ddp Posted October 25, 2007 Share #21 Posted October 25, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Noctilux definitely stands out in my eyes - but as mentioned previously, that shot was "seen" while the others are snaps. Aside from that, the character of the 35 'Lux stands out to me clearly. I am a huge Noctilux fan....but it doesn't suit everyone's style. I love what it does wide open, especially on film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 Hi ddp, Take a look here Bokeh Comparisons - Nocti v. 50 Lux v. 35 Lux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fursan Posted October 25, 2007 Share #22 Posted October 25, 2007 John, Firstly thanks for those comparison shots. much needed and explains a lot. Love the Noct rendition. others..indifferent. However, I have found my 'lux 50 to give much smoother oof areas. But what do I know, can't even focus the 'lux 50 properly. Best regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prav66 Posted October 25, 2007 Share #23 Posted October 25, 2007 I like the Nocti rendering only because it is so unique, I played with one borrowed from a friend quite a while but like Guy found it a bit of a one-trick pony in the end and returned it without regrets. Not ideal for all situations whereas even my 50/1.5 VC shows far more versatility and adaptability for general shooting conditions. I also consistently find the 35 lux ASPH harsh wide-open, maybe it's the higher contrast not sure, but the images it renders just gives me a sore retina when I look at it compared to Leica's other ASPH lenses (50 lux, 28 lux, etc) which have no such problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hart Posted October 25, 2007 Share #24 Posted October 25, 2007 One-trick pony? The very idea! Noctilux at f1, f640, stage lighting only: And my son in the audience: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hart Posted October 25, 2007 Share #25 Posted October 25, 2007 f640? Did I write that? Long day. ISO of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 25, 2007 Share #26 Posted October 25, 2007 I'll toss my hat in the ring too... I prefer the bokeh on the 50 Lux in most cases, but that's me. I find the Nocti can get weird/clumpy with distant oof objects like the first pumpkins (and yes I own a Nocti) as can the 35 Lux in higher contrast oof background situations. By contrast the 50 PreLux and 75 Lux are almost always smooth regardless of background. My biggest complaint about the Nocti is it's 1m MFD. The 75 at f1.4 can focus to 0.75m, giving you greater subject magnification and comparable DoF to the Nocti at similar subject magnifications. However, for shots like Paul's second one above, the Nocti is tough to beat; those shots where the subject is say 2 - 3m distant and there is only moderate distance (not infinite) background to go all weird. Use it at f1 or f1.2 in those situations and it is a keeper. But in that vein, I would have to agree it becomes a fairly specialized use, "one trick pony" lens. And that isn't a bad thing if you use it that way all the time Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scjohn Posted October 25, 2007 Share #27 Posted October 25, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I like the Nocti. (I have all 3 lenses) I love the distinctive OOF effect. My Nikon can approach the other images but noting in the Nikon line can do what the Nocti can. IMHO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 26, 2007 Share #28 Posted October 26, 2007 I prefer the bokeh on the 50 Lux in most cases, but that's me. I find the Nocti can get weird/clumpy with distant oof objects like the first pumpkins (and yes I own a Nocti) as can the 35 Lux in higher contrast oof background situations. By contrast the 50 PreLux and 75 Lux are almost always smooth regardless of background. My biggest complaint about the Nocti is it's 1m MFD. The 75 at f1.4 can focus to 0.75m, giving you greater subject magnification and comparable DoF to the Nocti at similar subject magnifications. This is the impression I got of the Noctliux reading this forum and looking at lots of sample pictures, but when I had a borrowed copy of the Noctilux and my own 75 Lux, and went out there trying to make the Noctilux misbehave, I found that the 75 Lux always lost its composure at the same time. I was unable to find a situation where the latter was much smoother than the former. This was in Guy's Noctilux vs. 75 Lux thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/28454-nocti-75mm-lux-image-look-compare.html Jack, do you have comparison images where the Noctilux gets weird but the 75 Lux maintains its composure? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
usefeet Posted October 26, 2007 Share #29 Posted October 26, 2007 Paul, The shot of your son in the audience is great (great expression!). William And my son in the audience: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 26, 2007 Share #30 Posted October 26, 2007 Jack, do you have comparison images where the Noctilux gets weird but the 75 Lux maintains its composure? Actually, no I don't. I just went outside to try and make some and discovered they weren't as different as I originally thought. It is an overcast (low contrast) day here and I suspect background contrast plays a significant part in how bokeh renders, so I need to repeat the test on a brighter day to cement the results. However, I went ahead and re-shot wide-open Bokeh comps with the 35 IV, 50 Lux, 50 Noct, 50 Noct at f1.4 and 75 Lux. The results surprised me. I realize bokeh is subjective, but nonetheless, here are my impressions, at least when shooting in softer light: 1) It appears the issue is more one of the additional FoV on the Noct as compared to the 75Lux --- from a similar shooting point the 50 Noct includes more bright sky and distant area behind the main subject than the 75 deos. It is in higher-contrast specular highlights whre I see more offensive "clumps" in the rendering. If I leave the 75 focused on my subject and alter framing to capture the same distant specular highlights, the result is similar to the Noct. However, I don't usually frame that way with the 75, so for me it still works better in real applications. But to be clear it looks better in this initial comparison because it's trimming out more of the objectionable areas, not because it's actually dealing with them better --- make sense? 2) The 50 Lux compared to the 50 Noct at f1.4 gave variable results. In lower contrast areas, the Lux generated preferable bokeh to my eye since it maintained more detail in the structure of the distant objects. However, the Noct was smoother due to appearing more oof if that makes sense. In higher contrast areas the Lux faired worse IMO, showing more distinct blobs in the speculars. This could get even worse in brighter shooting conditions, so I need to compare that. I suspect the added contrast of the Lux makes the specular corner offenders more apparent, but am not really sure here. This is one that is pretty close, so each user probably needs to see several examples and decide for themself. 3) The 35 IV even showed some of the offense in the higher-contrast speculars. However, since its FoV renders them so much smaller in the final image that they never really appear clumpy as compaed to the 50's or the 75. Perhaps when coupled with the lower contrast of that version lens, this may explain why this particular lens has the reputation it does. Regardless, the appearance of the bokeh remains superb no matter what I did with framing on this lens. Stay tuned for more, maybe this afternoon if the sun comes out stronger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted October 26, 2007 Share #31 Posted October 26, 2007 Some time ago I was planning to buy an Noctilux (if I can find one) and then I started reading all the pro's an con's and I decided: OK the Noctilux is "old" and "heavy" maybe I should go for a 50/1.4 summilux instead (if I can find one). And then we see the pumpkins...... and the picture of Paul Hart's son. This is beautiful stuff. So now I am depressed - what to do choices, choices..... Bottom line: is it a love/hate relationship?? How does a Noctilux compare with other 50's at equal aperture settings (2.4- 16) - if it gets close I think can live with the extra weight & compensate with its unique drawing at f1.. Any advice is welcome Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 26, 2007 Share #32 Posted October 26, 2007 The 50 Lux Asph is always sharper, but at smaller apertures, the Noctilux is quite good. I am not sure where it finally pulls close though, maybe f/2.8 or f/4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 26, 2007 Share #33 Posted October 26, 2007 With repsect to the Noct and 50- Pre-Asph Lux, at 1.4... I have an excellent copy of the Noct (which is why I haven't sold it yet) and a normal copy of the Pre-Lux. I would say they're pretty close at the center with the Lux a bit better, and more so at the corners. At f2 through the 5.6, the Lux is better everywhere, but it's not an earth-shattering difference, just noticeable at 100% view and probably not all that noticeable in most prints you'd make. At f8 they both start suffering from diffraction and look essentially the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 26, 2007 Share #34 Posted October 26, 2007 This is one reason you just have to love the Lux , Wide open not sure you can get any sharper and the OOF is just a beauty 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! 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/36495-bokeh-comparisons-nocti-v-50-lux-v-35-lux/?do=findComment&comment=386477'>More sharing options...
Paul Hart Posted October 26, 2007 Share #35 Posted October 26, 2007 Paul, The shot of your son in the audience is great (great expression!). William Thank you! It was a very thought-provoking performance by a Christian theatre company, and the shot just seemed to capture the moment - but by accident; moments before I'd turned and noticed him laughing at something, and meant to capture that - oh well! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Campbell Posted October 26, 2007 Share #36 Posted October 26, 2007 Here's a Nocti question: The built-in lens shade is terrible. Is there an alternative that people are using. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 26, 2007 Share #37 Posted October 26, 2007 Here's a Nocti question: The built-in lens shade is terrible. Is there an alternative that people are using. Hi Woody: I got one of the $10 metal hoods off eBay in 62mm filter size and coupled that with a 62>60 step-down ring. Works great, doesn't vignette and doesn't clip the finder much more than the lens itself. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjphoto Posted October 27, 2007 Share #38 Posted October 27, 2007 The reason i got the M8 was the noctilux. I have 21 2.8 28 2.8 35 1.4 50 1.4 50 1.0 75 1.4. I still always use the nocti lux. It's so unique. the way it isolates the background is large format like. Many of the personal shots on website are done with it. I love it. Tim http://www.tjphoto.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted October 27, 2007 Share #39 Posted October 27, 2007 Tim, Fabulous work! You should do this for a living ... oh, wait ... aha! Seriously though, very nice portfolios. Did you shoot the Old Faithful shot with the Nocti? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjphoto Posted October 27, 2007 Share #40 Posted October 27, 2007 No, the Old faithful was with 50 2.0 on an M7. I sold that lens, and camera. I kinda wish i hadn't. 50 2.0 wide open is very nice too. Really, all the lenses are fantastic. Thanks, Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.