating and testing lenses) There is rarely a reason to "tear down a lens" unless it has been dropped, and then tearing down lenses won't help because lens companies won't sell you (or their dealers) individual barrel parts and lens elements. And you couldn't cement the elements and center them properly if they did. The major lens companies are masters at evaluating their own lenses and have extensive testing tools to do this, (not the ones suggested). That is how Leica and Zeiss decide which designs to bring to market. And do glass melt re-optimizations, as glass formulas change. Quality lens companies (like Leica) don't sell bad examples of their lenses at all. That is what makes them more expensive then the mass-produced lens company's products.

 

Harry

See my photography and some of my film reels at HarryMathiasImages.com

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, hmathias said:

In my experience (extensive in evaluating and testing lenses) There is rarely a reason to "tear down a lens" unless it has been dropped, and then tearing down lenses won't help because lens companies won't sell you (or their dealers) individual barrel parts and lens elements. And you couldn't cement the elements and center them properly if they did. The major lens companies are masters at evaluating their own lenses and have extensive testing tools to do this, (not the ones suggested). That is how Leica and Zeiss decide which designs to bring to market. And do glass melt re-optimizations, as glass formulas change. Quality lens companies (like Leica) don't sell bad examples of their lenses at all. That is what makes them more expensive then the mass-produced lens company's products.

 

Harry

See my photography and some of my film reels at HarryMathiasImages.com

It really helps to read before dismissing.  Yes, their gear sometimes comes back broken, misadjusted or abused, and they routinely fix or rebuild as needed before every rental. Roger has written extensively about their requirements and practices. And they are also famous for articles on camera and lens tear downs to educate themselves and us on the quality of construction, weather sealing, parts prone to breakage, etc.  They do this impartially for all brands, revealing things that the companies will never disclose (like weather sealing and weak points).  And the tear downs are fun... just like Mark Norton’s popular M8 anatomy lessons.

Roger is well respected by virtually everyone in the field.  Mike Johnston at TOP (a self admitted lens nut and well connected in the industry) calls Roger among  the absolute best and most trusted impartial resources for technical/gear discussions and evaluations.  The archives are full of good articles... a few are legendary. Roger also invested a tidy sum in recent years on new testing gear, which he covered in many posts.

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hmathias said:

OK. So someone is renting the lens that they "teardown" to see if it is built correctly? Or do they just throw it away afterwards?

Well, if you bothered to read, you’d know that they always put everything back together... sometimes better than new to avoid common break points. Repairs of course don’t require full tear downs, but they do that, too, for fun and education.  

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s but one example of Roger cutting through the noise, with myriad tests to back up his practical conclusions....

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/

Refreshing... a geek who can both write and put things in practical context.  Endlessly inquisitive, and immune to proclamations without a scientific basis. And without brand bias.

Jeff

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Roger is the best in his kind. But tearing down a lens normally makes no sense. Repairing, see his article about the lenses coming back to them after the solar eclipse.

Lens rentals is very good, because they have lots of lenses out of the normal production lines and have the equipment to compare them.

One can seldom be sure, if an Internet reviewer gets a normal copy or a selected one.

Also, I remember an actual  interview with a Venus official, where a Leica lens was "mentioned" by a picture showing onion rings. The questioned lens was produced around 1996, 20 years ago. Times still are hard.

Edited by jankap
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

M10 plus Noctilux like having a brick around your neck

I think we can all agree that this is a first world problem, akin to a princess having an achy neck caused by the weight of her diamond encrusted golden tiara. 

Oh, the horror of it all... 😎

Edited by Herr Barnack
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

I think we can all agree that this is a first world problem, akin to a princess having an achy neck caused by the weight of her diamond encrusted golden tiara. 

Oh, the horror of it all... 😎

If I hear “first world problem” one more time....of all the tired and overused clichés of the guilt-ridden. post-war West, that one takes the prize. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...