Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M9 / ME

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Kristian Dowling Compares fast normals on Steve Huff
Old 01-07-2013   #1
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 48
Posts: 5,408
Kristian Dowling Compares fast normals on Steve Huff

Noctilux 50mm f.95, 50mm f1, 50mm f1.2
Hexanon 60mm f1.2 v1, 60mm f1.2 v2
Some beautiful Models and a great photographer. Makes a nice article!

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/0...stian-dowling/
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #2
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 48
Posts: 5,408
First time I've ever seen images with the original Hexanon 60mm. They look really beautiful. I think overall from these samples of all the lenses it has the nicest render wide open for portraits. Would like to see some images at f1.4-f4. Just from curiosity though not as an assessment to make a purchase. I'll never find one or even be able to afford one if I did.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #3
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,124
I think I'm the only one not impressed with the Hexanons.

And I wonder how he decides on the street prices. By the way, the street price on my Summar is now $6500. It has remarkable rendering, contrast, and flare resistance. Really.

I found the f1.2 noctilux to be kinda funky. Center 1/3 pretty sharp, but an almost instant falloff in resolution outside of that area. With most older lenses things change gradually across the frame. It still had this characteristic to some extent till f4. It is resistant to flare, even better than the f1 noctilux.

If it were me, I'd get the f1 noctilux (when I'm in the mood for the funk) and f1.4 summilux asph and still have some cash left over.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #4
bobbyrab
Registered User
 
bobbyrab is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Posts: 649
I regret not buying a Noct f1 i tried out a few years back but only because of the fourfold value increase.
To my eye they all get in the way of the photograph, you look at the shallow dof and swirls of background before you think about the subject, i've always thought of them as being very Nigel Tufnel.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #5
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 38
Posts: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Noctilux 50mm f.95, 50mm f1, 50mm f1.2
Hexanon 60mm f1.2 v1, 60mm f1.2 v2
Some beautiful Models and a great photographer. Makes a nice article!

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/0...stian-dowling/
Interesting ... thanks for the link.

Wish they had included one of the more affordable high speed lenses (50/1.1 Nokton, Canon S 50/1.2).
__________________
Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #6
flyalf
Registered User
 
flyalf is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Norway, Tromsø
Posts: 231
Thanks for sharing. Sight, will have to do with Jupiter 50/1,5 :-)
__________________
Regards, Alf Sollund, Tromsø, Norway
------------------------------------
http://alfsollund.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #7
raphaelaaron
Registered User
 
raphaelaaron's Avatar
 
raphaelaaron is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: nyc
Posts: 249
I wanted a Noctilux for the longest time, but after this test, as well as some other examples I've been observing, I'd rather have sharpness over how creamy the bokeh can get.

The images in the test look alright to me. I seem partial to the f1 noctilux results more.
Even then, I'm not all excited about it. I agree with Raid that the 1.4 is better suited. To me it is a good compromise between both worlds. I have been loving my 35 summilux.

Although lately, perhaps it's just not my style to blow out the background as much as possible.
__________________
+website|+flickr|+gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #8
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,538
Thanks for sharing Andy, an overall interesting comparison BUT :
In order to evaluate lenses with such a shallow DOF for "sharpness" i.e. accurate focus on a particular camera especially digital, lenses and camera need to be matched/adjusted.
My 1/50 wasn't really focusing properly all that well on my M9. I was never doing some serious evaluation before on film but on digital you just play around and you discover that it is off a bit (back focus). After the adjustment (and 6bit coding) it is spot on.
I see that you won't adjust (or aren't allowed) a whole set of lenses for testing purposes but then he needs to ommit a "sharpness ranking".
__________________
Klaus
You have to be there !
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #9
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 三鷹市
Age: 50
Posts: 7,074
A rather unique comparison of some sought-after lenses but I would not go that far and "rate" the tested copies for performance like sharpness, contrast etc. because there is always the possibility of sample variation and human error when trying to focus. Especially when using a sensor-equipped camera as recording medium slightest mis-alignments have a much larger impact then on film.

I would like to have seen some sample photos taken at night though. The Noctilux 50/1.0 is really good in resolving shadow details (especially using color-film) in dim light and it would be nice to see how the other lenses compare.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #10
gdi
Registered User
 
gdi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West-Central Connecticut
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeL View Post

And I wonder how he decides on the street prices. By the way, the street price on my Summar is now $6500. It has remarkable rendering, contrast, and flare resistance. Really.
I think that "street price" of > $12k is way over the top - given that recent ones have sold for $8k (which is shocking enough). Maybe he plans on selling one, and that will be his eBay BIN price!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #11
Vince Lupo
Registered User
 
Vince Lupo's Avatar
 
Vince Lupo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA; Toronto, Ont, Canada
Posts: 3,862
Does anyone here own the Nokton and uses it on an M9 or Monochrom? I've been sitting on the fence about buying one, as the Noctilux is out of reach at the moment (spent all my $$$ on the Monochrom!).

Regardless of its more affordable price, is it a good lens?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #12
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 48
Posts: 5,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdi View Post

In think that "street price" of > $12k is way over the top - given that recent ones have sold for $8k (which is shocking enough). Maybe he plans on selling one, and that will be his eBay BIN price!
The v1 60mm f1.2 has sold recently at over $12K. I think that is what was being referred to. This is a unique chance to see all these high performance pieces in a side by side comparison. Prices are determined by Rarity vs demand nothing more.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #13
Clint Troy
-
 
Clint Troy is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 365
He was always wrong with his "noctilux f1.0 being a one-trick pony" assertion. He had a lemon and tried so hard to make it the truth. And about Yanidel being "responsible for raising the price of the Konica"? No. No way.

IMO, he is trying too hard to push that konica. I'd never pay more then 3-4000$ for it. Fake cult status, Imo.

I really like the noctilux f1.2!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #14
IEDEI
Registered User
 
IEDEI's Avatar
 
IEDEI is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 187
as an eager admirer of the Noctilux series.....the pictures of the Noctilux F1.2 blew me away in that comparison. Very cool.
__________________
M5
M8.1

500px/IEDEI
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #15
gdi
Registered User
 
gdi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West-Central Connecticut
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
The v1 60mm f1.2 has sold recently at over $12K. I think that is what was being referred to. This is a unique chance to see all these high performance pieces in a side by side comparison. Prices are determined by Rarity vs demand nothing more.
No, he clearly states that the first version has a "street price" of over $13000 and the newer is over $12000. And there is only one thing that determines "street price" - and that is what someone e will actually pay.

Also, he refers to the Noctilux 1.0 as the "dream lens", of course the true Dream Lens is the Canon 0.95!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #16
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,016
1.2 Noctilux easier to produce than the 1.0?? That guy needs to get his facts straight. The 1.0 Noctilux replaced the 1.2 one because the aspherical elements of the 1.2 lenses had to be hand-ground and were nearly impossible to produce.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013   #17
sprokitt
Registered User
 
sprokitt is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Space Coast, FL
Posts: 98
Interesting to see two exotic M9s in the mix.

I personally like the Noct 1 and 0.95. Regrettably neither are in my future. I can't bring myself to pay that for a lens. I've thought about the Canon 1.2 which would do all I need, especially in B&W.

Its fun to look at these "tests".
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #18
cam
the need for speed
 
cam's Avatar
 
cam is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: paris no more
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
1.2 Noctilux easier to produce than the 1.0?? That guy needs to get his facts straight. The 1.0 Noctilux replaced the 1.2 one because the aspherical elements of the 1.2 lenses had to be hand-ground and were nearly impossible to produce.
did he say that? pfffft!

many other factual errors as well...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint Troy View Post
He was always wrong with his "noctilux f1.0 being a one-trick pony" assertion. He had a lemon and tried so hard to make it the truth. And about Yanidel being "responsible for raising the price of the Konica"? No. No way.

IMO, he is trying too hard to push that konica. I'd never pay more then 3-4000$ for it. Fake cult status, Imo.

I really like the noctilux f1.2!
Yanick really did quite a bit to do with raising awareness (and prices) of the Konica. i used to go out shooting with him and got to play with it. whilst i liked it a lot, i didn't have the 2-3K it was going for then (and already had an E58 f/1 that i wasn't letting go of). the prices have gone into the obscene range and i agree that it really was brought into awareness by Yanidel, but more so by his Paris shooting.

the f/1, btw, is most definitely not a one-trick pony. i find f/2.8 one of its magic apertures (very sharp, very 3D) and have often shot with it stopped down even further as i have taken it as my one-and-only 50mm on trips. it has never disappointed me!

he has his dates wrong on the years for the f/1.2 and the f/1 as well. i know because i've researched a lot as i have one of the first 200 E58 f/1's (1975)... the glass on this one is definitely different and its character is somewhere between the f/1 and the f/1.2, a true gem (bought for less than 3K back then).


Quote:
Originally Posted by maddoc View Post
A rather unique comparison of some sought-after lenses but I would not go that far and "rate" the tested copies for performance like sharpness, contrast etc. because there is always the possibility of sample variation and human error when trying to focus. Especially when using a sensor-equipped camera as recording medium slightest mis-alignments have a much larger impact then on film.

I would like to have seen some sample photos taken at night though. The Noctilux 50/1.0 is really good in resolving shadow details (especially using color-film) in dim light and it would be nice to see how the other lenses compare.
i agree with all above, especially regarding night shooting... i find it pointless to compare these über-fast lenses during the day. these lenses where meant to be brought out at night and, imo, it is then that they really shine -- or fail.
__________________
my flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #19
ssmc
Registered User
 
ssmc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
Thanks for sharing Andy, an overall interesting comparison BUT :
In order to evaluate lenses with such a shallow DOF for "sharpness" i.e. accurate focus on a particular camera especially digital, lenses and camera need to be matched/adjusted.
My 1/50 wasn't really focusing properly all that well on my M9. I was never doing some serious evaluation before on film but on digital you just play around and you discover that it is off a bit (back focus). After the adjustment (and 6bit coding) it is spot on.
I see that you won't adjust (or aren't allowed) a whole set of lenses for testing purposes but then he needs to ommit a "sharpness ranking".
Bingo. The eye crops clearly show these lenses are not focused at the same distance - look at the skin detail and especially the reflections in the woman's cornea - they are all over the place. On film I am pretty sure this would be a non-issue but with digital... of course pixel peeping is different to the "look" of the entire image but when it comes to lenses with such extremely shallow DOF it may well have subtle effects visible in a large print.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #20
antistatic
Registered User
 
antistatic's Avatar
 
antistatic is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 267
I had the good fortune to buy a Noctilux E58 f/1.0 recently for a great price.

I love the look wide open and stopped down. More than one trick for this pony.
__________________
my flickr

MP, M2, M9, CLE
28 Ultron, 35 Summicron Asph, 35 2.8 Summaron, 40 Rokkor, 50 Summilux Asph, 50 collapsible summicron, 75 Summilux, 90 Rokkor
Rolleiflex 2.8f
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #21
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Lupo View Post
Does anyone here own the Nokton and uses it on an M9 or Monochrom?
Regardless of its more affordable price, is it a good lens?
Just on M8/R-D1 and a bit on film. It's a good lens where speed may be needed, but there are much better lenses for general use.

The Nokton exhibits focus shift and noticeable field curvature, there are aberrations resulting in colour seepage, glow/halos, and there is flare. It vignettes some even on M8. And it's a big lens. On the other hand, there are no distortion problems. The resolution is certainly passable, suffers more at close focus. Borders are soft at larger apertures (1.1-1.4), but the overall image quality improves a lot when slightly stopping down (and we are stopping down from 1.1 here, not from 2.0-2.8 like with many other lenses).

If I had full frame digital M, I would be using this lens more (and then, if not satisfied possibly sell it). With crop, it's very much a specialty lens for me and in that sense quite a pricey lens to have. But I do like it enough to keep it.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #22
johannielscom
Leica II is The One
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,788
from the article:
Quote:
Unlike it’s older brother it was designed with modern lens design, optimized for excellent sharpness and contrast at wide apertures. This lens was made famous by street photographer Yanick Delafoge http://www.yanidel.net. I always say “pictures sell lenses” and Yanick’s amazing street pictures from his travels around the world have single handedly raised the value of this lens from $3k to $7k+ in a matter of a few years. According to Yanick, this lens is the sharpest standard lens at f/1.4, and from my own experience owning this lens, I would be confident agreeing with him.
Remember where you learnt about it first: at RFF!
Yanidel was/is a member here and his terrific article with photos on the L-Hexanon 1.2/60mm with the M8 caused quite a stir with interested RFF members when it was published.

Man, I wish I had dug deeper and bought me a 60mm when they still were three grand...
__________________
.


Gear and photography articles in English and Dutch: www.johanniels.com | flickr | instagram
“The question is not what you look at, but what you see.” Thoreau
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #23
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 35
Posts: 1,010
The outlook from his terrace fits his lens setup (photo 1)

*g*

I am not sure I would buy these lenses even if I could afford them. Well, actually I can afford maybe one of them, but why would I...

This is maybe just me, but I do not really see the point in lenses like that, when there are decent 1.2 and 1.1 alternatives out there for 10% to 5% of these prices. But then, it is a hobby and I have friends who think I am crazy for spending more than € 500,-- on a camera (body only, that does not even come with a big zoom).

all relative
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #24
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
 
Griffin's Avatar
 
Griffin is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 498
Am I the only one who doesn't find these lenses "normal"?
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #25
cam
the need for speed
 
cam's Avatar
 
cam is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: paris no more
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin View Post
Am I the only one who doesn't find these lenses "normal"?
if you like to shoot in the dark, they are.
__________________
my flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #26
Cron
Registered User
 
Cron is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Vienna
Posts: 570
thanks for the link!

Some years ago I had the possibility to place some of them side by side, but sorry, no comparison pics available.

__________________
see some pics here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smallrf/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #27
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,418
A kind friend lent me an f/1 Noctilux for a year, and I greatly enjoyed it. And I had a 50/1.2 Canon, fully overhauled by Balham Optical, but I gave it away (the same friend, as a 60th birthday present).

From my review of the f/1, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...ps%20king.html (the 'we' is my wife Frances and me)

The Noctilux is a wonderful lens, and as we have already said, if we could afford one without thinking about it, we would buy one like a shot. If we did a lot of the kind of photography for which the Noctilux is ideal -- the performing arts, in particular -- we would grit our teeth and find the money: it's expensive, but as a tool of that particular trade, it's extremely useful. But as neither of these conditions applies, we really don't think we're missing all that much by not having one -- which is not the same as saying we wouldn't like one.

As it is, I find my 1,5/50 C-Sonnar an all but universal lens, and it's seldom I miss the extra stop or half stop. 'Seldom' is nothing like the same as 'never', but equally, I have tried all three (and I also have a 35 Summilux) so at least I've some idea of what I' talking about. Put it this way: I had a choice of a Thambar and the Noctilux, and bought the Thambar (they were about the same money at the time, and I could only afford one). I do not regret the choice, not least because I buy lenses to use, not as investments.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #28
Eric T
Registered User
 
Eric T is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 688
The DOF is too narrow for me with these lenses. Wide open the focusing has to be perfect. I am not perfect.
__________________
Eric Triplett in sunny Florida
These days I shoot mostly with Sony A7R, Canon M3, and Leica T.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #29
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 49
Posts: 4,249
Pretty much true for all of these super high-speed lenses. But if you need the speed, you need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lss View Post
It's a good lens where speed may be needed, but there are much better lenses for general use.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.

--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #30
cam
the need for speed
 
cam's Avatar
 
cam is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: paris no more
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by furcafe View Post
Pretty much true for all of these super high-speed lenses. But if you need the speed, you need it.
+1

as it is i've hit walls shooting f/1 @2500 on the M9, even under-exposing, when shooting in dark bars here. i would have been sunk with an f/1.4 or f/1.5.

when you need it, you really do need it.
__________________
my flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #31
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam View Post
+1

as it is i've hit walls shooting f/1 @2500 on the M9, even under-exposing, when shooting in dark bars here. i would have been sunk with an f/1.4 or f/1.5.

when you need it, you really do need it.
Dear Cam,

What shutter speed do you regard as 'hitting a wall'? 1/30? 1/15? 1/8...?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #32
cam
the need for speed
 
cam's Avatar
 
cam is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: paris no more
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Cam,

What shutter speed do you regard as 'hitting a wall'? 1/30? 1/15? 1/8...?

Cheers,

R.
just discussing one night as an example: the lowest i saw in a quick gander was 1/6 (which is beyond my hand-holding capabilities, especially in crowds)... the lighting varies, depending if i'm doing "stage" shots of whoever was performing (no extra lighting -- just chairs on a higher level) or if i'm trying to capture the crown and/or the dancers.

obviously, especially with the dancers, i never got sharp sharp sharp because, even handheld, it was impossible to freeze the moments. (even the quieter moments i captured were difficult because of the noise @2500) instead, i went more for the feeling and got some nice shots indeed. but clearly, this was a situation where the camera was at its limit.

the others i was shooting with had cameras that went up to much higher ISOs and they took advantage of it... on the M9, there isn't that choice. without an f/1, i would have been very unhappy indeed.

i have no regret that i kept my Noctilux instead of selling it to fund that lovely Thambar you found me. but i also respect your decision to chose the Thambar as you're not nearly as insane as i am to shoot in the dark

eta: to answer your question, though (sorry), below 1/30 is pushing it... for what i was shooting, i would much rather have been able to shoot 1/60 at the very least, with 1/125 or 1/250 when i was shooting the dancers.
__________________
my flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #33
emiguevara
Registered User
 
emiguevara is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 35
The photos in that article look mostly out of focus, and the photographer acknowledges that he didn't have time to try second shots. Besides the Konica f1.2 second version (which probably was optimised to focus wide open with the camera and that has the deepest DOF of them all), they all look like the shots I used to get from a Nokton f1.1, quite soft and swirly.
And as someone said, when you need the speed, you need it. Living in Norway, the dark season is about 6 months... my shutter speed is set on 1/15 most of the time, f1.4 (the Nokton 35mm f1.2).
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #34
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam View Post
just discussing one night as an example: the lowest i saw in a quick gander was 1/6 (which is beyond my hand-holding capabilities, especially in crowds)... the lighting varies, depending if i'm doing "stage" shots of whoever was performing (no extra lighting -- just chairs on a higher level) or if i'm trying to capture the crown and/or the dancers.

obviously, especially with the dancers, i never got sharp sharp sharp because, even handheld, it was impossible to freeze the moments. (even the quieter moments i captured were difficult because of the noise @2500) instead, i went more for the feeling and got some nice shots indeed. but clearly, this was a situation where the camera was at its limit.

the others i was shooting with had cameras that went up to much higher ISOs and they took advantage of it... on the M9, there isn't that choice. without an f/1, i would have been very unhappy indeed.

i have no regret that i kept my Noctilux instead of selling it to fund that lovely Thambar you found me. but i also respect your decision to chose the Thambar as you're not nearly as insane as i am to shoot in the dark

eta: to answer your question, though (sorry), below 1/30 is pushing it... for what i was shooting, i would much rather have been able to shoot 1/60 at the very least, with 1/125 or 1/250 when i was shooting the dancers.
Dear Cam,

Thanks very much. I'm intrigued, because I have quite a lot of books and magazines from the 1930s, and I've long wondered how they coped with slow lenses (f/1.5 was super-speed) and slow films (the equivalent of ISO 200 was super-fast). Thy seem to have achieved it in two ways: bracing their arms on tables and the like, and either choosing very static subjects (as in Hollywood portraits, though for different reasons) or putting up with some subject motion.

Of course we don't know for sure what their hit rate was but unless they were lying, it seems to have been quite high.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #35
1joel1
Registered User
 
1joel1's Avatar
 
1joel1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 232
A while back, I had an f1.0 Noctilux. I LOVED that lens and used it a lot. Then a few years ago, I was offered $5500 for it when I only had paid $1750 originally. Well, as much as I loved that lens and used it a lot, I sold it and bought a few other lenses that have since rounded out my focal range. Do I miss it, hell yea, but I am now enjoying my 75mm Summilux, 135 f3.4 APO, 35mm Summilux (old), and 50 Planar. Oh, most of those lenses have also risen in value, but they are all keepers, save the 35mm.

One man's opinion,

Joel
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #36
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 49
Posts: 4,249
Indeed, & you can't make a slow lens any faster. This is why I'm more excited about seeing improved high ISO performance from the new digital M than anything else. 1 disappointment w/the digital bodies is that the meters aren't as sensitive as on the M6 TTL, M7, & MP.

I also shoot in many dark bars, clubs, & performance venues. My personal handholding "wall" without external support (leaning against a column, resting arms on chair or table, etc.) is between 1/4th & 1/8th.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cam View Post
+1

as it is i've hit walls shooting f/1 @2500 on the M9, even under-exposing, when shooting in dark bars here. i would have been sunk with an f/1.4 or f/1.5.

when you need it, you really do need it.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.

--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #37
1joel1
Registered User
 
1joel1's Avatar
 
1joel1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 232
Therefore in this article I will focus my attention to three main factors:
• Bokeh – the way the out of focus areas look and feel.
• Sharpness and contrast around the focus point.
• Signature/Character – the way the lens renders/draws.
• Color – shifting from warm to cold depending on the lens design, coatings used and age of lens.

Does anyone else find that humorous?

(3 main factors yet he lists 4)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #38
cam
the need for speed
 
cam's Avatar
 
cam is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: paris no more
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSU View Post
I have made a good many images in restaurants and bars resting a Leica on a wine or water glass, even using a beer bottle for a rest can be helpful, if the table is essentially stable. I regularly go to 1/4 second with a Leica with the realization that the keeper rate is compromised and offset by making many, many more shots.

One of my oldest pieces of gear is a Leica table-top tripod with a Leica large ball and socket head. This compact rig is indispensable for work in tight confined areas and traveling somewhat light. I may be fooling myself, but I find it helpful even bracing the tripod on my chest and collar bones, particularly if I can get my back against a wall or chair back.

For performers and dancers, there is no substitute for shutter speed.
interesting. thank you!

i doubt it have helped me in that situation, but there are a lot of dark bars that i like to shoot in...

(and, by the way, i do envy you your Hexanon, especially for the close-focusing aspect... i also think if i would have thought longer and harder about it if i had been shooting FF at the time as 35/60 is such a lovely combo... now i just can't afford it.)
__________________
my flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #39
cam
the need for speed
 
cam's Avatar
 
cam is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: paris no more
Posts: 640
despite some legitimate factual gripes, lenses not being calibrated, etc., i still appreciate Kristian's effort and the fact that he put it up.

he is an excellent photographer and the photos were much more interesting than looking at brick walls, bowls of fruit, etc. and it's very rare to get a chance to compare these lenses against each other.

it would have been more useful for many if he had compared less expensive and/or slightly slower alternatives, but he didn't have those at hand.

it actually reinforced what i think about the various lenses, having at one time or another a chance to shoot them all and compare them with my own gear and my own type of shooting... that said, my conclusions are not the same as his, nor may yours be -- but that's his prerogative, he wrote the review.
__________________
my flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2013   #40
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1joel1 View Post
Therefore in this article I will focus my attention to three main factors:
• Bokeh – the way the out of focus areas look and feel.
• Sharpness and contrast around the focus point.
• Signature/Character – the way the lens renders/draws.
• Color – shifting from warm to cold depending on the lens design, coatings used and age of lens.

Does anyone else find that humorous?

(3 main factors yet he lists 4)
Apart from the humor factor 3/4...
Color shift :
In digital times of manual white balance (you all do it, right !??) this should be a totally mute point.
__________________
Klaus
You have to be there !
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:45.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.