dcuthbert Posted June 30, 2009 Share #1 Posted June 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've yet to be that impressed with the shots often taken with the Nocti and 24 Lux, until now that is: Flickr: Superbaka's Photostream Granted, he's an oscar winning lighting man, but the shots done with the 24 Lux are just out of this world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Hi dcuthbert, Take a look here Nocti & Lux shots. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sfokevin Posted June 30, 2009 Share #2 Posted June 30, 2009 Yes some awesome shots... You can see the eye of an Oscar winning lighting guy... I noticed one of the pictures says "2.35 Cinematic Edition"... Is this just a cropped photo to that aspect ratio?... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted June 30, 2009 Share #3 Posted June 30, 2009 The latest LFI has a few comparison shots taken with the new Noctilux and the 50 Summilux ASPH. In my opinion, the bokeh of the two lenses at f/1.4 and f/4.0 were indistinguishable, and the contrast and overall image quality of the Summilux were clearly superior. Of course, there is that extra stop... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattf Posted July 1, 2009 Share #4 Posted July 1, 2009 I agree with fotografr -- in the LFI test exposures, for contrast and overall quality the nod absolutely goes to the Summilux. Have now had my 8.2 and 50 Lux for two months -- lens truly sublime. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted July 1, 2009 Share #5 Posted July 1, 2009 While we're on the subject of the latest issue of LFI, didn't the 2 Elmarits (21mm & 24mm) look a lot crisper than the 2 Summiluxes (21mm & 24mm)? Are the Summiluxes are quite reminiscent of the old Noctilux, or am I befuddled again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 1, 2009 Share #6 Posted July 1, 2009 It certainly does so in LFI. It does not tally with my experience with the lenses, however, as far as the Summilux and Elmarit 24 are concerned. The fingerprint is certainly different, but the sharpness, even wide open, is so close as to make no difference in practice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidomo Posted July 1, 2009 Share #7 Posted July 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Flickr: Superbaka's Photostream Granted, he's an oscar winning lighting man, but the shots done with the 24 Lux are just out of this world. Some truly excellent and inspiring shots there. Thanks for posting. Who is this guy anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted July 1, 2009 Share #8 Posted July 1, 2009 It certainly does so in LFI. It does not tally with my experience with the lenses, however, as far as the Summilux and Elmarit 24 are concerned. The fingerprint is certainly different, but the sharpness, even wide open, is so close as to make no difference in practice. Yes, I have seen images taken with the 24 Lux and they are gorgeous. In fact, one may have been posted by you in another forum. The ones in LFI looked terrible. Can't imagine how the pics are so bad and still got published! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modschiedler Posted July 1, 2009 Share #9 Posted July 1, 2009 What exactly do you mean by terrible? In my understanding they just compared heavy crops of the center and of the outer areas, with the latter, as stated, being off the sharpness plane of course. Risky, but, in my opinion, nonetheless insightful regarding the character of detail rendering in the peripheral zones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcuthbert Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted July 1, 2009 Some truly excellent and inspiring shots there. Thanks for posting. Who is this guy anyway? He was responsible for the lighting on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with Brad Pitt. the LFI shots, whilst informative, are as boring as hell. Sorry, but you'd think that LFI would at least try and grab some decent shots to go along with the technical aspect. Then again... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted July 1, 2009 Share #11 Posted July 1, 2009 Nice images. I haven't seen much good work done with the new lenses yet, but the main reason is that they're new. Whenever a new lens is introduced, especially a large-aperture lens, lots of photographers seem to post bad photos shot wide open just to show what the lens can do. I just got my 24 'Lux last week, and I honestly don't have any worthwhile pictures to share from it yet. Mostly because I'm swamped with production work and won't have time for serious shooting for a week or two. I have done plenty of test images to check focus and to get to know the lens before I start using it for important work (but I'm only guilty of posting one of those test images so far to this forum). Once I do get back to shooting, I'll use the lens as I use any other, which normally means stopped down. The super-shallow DOF look doesn't interest me. I need the fast aperture for low light, but normally I prefer more depth and layering to my images. The two extra stops will be very nice in low light with the M8, and this lens is what made me decided to ditch most of my Nikon gear, since for the first time I feel like the M8 can be used for very low-light work with a wide lens. So while I don't wish to clog the internet with more bad test pictures, my initial impression of the 24 'Lux is very positive. Wide open it seems as sharp as the 24 Elmarit ASPH with equal or maybe slightly higher contrast. It seems to really hold contrast in the shadow areas and seems to do well under difficult situations (say backlighting in dim light). The contrast can help it really see into the shadows. At f2,8 it definitely seems to outperform the Elmarit in terms of sharpness all over the frame (on the M8, haven't tested either lens with film). One really interesting characteristic, and I'd love it if someone could back up my initial impression, but when stopped down a bit, say to f5,6 or f8, the 'Lux seems to have a bit less contrast, while of course still holding sharpness. But it has more of a mellow look like the 28 'Cron or some older Leica glass. It's still very sharp, but not harsh like some newer ASPH lenses. This makes it an ideal lens for me, since I like the high contrast in low-light situations but a bit less contrast is helpful when the light is bright and harsh, like in direct sunlight. I've yet to make the lens flare, including shooting wide-open directly into a 100-watt lightbulb in a dark room. Veiling flare seems to be minimal even wide open, and CA seems to be minimal, though I saw some wide-open when shooting branches with a bright sky background. I still wish the lens had a traditional filter ring and plastic lens hood. The metal one seems like it could unscrew in the midst of shooting, and I rather like the plastic hoods as they seem like they are better at absorbing shock if knocked around. Also, I hate to think of what the metal one will cost to replace! But so far it works well and seems to hold the filter securely. I'll post images once I have images worth posting, but I thought I'd share my initial thoughts on the lens for those who are on the fence about it. I'm glad I decided to go for it, and I don't think I'll miss my Elmarit one bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted July 1, 2009 Share #12 Posted July 1, 2009 What exactly do you mean by terrible? In my understanding they just compared heavy crops of the center and of the outer areas, with the latter, as stated, being off the sharpness plane of course. Risky, but, in my opinion, nonetheless insightful regarding the character of detail rendering in the peripheral zones. Terrible = Not good. On the comparison of the Summilux and Elmarit 24mm (pg 46) at f/2.8 (middle images), it appears that the entire image taken with the Summilux was out of focus. The shot taken with the Elmarit does not appear to be... (what did you say?)... 'off the sharpness plane', not to my simple untrained eyes anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modschiedler Posted July 1, 2009 Share #13 Posted July 1, 2009 Terrible = Not good. On the comparison of the Summilux and Elmarit 24mm (pg 46) at f/2.8 (middle images), it appears that the entire image taken with the Summilux was out of focus. The shot taken with the Elmarit does not appear to be... (what did you say?)... 'off the sharpness plane', not to my simple untrained eyes anyway. But that’s exactly what that comparison is about. That article works as follows: Showing the effect of focal lengths 16, 18, 21 and 24 mm both digital and on film (pp 40 and 42) and then showing rendition of the outer zones (both digital and film again) by using crops of the original pictures (and using comparable apertures). The pictures you mentioned show a detail from the left edge, and of course they are beyond the focus plane, as the focus plane is actually on the steering wheel. The author stated this in the text. He wanted to show the character of the lenses by choosing a "real" three-dimensional subject; as I said this is risky because at first sight one might think that simply unsharp pictures are presented when looking at these crops, but once you have understood that these are crops it all makes sense. And hey, who does ever photograph plane-parallel subjects in reality? Although those periphery crops inevitably show something unsharp they are nevertheless instructive because you can clearly see the differences between lenses in rendering contrast and detail in the edge zones (since all images are made under constant conditions). One might find the subject boring, but that’s the fate of most comparison settings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcuthbert Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted July 1, 2009 I guess that raises the question, are most LFI readers more interested in those comparisons versus how the lens performs in the real world. Personally, if they used some of the images I linked to, alongside the mundane tech comparisons, i'd be more inclined to read it. Right now, as it stands, I gloss over as it's as boring as a maths lesson was, I'm a photographer and not a mathematician. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted July 2, 2009 Share #15 Posted July 2, 2009 But that’s exactly what that comparison is about. That article works as follows: Showing the effect of focal lengths 16, 18, 21 and 24 mm both digital and on film (pp 40 and 42) and then showing rendition of the outer zones (both digital and film again) by using crops of the original pictures (and using comparable apertures). The pictures you mentioned show a detail from the left edge, and of course they are beyond the focus plane, as the focus plane is actually on the steering wheel. The author stated this in the text. He wanted to show the character of the lenses by choosing a "real" three-dimensional subject; as I said this is risky because at first sight one might think that simply unsharp pictures are presented when looking at these crops, but once you have understood that these are crops it all makes sense. And hey, who does ever photograph plane-parallel subjects in reality? Although those periphery crops inevitably show something unsharp they are nevertheless instructive because you can clearly see the differences between lenses in rendering contrast and detail in the edge zones (since all images are made under constant conditions). One might find the subject boring, but that’s the fate of most comparison settings. Ah. Ok, I see what you mean now. My fault for not paying as much attention to the text as I should. Thanks for the clarification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 2, 2009 Share #16 Posted July 2, 2009 One really interesting characteristic, and I'd love it if someone could back up my initial impression, but when stopped down a bit, say to f5,6 or f8, the 'Lux seems to have a bit less contrast, while of course still holding sharpness. But it has more of a mellow look like the 28 'Cron or some older Leica glass. It's still very sharp, but not harsh like some newer ASPH lenses. This makes it an ideal lens for me, since I like the high contrast in low-light situations but a bit less contrast is helpful when the light is bright and harsh, like in direct sunlight. That one I can confirm; it is quite noticeable. I like it - it gives control over the character of the shot. Sean Reid mentions it as well. I still wish the lens had a traditional filter ring and plastic lens hood. The metal one seems like it could unscrew in the midst of shooting, and I rather like the plastic hoods as they seem like they are better at absorbing shock if knocked around. Also, I hate to think of what the metal one will cost to replace! But so far it works well and seems to hold the filter securely. As the hood will be almost never removed, I used a bit of rubbery doublesided tape, the stuff used to stick photographs in an album, it peels off without residue, to fix the IR filer. A bit went on the thread and it is quite secure now. I can testify to the robustness. It got a hefty knock which would have broken a plastic hood, just a little scratch and it protected the lens perfectly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eudemian Posted July 2, 2009 Share #17 Posted July 2, 2009 Glad to see you abuse your lens as much as I do Jaap. I clamboured down a very steep cliff to get a swim and gave my 21 lux hood a crash impact test. This would have disintegrated a plastic hood as Jaap states but mine was just scratched thank goodness. Still trying to come to terms with the 21 Lux, no doubt it is sharp but I find the angle of view intimidating sometimes (I know, why did you buiy it?). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 2, 2009 Share #18 Posted July 2, 2009 In my case it was the cobbled stones of the Hessenpark when changing lenses:( Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted July 2, 2009 Share #19 Posted July 2, 2009 In my case it was the cobbled stones of the Hessenpark when changing lenses:( You mean you found occasion to change lenses? Not me, this thing is now permanently attached to one of my M8 bodies. My second M8 will share the rest of my lenses. I tend to have one main lens in whatever system I'm using, and the other body shares the rest. It used to be my 24 Elmarit but now it's the 'Lux. It's good to hear about the strength of the hood. I guess I just felt like flexible plastic will absorb shock better, even if the hood does break, but I guess the metal will flex and absorb unintentional knocks. I think a $6k lens shouldn't need tape to hold it together, but even though I fear the hood might start to unscrew in use I haven't experienced that yet, so maybe it's not an issue. It does look nice and integrate seamlessly with the lens. And it seems to block the finder about the same (or a bit less?) than the huge plastic hood for the 24 Elmarit. I'm glad to hear the contrast characteristics aren't my imagination. It's brilliant. I understand why most lenses gain contrast as you stop down but this design represents a very logical idea, at least for the way I shoot. I tend to shoot a lot in low light, and a contrasty lens really helps keep my images from looking muddy. And when I shoot in contrastly light, like sunlight, I prefer a less harsh look. I had worried that in bright light the new 'Lux would be very contrasty and harsh as some other modern lenses are, but thankfully that is not the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 2, 2009 Share #20 Posted July 2, 2009 Basically I use the sticky stuff to stop the filter from falling out when unscrewing the hood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.