Noctilux shots

[palker]

What I like about this site is that no matter how a thread starts .. it always ends up the same.
I for one enjoy they fact some folks post their photos for us all to see. This one is to show a particular lens, I didn't want to buy it, it simply felt too big, but never the less I'm interested to see their results.

Thanks to everyone who posted a photo (or several in some cases).
Phil.

[MikeL]

kevin m, how many times do you need to make this point. We must all be delusional and not like you. Okay?

[kevin m]

If you want to post your pics somewhere for a mutual admiration society, free from the public gaze, then form a club. If you post pics on a public forum then expect nothing but kisses blown your way, then perhaps we have a different understanding of what a public forum is.

Look again at pics number 104 and 109 and tell me there's anything special about them that couldn't have been made with any number of other lenses.

I like the shots, and some of the earlier ones as well, but that's more due to the eye of the photographer than any special qualities this lens has. If hearing that is offensive to you.....

[MikeL]

Kevin, that's not what I'm talking about. Making the point once, totally cool, and I understand where you are coming from. Multiple times, and I wonder what ax someone has to grind. Being a public forum, there are always people there with an ax to grind.

[kevin m]

Well, I hope I haven't crossed the line to 'dead horse flogging', but I've just been responding to other posters since my first comment, trying to make myself clearer. I guess it doesn't always work and it might actually be counter-effective.

I really don't have an ax to grind, but I have seen a number of online Noctilux pics and they leave me scratching my head wondering what the fuss is. Maybe since you guys own the lens and get to hold the prints in your hands, you're seeing something I haven't had the pleasure of seeing for myself, and perhaps the subtleties get lost on a computer screen....

[hans voralberg]

I means, the thread is to show pics from Noctilux, why we even go on arguing about its capability or whatever ? What people say is their own judgement, every1 see differently, heck I didnt see anything 3D either but hey, my eye is unique. Just keep it cool, enjoy the pics. Without the photog the lens is useless, but it got its fair share in the pic as well doesnt it ? Set the fuss aside, it certainly doesnt do anything useful

[wray]

Originally Posted by palker

What I like about this site is that no matter how a thread starts .. it always ends up the same.
I for one enjoy they fact some folks post their photos for us all to see. This one is to show a particular lens, I didn't want to buy it, it simply felt too big, but never the less I'm interested to see their results.

Thanks to everyone who posted a photo (or several in some cases).
Phil.

I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact I wish more people would do something similar - post pics taken with a lens that is particularly liked with some commentary. Kudos to Ned for doing this!

[crawdiddy]

Ned, your photos are beautiful. I also appreciate Kevin's counterpoint, because I enjoy a spirited discussion. However, I come down sqarely on the side of the Noct. And personally, nothing turns me off more than Giga-pixel, infinity-ISO, auto-focus DSLR technology. Honestly, what's next? Auto-composition? And besides, anything you don't like in the digital file can be fixed with software. This is not what captured my interest in photography (OK, I do have a photo-shopped avatar, but only because I'm new to the forum, and I haven't settled on something more personal yet. And I loathe W and the Republicans. Enought of that.)

Anyhoo, I say keep your comments coming Kevin. Even though you are wrong, and your comments probably belong in another thread.

And Ned, keep the gorgeous Noctilux manual focus, manual exposure, manual composition, analogue images coming. They are spectacular.

[kevin m]

[quote]... keep your comments coming Kevin. Even though you are wrong...[/QUOTE

I was going to make a witty retort....but....Bush eating a kitten! That's priceless.

[clarence]

Originally Posted by NB23

Clarence, rule number one is "Photography is not a monetary investment". Going from that simple rule, the path is open for enjoyment and strictly shooting.

If it's all and only about money, may I suggest the now very cheap and EXCELLENT Minolta 58mm f1.2 + X700 body for about 250$. As cheap as it gets.

Ned, thank you for the recommendation of the Minolta, Although I'm perfectly happy with my f1.4 Jupiter 3, I'm sure it would be interesting to compare the differences that 0.2 stops creates, with regards to the Noctilux's f.10 depth-of-field characteristics.

What I don't agree with is that "[p]hotography is not a monetary investment" is a simple rule. In an ideal world, it shouldn't be; but it can be a very significant financial consideration for many people, especially for someone, for example, who invests a significant proportion of his income in a Noctilux and realises after a while that it might not be the right lens for him. I hope people see that Noctilux prices are particularly volatile right now.

It's not just about the money, nor is it just about the photography. Photography, unfortunately, is an art-form / hobby which has a rather complex relationship with money.

Clarence

[foto_fool]

Over the years I have seen more BAD Noctilux pics than good ones. Same for the Canon 50/0.95 (most of those by my own hand). These are difficult lenses to use well. That said, there a number of pics in this thread that are really GOOD - more good ones than bad ones. This an accomplishment, and kudos to Ned and the others who have done well with this tool.

Kevin may be right that some of these pics could have been made with another lens - heck, Ned even said he thinks he may have captured the guy on the grate with the hand growing out of his head with the 75mm Summilux. I'm sure sorry that Kevin finds this offensive. I'm even more sorry he feels the need to come back to a thread he disagrees with to belabor the point.

December PC World feature "10 Biggest Web Annoyances". I refer all to number 5.

- John

[monochromejrnl]

best of both worlds... not a Noctilux and not perfectly focused but i like it... hope other images taken with fast lenses are welcome her...

Nikkor 50/1.2AI manually focused and exposed using a D200 body...

[kevin m]

I'm sure sorry that Kevin finds this offensive. I'm even more sorry he feels the need to come back to a thread he disagrees with to belabor the point.

What a silly place this can be. So one should only comment on a thread in which one AGREES with the poster?

Again, perhaps there is some confusion as to the difference between a private club and a public forum.

And if Ned himself can't even tell the difference between his 75 'lux shots and his Noctilux shots, then what chance do we mortals who don't own either lens have?

[crawdiddy]

I was going to make a witty retort....but....Bush eating a kitten! That's priceless.




Please do retort, Kevin. Unless your wits have finally, mercifully, reached their end.

[P. Lynn Miller]

Some people just do not know when to stop arguing their point even after everyone has listened and agreed to disagree.

Back to the photos and lens.

The statement "Photography is not about monetary investment", is in context of taking photos with what you have. I remember Ned before he had a Leica much less a Noctilux. And his work was amazing back then. So while the Noct, probably does give an edge to his photos, seen or unseen, it is not the lens doing the work but rather supporting it.

I agree with Kevin, other being a very fast lens, I cannot see any wonderful effects that justify the value of the Noctilux. But then I am still working getting the last ounce of performance out of my Nikkor 50mm f1.2. But I still want a Noct-Nikkor, Canon 50 f0.95, and Noctilux, just because... even though I cannot justify it or do the lenses justice. And I want a Nikon D3 to use with my Noct-Nikkor. Do I need any of this gear, no, and what I have is perfectly capable of taking 99.9% of the photos I want to take.

And I am very glad that Ned, Mike, and others are posting their photos here, so I can enjoy and critique a lens that I will probably never own.

Thanks,

[maddoc]

As I remember Ned`s point was to show that the Noctilux is a very usable lens for more then the usual swallow DoF, ultra bokeh photos one can see everywhere. From what I see from his photos and the photos of all other posters here in this thread, the Noctilux is an interesting lens for many different kind of photos / situations.

I am glad he started this thread (and the other threads about the Super-Angulon, Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH, and Summicron 40mm) so a lot of us can see different photos taken from different people under different conditions. This is more useful - at least for me - than reading Erwin Puts lens compendium.

Cheers,

maddoc

[rodneyAB]

Originally Posted by patrickjames

There has been some minor bickering in this thread, but the one thing that I would like to know is if any famous images have been shot with the Noctilux. I know Duncan shot with the Canon 1.2 (Picasso images), but has anyone famous used the Noctilux?

Just curious.

Patrick

Ned is about the most famous of them all

[tomasis]

Kevin M, you need a good monitor Maybe buy a Nocti to and see what we are talking about It is very natural that not everyone is agreeing with what other are saying.

[tomasis]

Maybe all fuss is that the lens is 50mm and you can shoot everyting at the fov. You cannot go far with 75, 90.

Parick james is really believing that he will be very good with the lens if other famous are using the same lens. Talk about imitation

[Hephaestus]

I really do not understand the bulk of this discussion. The Noctilux is surely a very fast lens but it also, to my eye, has a unique look to it which goes beyond the shallow depth of feild. You may or may not value the speed of the lens, or the look to the images that it produces. This is, however, a subjective judgement and I do not see any value in arguing with others about the judgements they make about the lens. If it’s not worth the money to you, or even if it is, I frankly do not give a damn. What is of value, however, is to post photos taken with the lens under various conditions so that others can individually decide if the lens is something that they would like to shoot with. Less talk and more pictures.

[tomasis]

patrickjames, I did joke. Did you missed shots by NB23 here if you say that you only see test samples? Thanks for posting the link. If he can remove 80% of all shots so it might be somewhat interesting. But when I look though all samples, the characterics of nocti begin to appear for me. High contrast at widest apertures is really impressive that highligts and even midtones appear clearly illiuminating through some samples. It is due heavy 1-2 stops vignetting around the circle of image. The vignetting is not necessarily bad, on the contrary I love this holga effect. It is probably waste of money for them who shoots only on daylight when they can get old f1.5 lenses instead

[kevin m]

Tomasis, I do have a good monitor. Still, nothing in this thread, from the standpoint of lens performance, looks that special to me. There are some lovely shots here, but if the posters had said "I shot this with a Minolta/Nikon/Canon f1.2 lens," can you really say you could tell the difference?

[NB23]

Originally Posted by kevin m

Tomasis, I do have a good monitor. Still, nothing in this thread, from the standpoint of lens performance, looks that special to me. There are some lovely shots here, but if the posters had said "I shot this with a Minolta/Nikon/Canon f1.2 lens," can you really say you could tell the difference?

Kevin,

One simple word for you: Holga.

Now you can sell all your useless equipment. A Holga is all one needs.

Holga.

[kevin m]

Sorry, Ned, I won't interrupt your religious services again. I thought I was on a public forum, but I evidently walked into a church by mistake, and that explains the absence of logic, proof or even civility to simple questions.

[back alley]

ok gents, maybe time for a breather?
i find it so hard to believe that there can be testy words about a lens on a photo forum!

joe