50mm lens bokeh: LN f1.0 -v- LN f0.95 -v- VN f1.1

[Amin]

Users choice... while the Nokton says 1.1 it acts with Bokeh more like a 1.4

Bob

It acts with light more like a 1.1 though .

 

[docmoore]

Concerning exposure I agree.:thumbup:

Bob

 

[Jonas]

In the only direct comparison I've seen the Noctilux (f0.95 version) is sharper at the center, a tad less sharp at the edges and has better bokeh if one prefers smooth background OOF stuff to the more edgy rendering from the Nokton. When stopped down the bokeh was the other way round; smoother bokeh from the Nokton than from the Noctilux (from f/4, maybe 2.8, and onwards).

I haven't even seen any of these lenses in real life, and as said, that was from one comparison only.

I wouldn't say the Nokton behaves like an f/1.4 lens though. There are so many different f/1.4 lenses that one can't think of them as a homogeneous group.

/Jonas

 

[47th_vacuum_space]

Saying that it's "more like" a 1.4 is silliness. Maximum aperture does not determine the character of the out-of-focus areas: optical design and glass quality do that. The Nokton has excellent bokeh wide open that is not like the Noctilux's. It's just as reasonable to say that the Noct isn't "anywhere close" the Nokton. It depends entirely on what you're looking for.

 

[plevyadophy]

Users choice... while the Nokton says 1.1 it acts with Bokeh more like a 1.4

Bob

I still don't get ya.

What do you mean, EXACTLY?

Are you referring to depth of field, or some other quality?

Thanks in advance.

 

[plevyadophy]

I’m not sure I understand your post.

You state that: “Rarified glass (by this I assume you are referring to the Noctilux that I use with my GH1) on a m4/3 is a bit absurd.”

By “rarified glass” I assume you mean expensive glass, at least that’s the implication when the following sentence in your post states, referring to your using your Nokton on your 4/3 camera, “…but it fits price-wise with the body,” Which suggests that you believe the Noctilux does not fit “price wise” with a 4/3 body.

But what does price have to do with it?

Are you suggesting that whatever the attributes that the Noctilux might have, they are too costly and wasted on the GH1 or that the GH1 is not a good enough camera to make use of what the Noctilux can do? If so I respectfully submit that you are mistaken. Elsewhere in this forum there are numerous posts attesting to the fact that, at least up to 16X20 prints (big enough most of the time for most of us), the G1 or GH1 easily holds its own against much more costly DSLRs., and, as I and others have observed, it is far easier to focus the Noctilux on a GH1 than it is on any rangefinder camers.

Moreover, in my opinion, the market price of a lens has nothing at all to do with whether it’s a good tool to use on a M4/3 camera. For an example in which the relative prices of the camera body and lens are reversed, I sometimes use a lens on my 4/3 cameras even though it is comparatively very inexpensive, just because it is so compact and I love the way that it draws—a 50+ year old Leica f/3.5 50mm collapsible Elmar. One might observe that this lens perhaps does not fit “price-wise” because it is an old, uncoated inexpensive lens. Let me go further, I very occasionally, just for the fun of it, also use an even older 50mm Leica lens, an f/2 Summar, again because of the “dreamy glow” that it can produce in the right hands. That “glow’ is actually flare, of course, but flare can be a powerful creative tool, if used carefully in the right light.

Which brings us to the “legendary glow” of the old Noctilux. As David Farkas observes in his recent review of the new Noctilux,

“Part of the look of the lens (i.e., the old Noctilux) comes from the fact that Dr. Mandler didn’t correct for the blue spectrum of light. So, especially on B&W, the image seems to glow. I know a lot of people really love this. It just was never my taste. If I have to stop down to f/2 to get a sharp picture, what’s the point?"

I am one of those people who love that Noctilux glow even if you can’t cut yourself on the files it produces.

Besides loving to use the expensive old Noctilux on the much less expensive GH1 camera body to produce images with that Mandler glow, I also love the following:

• looking at paintings of Monet’s “blurry” water lilies;
• reading aloud James Joyce’s “Finegan’s Wake” even though he appears never to have learned how to punctuate a sentence;
• listening to Bill Evans’ forty year old recordings of incomparable solo jazz piano renderings on vinyl records driven by a tube amplifier;
• driving 50 year old 356 series Porsches that are slow by today’s standards, but deliver a matchless experience on a tight country road;
• driving almost any electric or hybrid car;
* holding hands with my wife while watching a good classic black and white film.

As to the analogy that using the Noctilux on an M4/3 camera is “akin to wearing a tux to the drive-through window at McDonalds,” I don’t much like the food at McDonalds, so not to worry, but I have been known to wear a very good and expensive twenty year old wool tweed sport jacket with old jeans and running shoes.

Hi,

EXTREMELY well put, eloquent. Much better than how I would have put it, so much so that if ever this kinda debate arises again, whether here or on some other site, I shall point directly to your post.

Since my original post, I have purchased the Nokton 50mm f1.1

However, there are some differences between the Nokton and Noctilux f0.95 that are drawing me to the latter lens. But given that the Leica lens costs 6 times more than the CV Nokton, what I really wanna see is something OBVIOUSLY different in image rendering for it to be worth my while, and of course, how the lens renders on a Four Thirds sensor is probably much different to how it renders on a full frame or Leica M8 1.3x sensor.

From the numerous images I have seen, on a larger sensor, it seems to me that the Nokton has a more interesting bokeh, but this often comes at the expense of some horrid background effects where bright specular highlights are present. It was that Nokton bokeh that drew me to the lens. The bokeh of the Leica f0.95 on the other hand appears to be MUCH better behaved with regard to bright background highlights, but seems to have a sophisticated smoothness which is well, erm, too sophisticated if you get my drift (?).

I have been fortunate enough to get access to a f0.95 Noctilux at my nearest Leica flagship store. Whilst at the store I managed to do some test shots with it (but I need to do them again and more rigorously) on my Panasonic G1. On close inspection the Leica lens' bokeh looked smoother, but I didn't notice any other obviously different bokeh characteristic e.g. it didn't seem noticeably more shallow compared to the Nokton, and it seemed to display purple fringing at high contrast dark/light transitions just as much as the Nokton.

Except for the ridiculous 60mm filter thread, the Leica seems to be a MUCH better lens than the CV Nokton ergonomically. It is just a matter of seeing whether, on a Four Thirds sensor, it offers something better or much different in terms of image aesthetics.

Regards,

 

[woodyspedden]

Bob -

Thanks for your gracious reply.

For your information and for anyone else who is fascinated by the prospect of using an older screw mount elmar 50 on the GF1 or GH1, attached is a photo of that lens, which has first been inserted into a SM to M converter mount and then into the Novaflex Leica M to M4/3 converter. There is a second photo showing a very important additional step that has to be taken when using these collapsible SM lenses on a modern digital Leica (including the M8, M8.2 and presumably also the M9). What is necessary is to slip a couple of orings over the front of the lens barrel so that when they are slid down against the mount prior to collapsing the lens, they rings prevent the lens barrel from interfering with the sensor and electronics. I use two rings (sorry, don't have the spec for them, but you can try a couple of sizes until you get the right one), which will enable the lens to be partially collapsed for compact transport, but then enables the barrel to be pulled out for actual photographic use.

I just leave the aperture of the lens at f/3.5, which provides adequate depth of field. The focusing knob works as normal.

Thanks for your comments, again.

Ed (fishandfowl)

Ed

I believe that John Milich is producing a high quality brass adapter for LTM to m4/3 directly. Saves one interface which is usually a very good thing.

Woody