The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Please discuss ad nauseam, 50mm Noct vs Lux
- Thread starter Photojazz
- Start date
Stuart Richardson
Active member
NB23 brings up a very good point -- that outside the situations where you are shooting .95 or f/1 in broad daylight, it is very hard to tell these lenses apart. For every photographer who uses that f/1 and f/.95 in a creative way, I would say there are ten who would be happier and better-served with the 1.4 or f/2 lens. The Noctiluxes are big, heavy, focus only to 1m and are spectacularly expensive. They are not a "sensible" buy in any way, so if you are looking for the better overall lens, there is no question that it is a summilux or summicron. And before anyone freaks out, let me add that the Noctiluxes ARE good lenses, they perform very well compared to basically anyone else's 50mm lenses. AND, the creative possibilities of the Noctiluxes are real and unique compared to the other 50mm lenses Leica offers. I just think too often people get seduced by these lenses only to realize that they actually don't work for them at all.
I recently had a visitor to my studio who was interested in an M9 and a full stable of M lenses, including the .95 Noctilux. When he got a chance to try the M9, almost every photo he took was out of focus, even with normal lenses -- he was getting on in years and his eyes just could not use the rangefinder. Had he not tried it, he would have spent thousands of dollars on a system that he couldn't use! This is often the case with Noctilux buyers as well -- they are very hard to find and try, and people see some nice photos and imagine it is just like any other lens, only with f/0.95-1, this isn't the case!
P.S. The low-light issue is a bit of a gotcha as well -- if you are really serious about photographing at night, the 35/1.4 ASPH or 35/1.2 Voigtlander are better options -- they are easier to handhold because of lighter size and they have more depth of field so that you get more in focus...which is usually what you want if you are just concerned about photographing in low light, rather than trying to make razor-thin DOF. Also, the wider angle view minimizes the apparent camera movement. And of course, with the M9 going up to ISO 2500, f/1 is not quite as critical as it was when the Noctilux was introduced way back in the day. But if you are really really really serious about low-light, why are you looking at a Leica? The D3s and 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 are really in a different league.
Ok, I hope I have not stepped on too many toes, believe me, I love Leica as much (more?) than the next guy, I just think the Noctiluxes are nearly as specialized as 800mm telephotos -- indispensable for some people, but an unwise choice for most anyone else!
Girls in funny hats agree, the 50/1.4 ASPH is a better bet for all around use:
I recently had a visitor to my studio who was interested in an M9 and a full stable of M lenses, including the .95 Noctilux. When he got a chance to try the M9, almost every photo he took was out of focus, even with normal lenses -- he was getting on in years and his eyes just could not use the rangefinder. Had he not tried it, he would have spent thousands of dollars on a system that he couldn't use! This is often the case with Noctilux buyers as well -- they are very hard to find and try, and people see some nice photos and imagine it is just like any other lens, only with f/0.95-1, this isn't the case!
P.S. The low-light issue is a bit of a gotcha as well -- if you are really serious about photographing at night, the 35/1.4 ASPH or 35/1.2 Voigtlander are better options -- they are easier to handhold because of lighter size and they have more depth of field so that you get more in focus...which is usually what you want if you are just concerned about photographing in low light, rather than trying to make razor-thin DOF. Also, the wider angle view minimizes the apparent camera movement. And of course, with the M9 going up to ISO 2500, f/1 is not quite as critical as it was when the Noctilux was introduced way back in the day. But if you are really really really serious about low-light, why are you looking at a Leica? The D3s and 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 are really in a different league.
Ok, I hope I have not stepped on too many toes, believe me, I love Leica as much (more?) than the next guy, I just think the Noctiluxes are nearly as specialized as 800mm telephotos -- indispensable for some people, but an unwise choice for most anyone else!
Girls in funny hats agree, the 50/1.4 ASPH is a better bet for all around use:
NB23 I am not sure you could tell them apart, at current apertures, I think to tell them apart, it would take a very trained eye, someone with complete experience with lenses, even then, unless shot near wide open, would be tough.
Footnote, as a courtesy, if you don't use your name in your forum ID some way, sign your name in your signature or put it in your location like I did, Doug from East TN... It's helpful.
Doug
Footnote, as a courtesy, if you don't use your name in your forum ID some way, sign your name in your signature or put it in your location like I did, Doug from East TN... It's helpful.
Doug
Hi. Thanks!
They're all Kodachrome except the BW which is APX400 and the last shot which is Velvia.
As a matter of fact, I'm in the middle of scanning all my Kodachrome shots from these past 2 years. My very own kodachrome project involving four places in relative depth: Montreal, NYC, Paris and Serbia. To be continued...
People in general say that Kodachromes did Reds and Yellows well (and they are right), but the real Kodachrome secret is in the shades of white. At least that's my experience. There's that indescribable tonality...
well... the OP said ad nauseam, so here goes my take on this subject : I faced the dillema thankfully a few years ago ( 4 I believe ), way before the M9 sees the light and the M8 was just the new thing in town.
I've had the 50 1.4 lux pre asph, known by having a delicate and exquiste bokeh, vs the more sharp and clynical 50 1.4 asph, known as one if the not the best 50mm in the world.
why I choose the pre asph vs the asph version ? tested both extensively and just found the asph version a bit too "cool" , as in cold not as in groovyness.
Leica lens are not cheap and myself when I buy them, I like to keep them for years to come. for me they have two categories that they fall into : lens with character, distinctive signatures that tell them apart - even if they are a bit flawed in the flare, sharpness or other "techical" department, and other lens that are techincal milestones.
that is for me, the huge difference from a 50 1.4 asph and a 50 1.4 pre asph : pre asph has bags of character and the asph is a more cynical , objective focused , sharper lens.
my OWN problem with lens like this is that they rely much on technical stuff ( sharpness, flare resistance, etc etc ) that can easily be comparable and surpassed by the next lens.
Lens with character , on the other hand, are timeless - again, even if a bit flawed on the sharpness department - they do not rely entirely on objective measurement of their qualities.
So... with these forewords ( well text actually
) in mind, I happily owned a 50mm 1.4 pre asph until the day that a few ba&*$! went to my home and took my photographic stufff and the tv.
After insurance payout, I was doing the best thing related to Leica besides taking pictures : buying Leica stuff.
I always heard about the "unicorn lens" ,as I call it : the noctilux and those who didnt had one, lets face it, its because the thing its bloody expensive.
At the time, my decision was much easier, because there was several iterations of the 1.0 lens ( no 0.95 was born or even thought about ) to choose from, which have the same image quality and differs on the hood design.
Was also my birthday and I saw a used but mint noctiliux at my prefered dealer for a spanking good price so I thought - what the heck, its my bday, going to use it and if I dont like it, I can resell it and do not loose money.
This was 4-5 years ago.
Still have her today and you cannot take it away from me AT ALL.
Its used everyday ? No
It is heavy ? for a M lens, you nuts ? its like handholding a Canon 600 F4 every day - hell yes
Has a quirky throw for focus ? yup
Hard to focus ? at 1.0 ? oh yes
but when everything comes down together, when everything is right, it produces THOSE kinda images that only a Leica and a Noctilux can. and that is priceless.
Can the 50 1.4 asph produce the same images? no. very close ? yes. for hell lot less money ? yes.
I used the 0.95 lens for a while ( my new local dealer lend me one ) and its a gorgeous lens - the flaws are corrected, its sharper, flare is controlled. they improve the technical side of it - but at some expense - its soul.
Being a silly imperfect lens its wake makes the fun out of use them. Because when you get everything right, you get a nice self tap on the back, knowing that it was hard but you did it.
0.95 nocti the best of them all ? yes, but i wouldnt trade my 1.0 for it. well I dont.
Noctiluxes are very specialized lens - problably one of the very few in the M lens.
you can argue that you can replace it with a 50mm cron - and you can and you SHOULD if you shoot it F2 all the time. Noctiluxes are Noctiluxes when used wide open. At 1.4 any Summilux beats it down in sharpness.
If you can afford a 1.0 lens, buy it and you wont regret it - plus specially now with this M9 hysteria, prices are soaring again.
If money is really a concern, if you want the poor man noctilux - try to search for a 50mm 1.4 PRE ASPH - gorgeous lens as well
But go for the Nocti if you can - fantastic lens and a joy to use ;
Pai by Goncalo Proenca, on Flickr
Raquel nas escadarias da Peneda by Goncalo Proenca, on Flickr
L1003395 by Goncalo Proenca, on Flickr
Raquel @ Funchal by Goncalo Proenca, on Flickr
one word of warning though : Noctiluxes are the Porsche and the Ferraris of the Leica lens lineup. Like I usually say a Porsche is a fantastic car and does more than you average A-to-B car for a LOT more money. But when you start comparing them and justifying them, then you know - you dont need one and dont buy one, because a A-to-B car will suffice.
you can only justify their prices ( Noctilux and Porsches ) with your need for that passion that they can provide.
because reallistically you can find same things ( other lens and other cars ) that do almost as good for 1/5 or 1/10 of the price.
thank God that sometimes we can have a splash of insanity in our rational lives that's how I justify my Noctilux and the Porsche.
Thankfully, she thinks that the Noctilux was bought by Voigtlander prices....
I've had the 50 1.4 lux pre asph, known by having a delicate and exquiste bokeh, vs the more sharp and clynical 50 1.4 asph, known as one if the not the best 50mm in the world.
why I choose the pre asph vs the asph version ? tested both extensively and just found the asph version a bit too "cool" , as in cold not as in groovyness.
Leica lens are not cheap and myself when I buy them, I like to keep them for years to come. for me they have two categories that they fall into : lens with character, distinctive signatures that tell them apart - even if they are a bit flawed in the flare, sharpness or other "techical" department, and other lens that are techincal milestones.
that is for me, the huge difference from a 50 1.4 asph and a 50 1.4 pre asph : pre asph has bags of character and the asph is a more cynical , objective focused , sharper lens.
my OWN problem with lens like this is that they rely much on technical stuff ( sharpness, flare resistance, etc etc ) that can easily be comparable and surpassed by the next lens.
Lens with character , on the other hand, are timeless - again, even if a bit flawed on the sharpness department - they do not rely entirely on objective measurement of their qualities.
So... with these forewords ( well text actually
) in mind, I happily owned a 50mm 1.4 pre asph until the day that a few ba&*$! went to my home and took my photographic stufff and the tv.After insurance payout, I was doing the best thing related to Leica besides taking pictures : buying Leica stuff.
I always heard about the "unicorn lens" ,as I call it : the noctilux and those who didnt had one, lets face it, its because the thing its bloody expensive.
At the time, my decision was much easier, because there was several iterations of the 1.0 lens ( no 0.95 was born or even thought about ) to choose from, which have the same image quality and differs on the hood design.
Was also my birthday and I saw a used but mint noctiliux at my prefered dealer for a spanking good price so I thought - what the heck, its my bday, going to use it and if I dont like it, I can resell it and do not loose money.
This was 4-5 years ago.
Still have her today and you cannot take it away from me AT ALL.
Its used everyday ? No
It is heavy ? for a M lens, you nuts ? its like handholding a Canon 600 F4 every day - hell yes
Has a quirky throw for focus ? yup
Hard to focus ? at 1.0 ? oh yes
but when everything comes down together, when everything is right, it produces THOSE kinda images that only a Leica and a Noctilux can. and that is priceless.
Can the 50 1.4 asph produce the same images? no. very close ? yes. for hell lot less money ? yes.
I used the 0.95 lens for a while ( my new local dealer lend me one ) and its a gorgeous lens - the flaws are corrected, its sharper, flare is controlled. they improve the technical side of it - but at some expense - its soul.
Being a silly imperfect lens its wake makes the fun out of use them. Because when you get everything right, you get a nice self tap on the back, knowing that it was hard but you did it.
0.95 nocti the best of them all ? yes, but i wouldnt trade my 1.0 for it. well I dont.
Noctiluxes are very specialized lens - problably one of the very few in the M lens.
you can argue that you can replace it with a 50mm cron - and you can and you SHOULD if you shoot it F2 all the time. Noctiluxes are Noctiluxes when used wide open. At 1.4 any Summilux beats it down in sharpness.
If you can afford a 1.0 lens, buy it and you wont regret it - plus specially now with this M9 hysteria, prices are soaring again.
If money is really a concern, if you want the poor man noctilux - try to search for a 50mm 1.4 PRE ASPH - gorgeous lens as well
But go for the Nocti if you can - fantastic lens and a joy to use ;
Pai by Goncalo Proenca, on Flickr
Raquel nas escadarias da Peneda by Goncalo Proenca, on Flickr
L1003395 by Goncalo Proenca, on Flickr
Raquel @ Funchal by Goncalo Proenca, on Flickr
one word of warning though : Noctiluxes are the Porsche and the Ferraris of the Leica lens lineup. Like I usually say a Porsche is a fantastic car and does more than you average A-to-B car for a LOT more money. But when you start comparing them and justifying them, then you know - you dont need one and dont buy one, because a A-to-B car will suffice.
you can only justify their prices ( Noctilux and Porsches ) with your need for that passion that they can provide.
because reallistically you can find same things ( other lens and other cars ) that do almost as good for 1/5 or 1/10 of the price.
thank God that sometimes we can have a splash of insanity in our rational lives
that's how I justify my Noctilux and the Porsche.Thankfully, she thinks that the Noctilux was bought by Voigtlander prices....
Finally had time to read this entire thread rather than just skimming it.
When I shot film Ms the ISO's were restrictive for what and how I shoot ... more blurred images due to subject or camera movement than to focus issues. Leica M was chosen because of the fast max apertures to get the shutter speed up. I shoot in poor light more often than not, so for 35mm focal length and above f/2 didn't cut it. Simple as that.
In good light, stopped down, all the lenses are great ... even lenses from other top-drawer makers like Zeiss. It is the Leica M faster aperture lens performance wide open that sets it apart IMHO.
Digital Ms aren't a whole lot better with ISOs ... better, but not by much. So, for me the fastest aperture M lenses are all I am interested in. 21/1.4ASPH, 28/2ASPH, 35/1.4ASPH, 50/0.95ASPH, 75/1.4 (a select 6 bit dead-nuts focusing version that took me a year to find) ... and my much less used 90/2.8 (mostly for portraits outdoors). If Leica chooses to offer a 28/1.4 I will be first in line.
I'm pretty devoted to the M, have been for decades ... so I have two M9s ... one set up for 21mm to 35mm ... and the other devoted to the bigger, fast lenses ... this camera has a thumbs-Up and 1.4X mag always mounted. With a ThumbsUp the bigger lenses are wonderful to work with ... and provide the steading mass needed for the low light work they are designed for. The mag is a miracle of improvement in quick focus accuracy for my older eyes. Both cameras have the RRS Arca base plates for monopod work * (see below).
I've owned and used all of the 50mms at one time or another, including the Nocti 50/1 at least 3 times, and two 50/1.4ASPHs ( one reg. black and the other a Chrome retro version) When it comes to getting the subject in focus in low light the 0.95 beats the f/1 by a light year. Lots of people never got on with the f/1 because of this (including the focus shift that needed to be mastered through highly disciplined attention to focusing technique that is not necessary with the 0.95).
However, unless on a tripod/monopod, I don't necessarily see the 50/0.95 as a lens to be using at minimum focusing distance at max aperture ... which oddly many people seem to use as a measure but can't seem to hold still well enough to pull off. My 75/1.4 is better for filling a frame at f/1.4 anyway. It is when shooting more pictorial scenes that includes the minimal light sources that the Nocti 0.95 flexes it unique abilities and rendering qualities.
At over $10 Grand, the Nocti 0.95 is the most expensive lens I have ever owned including MF lenses like the S2 sports, or the $7K Hasselblad 35-90. There is simply no practical or logical way to justify it ... except those times when f/1.4 simply falls short ... which is often for me and the subjects and places where I shoot available light. Then the reasoning is crystal clear, and the justification is in the pictures captured.
-Marc
*BTW, I just ordered a Kirk Strap Pod ... an adjustable strap you step on and pull taut ... that has an Arca QR for the camera. I got it for an upcoming wedding reception shoot on a boat at night where a tripod/monopod transfers to many vibrations. I'll report on it once I get a chance to work with it.
Here are a few snaps ... both doggie shots done with the same lens ... one wide open which the 50/1.4 can't do, the other stopped down which is similar to 50/1/4 ASPH in feel. Same 0.95 for the girl on beach done at f/1.2 to get the shutter speed up for a shot with movement ... but renders like the 50/1.4 Lux
When I shot film Ms the ISO's were restrictive for what and how I shoot ... more blurred images due to subject or camera movement than to focus issues. Leica M was chosen because of the fast max apertures to get the shutter speed up. I shoot in poor light more often than not, so for 35mm focal length and above f/2 didn't cut it. Simple as that.
In good light, stopped down, all the lenses are great ... even lenses from other top-drawer makers like Zeiss. It is the Leica M faster aperture lens performance wide open that sets it apart IMHO.
Digital Ms aren't a whole lot better with ISOs ... better, but not by much. So, for me the fastest aperture M lenses are all I am interested in. 21/1.4ASPH, 28/2ASPH, 35/1.4ASPH, 50/0.95ASPH, 75/1.4 (a select 6 bit dead-nuts focusing version that took me a year to find) ... and my much less used 90/2.8 (mostly for portraits outdoors). If Leica chooses to offer a 28/1.4 I will be first in line.
I'm pretty devoted to the M, have been for decades ... so I have two M9s ... one set up for 21mm to 35mm ... and the other devoted to the bigger, fast lenses ... this camera has a thumbs-Up and 1.4X mag always mounted. With a ThumbsUp the bigger lenses are wonderful to work with ... and provide the steading mass needed for the low light work they are designed for. The mag is a miracle of improvement in quick focus accuracy for my older eyes. Both cameras have the RRS Arca base plates for monopod work * (see below).
I've owned and used all of the 50mms at one time or another, including the Nocti 50/1 at least 3 times, and two 50/1.4ASPHs ( one reg. black and the other a Chrome retro version) When it comes to getting the subject in focus in low light the 0.95 beats the f/1 by a light year. Lots of people never got on with the f/1 because of this (including the focus shift that needed to be mastered through highly disciplined attention to focusing technique that is not necessary with the 0.95).
However, unless on a tripod/monopod, I don't necessarily see the 50/0.95 as a lens to be using at minimum focusing distance at max aperture ... which oddly many people seem to use as a measure but can't seem to hold still well enough to pull off. My 75/1.4 is better for filling a frame at f/1.4 anyway. It is when shooting more pictorial scenes that includes the minimal light sources that the Nocti 0.95 flexes it unique abilities and rendering qualities.
At over $10 Grand, the Nocti 0.95 is the most expensive lens I have ever owned including MF lenses like the S2 sports, or the $7K Hasselblad 35-90. There is simply no practical or logical way to justify it ... except those times when f/1.4 simply falls short ... which is often for me and the subjects and places where I shoot available light. Then the reasoning is crystal clear, and the justification is in the pictures captured.
-Marc
*BTW, I just ordered a Kirk Strap Pod ... an adjustable strap you step on and pull taut ... that has an Arca QR for the camera. I got it for an upcoming wedding reception shoot on a boat at night where a tripod/monopod transfers to many vibrations. I'll report on it once I get a chance to work with it.
Here are a few snaps ... both doggie shots done with the same lens ... one wide open which the 50/1.4 can't do, the other stopped down which is similar to 50/1/4 ASPH in feel. Same 0.95 for the girl on beach done at f/1.2 to get the shutter speed up for a shot with movement ... but renders like the 50/1.4 Lux
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
The 0.95 Noctilux has severe CA problems wide open. You easily get a lot of purple fringing, which I find kind of disappointing for such an expensive lens.
John Black
Active member
I can generally agree with the sentiment that the Noctilux ASPH is the same as the Lux ASPH, but with an added stop. Its bokeh at F.95 has a different character and in some ways, that seems to be the only aperture worth using because everything else could be shot with a Lux ASPH for alot less money. As a low-light lens, I'm not as impressed with the Noctilux ASPH. It's an extremely heavy lens (1 pound 11 ounces) and that introduces camera / lens shake, so it's best to shoot at higher shutter speed.
I bought the Noctilux ASPH in hopes of shooting low-light at the ISO 800-1000 range, thus avoiding ISO 1250 and above. As it turns out, I'm not seeing an ISO benefit because the added aperture is being used for higher shutters to increase the keeper ratio. This is where I agree very much with Stuart - for low-light use I get further with the 35 Lux ASPH because it can be shot at lower shutter speeds. The added DOF mitigates focus errors as well. But what the 35 Lux won't produce is hyper bokeh. It can produce good bokeh, but nothing extreme.
In terms of bokeh, I think it's a toss up between the Lux ASPH and Nocti ASPH. The Lux ASPH can be shot at closer distances, thus shortening the DOF and accentuating the bokeh. I've also owned the Noctilux version 4, and the ASPH version is better in terms of wide open performance. Bokeh is a toss up; the version 4 had more character, but the sharpness wasn't really there (at least with the copies I tried).
Everyone has different needs, reasons, etc., so this question will never have a simple yes / no outcome. If considering or buying a Noctilux ASPH, have a specific purpose / rationale for doing so. If there isn't a specific need, then my recommendation would be the 50 Lux ASPH and with the money saved, get a 35 Lux ASPH --- and there is still cash left over!
I bought the Noctilux ASPH in hopes of shooting low-light at the ISO 800-1000 range, thus avoiding ISO 1250 and above. As it turns out, I'm not seeing an ISO benefit because the added aperture is being used for higher shutters to increase the keeper ratio. This is where I agree very much with Stuart - for low-light use I get further with the 35 Lux ASPH because it can be shot at lower shutter speeds. The added DOF mitigates focus errors as well. But what the 35 Lux won't produce is hyper bokeh. It can produce good bokeh, but nothing extreme.
In terms of bokeh, I think it's a toss up between the Lux ASPH and Nocti ASPH. The Lux ASPH can be shot at closer distances, thus shortening the DOF and accentuating the bokeh. I've also owned the Noctilux version 4, and the ASPH version is better in terms of wide open performance. Bokeh is a toss up; the version 4 had more character, but the sharpness wasn't really there (at least with the copies I tried).
Everyone has different needs, reasons, etc., so this question will never have a simple yes / no outcome. If considering or buying a Noctilux ASPH, have a specific purpose / rationale for doing so. If there isn't a specific need, then my recommendation would be the 50 Lux ASPH and with the money saved, get a 35 Lux ASPH --- and there is still cash left over!
It would interesting to know if film shooters get as much Purple Fringing.
I think it may be more image blooming which CCDs are more prone to, combined with the slightly weaker IR filter of the M9. Fringe reduction in LR pretty much eliminates it.
Funny John, I have the opposite experience ... the mass of the Nocti and M9 seem to help study my hand compared to the smaller lenses. But I have big hands and the whole thing fit well for me. BTW, f/0.95 isn't the only extra touch, f/1.2 isn't all bad either : -)
-Marc
-Marc
John Black
Active member
The added weight makes the M9 nose-heavy; I couldn't imagine shooting it without a Thumbs Up. I bought the Noctilux more for low-light use, not necessarily for optical effect, so in that regard the M9 / 50 Noct combo has come up short. A M10 with better ISO would be a better use of 'my' money.
Well, it is hard to argue wanting a higher ISO M10 as long as Leica can maintain the CCD image characteristics and quality present in the M9 ... but until then
Actually, I got the 0.95 primarily for low available light work as well as for the image characteristics ... mostly wedding work and street where it has worked wonders for me.
I do not have any issues holding the camera still, the extra mass simply works for me ... however, camera movement isn't the issue, subject movement in low ambient is.
My 50 LUX ASPH came up short too many times in low light with subject movement as opposed to camera movement ... where the 0.95 tweaked the shutter speed up enough and worked. I also somewhat disagree with the OOF ability of the 50/1.4 because it focuses closer ... the OOF is not the same when you do not focus on top of the subject ... which is most of the time for me.
I do use a Thumbs up and a 1.4X Mag on one M9 dedicated to the Noctilux and 75/1.4 ... if I could have had a .85 finder with just 50/75/90 frame lines it would have suited me just fine.
There's another image characteristics of all the Noctiluxes ... excellent flare suppression when specular light sources are in the frame.
But I do agree, the 0.95 is not for everyone ... The only reason I'd ever sell this lens is because I would need the money. Love IT!
Here are a few snaps from one wedding ... where the 50/0.95 was used for about 40% of the shots used ... 1/3 of those @ f/1.2 or wider including all 4 of these attached images. The dark room was shot hand held @ 1/15th shutter BTW ... and that was before I got the Thumbs-Up or the 1.4X Mag. Not everything needs less than f/1.4, but when it does ... :thumbup:
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Well-known member
Man, you are one fine photographer, Marc!
Bill
Bill
Consider getting rid of the filter when shooting in dark conditions with specular light sources in the frame, it just causes odd reflections ... like the blue blob in your photo. My Canon 85/1.2 was really horrible for filter reflections, especially with things like chandlers in a darker room ... I got rid of the filter altogether.
- Marc