Kristian Dowling Compares fast normals on Steve Huff

[C_R]

"There is a persistant opinion, reproduced in almost all publications, that the Noctilux has only special qualities at full aperture and is not useable at smaller apertures. That is definitely not true. The original Noctilux 1,2/50mm (the one with the aspherical surfaces) recorded image outlines with medium to high contrast, but lost out in the recording of fine image details. When stopping down the image quality did not improve very much. It might be possible that these characteristics have been projected into the new Noctilux-M 1.0/50 because the name is the same. The latter lens however is a quantum leap better than its illustrious predecessor."

Erwin Puts on the Noct 1.0

The Noct 1.0 is underrated in Kristians comparison, IMO. It is large and heavy, but not a one-stop lens.

This one was f:2.8 (1/4000 ISO 320, MM), I had to stop down (no ND filter)


100% crop
coat.jpg

Stopped down to f:5.6 it is still really sharp (1/1000 sec, ISO 320)
L1001606.jpg

100% crop
hat.jpg

What drives me nuts sometimes is the field curvature, making it very hard to compose sometimes.

Carsten
Flickr

[ian_watts]

What, no SLR Magic lens in the mix?

[raid]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Ah Raid, you have nice stuff... don't sweat it!

Yes, I have wonderful "stuff". I do not miss having the exotic lenses, such as a 60/1.2 Konica or a 50/1.2 Leica lens. I still have my 75/1.4 Lux and 35/1.4 Lux and 50/2 Summicron and other "lower cost items", as compared with the prices of the ultra fast lenses shown in this thread.

Most of the times, I prefer using f 8.0 anyways.

[MikeL]

Originally Posted by C_R

"There is a persistant opinion, reproduced in almost all publications, that the Noctilux has only special qualities at full aperture and is not useable at smaller apertures. That is definitely not true. The original Noctilux 1,2/50mm (the one with the aspherical surfaces) recorded image outlines with medium to high contrast, but lost out in the recording of fine image details. When stopping down the image quality did not improve very much. It might be possible that these characteristics have been projected into the new Noctilux-M 1.0/50 because the name is the same. The latter lens however is a quantum leap better than its illustrious predecessor."

Erwin Puts on the Noct 1.0

Carsten, my experience aligns with Erwin Puts on the f1.2. Those that understand optics could explain it better, but stuff in the background had a swirl that didn't progress in a uniform way across the frame. Neither did resolution. It was plenty sharp (for me) in the center 1/3 at f1.2, but if your subject was outside that area, resolution dropped off quickly. The f1 noctilux has a similar problem with curvature of field, but it seemed more uniform and workable to me.

[cam]

Originally Posted by MikeL

Carsten, my experience aligns with Erwin Puts on the f1.2. Those that understand optics could explain it better, but stuff in the background had a swirl that didn't progress in a uniform way across the frame. Neither did resolution. It was plenty sharp (for me) in the center 1/3 at f1.2, but if your subject was outside that area, resolution dropped off quickly. The f1 noctilux has a similar problem with curvature of field, but it seemed more uniform and workable to me.

i believe Carsten was defending the f/1, not disagreeing with what Puts said about the f/1.2.

i thought he was trying to illustrate that it was not a one-trick pony, but maybe i'm wrong?

as for the curvature of field, that's one of the reasons i love it

[ferider]

A couple of comments:

1) Kristian's shots are out of focus. And the DOF of fast 50s being "so thin" is a poor excuse. Normal short teles (85 or 90/2) have a thinner DOF and are harder to focus, and many of us use these routinely. Since using digital, he could chimp, had a model that he could ask to move, etc., not exactly a "decisive shot" scenario ....

2)

Originally Posted by C_R

The Noct 1.0 is underrated in Kristians comparison, IMO. It is large and heavy, but not a one-stop lens.

Agree. I'm a firm believer that the fast Mandler lenses are made for general purpose medium to far distance, journalistic type shooting. Even though everybody talks about wide open bokeh at close focus when "testing" them, in these conditions, they all develop swirly bokeh, veiling flare, etc. Dirk: the strength of the Summilux v2 at f1.4 is contrast, center resolution and lack of coma at far distances ....

3) Want a fast lens for hand holding in available light ? Get the 35/1.2. Beats anything Kristian tested due to the wider FOV. DOF is easier to handle, too.

4) Want to get close for portraits, etc ? Use a 75/1.4 with 0.7m min. focus. Wine bottles, etc., help

5) Mike: I still cann't believe you didn't let me play with your 50/1.2. Found that old shot of you using the 50/1 ....



Shot with a slow 21/4, BTW

Roland.

[photomoof]

Originally Posted by C_R

[i]
This one was f:2.8 (1/4000 ISO 320, MM), I had to stop down (no ND filter)

Probably a product of the jpg and sizing, but the image has a terrible blotchy fog on my monitor -- and large black patches around the doors for instance.

[C_R]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Probably a product of the jpg and sizing, but the image has a terrible blotchy fog on my monitor -- and large black patches around the doors for instance.

The patches are shdows from the trees LHS, in front light with dodging and upped contrast for the foreground and house area. I liked the kind of surreal look. Just wanted to show the sharpness around f:2.8.


Carsten

[C_R]

Originally Posted by cam

...as for the curvature of field, that's one of the reasons i love it

why ? Field curvature makes it difficult to predict what is in focus and what is not.

[MikeL]

Originally Posted by ferider

5) Mike: I still cann't believe you didn't let me play with your 50/1.2.

Roland.

I emailed you, but you wouldn't trade me your Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 for it!

And that photo was taken when a used noctilux was over-priced at $2000.

[cam]

Originally Posted by C_R

why ? Field curvature makes it difficult to predict what is in focus and what is not.

part of the fun

seriously, it adds a certain je ne sais quoi to an image that i adore... plus, i really can pretty much predict what will be in focus as i've used the lens so much. fast focusing moving objects in low light and obviously subpar handholding skills, make field of curvature the least of my worries.

btw, love the lens at f/2.8 as well -- especially at nearest focusing.

[leicashot]

Wow, it's been a while since I've been here, and nice to see people are enjoying it. I know it's not the greatest article but I did the best with the time I had, I can assure you. Would have loved to do some night work too. Cheers guys

[leicashot]

Most of my shots were in focus. Steve chose the samples to show, not me. Those 100% crops he showed were shot around minimum distance and I just did not have the time to focus bracket to ensure accurate focus all the time.

When it comes to focusing an M, I can assure you, I sorta know what i'm doing, and many of those shots were taken in a rush, and only 1 frame.

Unfortunately, no matter how hard I try, I can't please everyone

Originally Posted by ferider

A couple of comments:

1) Kristian's shots are out of focus. And the DOF of fast 50s being "so thin" is a poor excuse. Normal short teles (85 or 90/2) have a thinner DOF and are harder to focus, and many of us use these routinely. Since using digital, he could chimp, had a model that he could ask to move, etc., not exactly a "decisive shot" scenario ....

2)



Agree. I'm a firm believer that the fast Mandler lenses are made for general purpose medium to far distance, journalistic type shooting. Even though everybody talks about wide open bokeh at close focus when "testing" them, in these conditions, they all develop swirly bokeh, veiling flare, etc. Dirk: the strength of the Summilux v2 at f1.4 is contrast, center resolution and lack of coma at far distances ....

3) Want a fast lens for hand holding in available light ? Get the 35/1.2. Beats anything Kristian tested due to the wider FOV. DOF is easier to handle, too.

4) Want to get close for portraits, etc ? Use a 75/1.4 with 0.7m min. focus. Wine bottles, etc., help

5) Mike: I still cann't believe you didn't let me play with your 50/1.2. Found that old shot of you using the 50/1 ....



Shot with a slow 21/4, BTW

Roland.

[cam]

Originally Posted by leicashot

Wow, it's been a while since I've been here, and nice to see people are enjoying it. I know it's not the greatest article but I did the best with the time I had, I can assure you. Would have loved to do some night work too. Cheers guys

thank you, again, Kristian.

it would be great if you could do some nighttime shots with the Monochrom, with a comparison of lenses you own (or have at hand). i know you have some fast ones in your arsenal, even if they're not the same focal length.

thank you!

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by cam

thank you, again, Kristian.

it would be great if you could do some nighttime shots with the Monochrom, with a comparison of lenses you own (or have at hand). i know you have some fast ones in your arsenal, even if they're not the same focal length.

thank you!

I may have access to these lenses some time soon so I'll see what I can do. Right now I have the Nokton 35/1.2 II as usual and the Rigid Summicron. May have access to some of those lenses soon. Without a doubt, the two Hexanons are extremely special and my favorites in the review. I wouldn't really use the 1956 V1 for color though. But in Monochrome it is gorgeous with the right light to make it's personality sing. The V2 is a no compromise legend that delivers. On the Mononchrom these lenses perform better than they ever have, on any camera.

[cam]

Originally Posted by leicashot

I may have access to these lenses some time soon so I'll see what I can do. Right now I have the Nokton 35/1.2 II as usual and the Rigid Summicron. May have access to some of those lenses soon. Without a doubt, the two Hexanons are extremely special and my favorites in the review. I wouldn't really use the 1956 V1 for color though. But in Monochrome it is gorgeous with the right light to make it's personality sing. The V2 is a no compromise legend that delivers. On the Mononchrom these lenses perform better than they ever have, on any camera.

thank you! i would be quite happy to even see the two lenses you mentioned right now -- at night, on the Monochrom... you've been tempting me with the 25/1.2 for long enough, lol! as for the Cron, is that a Rigid you're talking about? seriously, i would love to see some night images from both.

and i agree that the Monochrom *does* seems to bring out the full characteristics of older lenses! i think i may actually prefer them to the newer, but i'm still in the very early days... (speaking of character, i actually think i may have preferred the earlier Hexanon -- it seemed more dreamy wide open.)

[menos]

Thanks Kristian for taking the time, preparing this and sharing the outcome!

Some very, very special lenses there, and yes, night shots we all want to see ;-)