M
mycroft
Guest
A case of Gigantism!
Enjoy ...
Enjoy ...
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!
I
impo
Guest
Is it bigger than the noctilux? I still havent seen them side by side.
R
Ranger 9
Guest
It is also similarly larger than Voigtlander's own 50mm f/1.5 Nokton, as you can see in this post.
Amazing how much more glass it takes to squeeze out one more f/stop (more or less.)
The 50/1.1's extra length also interests me, especially since the tapered rear section (held on by externally-visible screws) seems to be mostly empty except for the coupling cam. I wonder if Cosina designed this lens with extra depth so it might be seen eventually in mounts for (say) Nikon and M42 SLRs, as with some of their other lenses...?
Amazing how much more glass it takes to squeeze out one more f/stop (more or less.)
The 50/1.1's extra length also interests me, especially since the tapered rear section (held on by externally-visible screws) seems to be mostly empty except for the coupling cam. I wonder if Cosina designed this lens with extra depth so it might be seen eventually in mounts for (say) Nikon and M42 SLRs, as with some of their other lenses...?
M
mycroft
Guest
Sorry, I don't have a direct comparison of the Nokton F1.1 with the Noctilux, Nor have I seen one posted anywhere that I can find.
What I can tell you though, is that the Nokton takes the same filter size (58mm) as the F1 Noctilux and I have read that the lens design is a copy of that lens, but with less resultant light fall off and better contrast.
No comparisons with the F0.95 Noct yet that I know of.
Ranger, 1 F stop (more or less) is double the light exposure, hence 2x the light falling on the senor. The math can be derived from there.
What I can tell you though, is that the Nokton takes the same filter size (58mm) as the F1 Noctilux and I have read that the lens design is a copy of that lens, but with less resultant light fall off and better contrast.
No comparisons with the F0.95 Noct yet that I know of.
Ranger, 1 F stop (more or less) is double the light exposure, hence 2x the light falling on the senor. The math can be derived from there.
R
Ranger 9
Guest
I know, but the difference is still a bit striking when you're holding the actual hunks of glass and metal in your hand. Even though you intellectually understand the principles, you can't help thinking (or at least I can't) "Geez, one lousy f/number costs that much more in physical volume?"
Coverage is a factor as well as aperture, of course. My Voigtlander 35/1.2 lens is nearly as big as the 50/1.1... whereas I've got a C-mount 36mm f1.1 lens that's small enough to lose in a coat pocket. I'm sure Voigtlander could have made all these lenses a lot smaller if they had been trying to cover only the extant digital imager sizes. But everybody's still dreaming of that putative 36x24mm "Leica M9", "Nikon SPd", "Epson R-D 2", "Sony Hexar RFd", or whatever...
Stuart Richardson
Active member
Or maybe they are still shooting film...
I
impo
Guest
So can someone tell me how much faster the .1 difference makes between the two lenses? In a scenario where I shoot at f/1.1 with the nokton at lets say 1/30, how much faster can I shoot at f/1 to get the same exposure?
FrozenInTime
New member
Is it not more of a case of : if you are already underexposing parts of a contrasty image by a stop at f/1, then by f/1.1 you will be underexposed by 1,1/3 stops and f/1.2 by 1,2/3 stops etc. So the image quality will be very quickly degrading at each point due to the higher noise floor.
~1/3 stops : f/# 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.5 4 4.5 ...
However if the lens is so big or too expensive that you leave it at home - then it's all academic.
Last edited:
FrozenInTime
New member
That's an exceptionally valid point : smaller (or faster )
I'm sure if the ultra-wide 15mm f/4.5 was joined by a 15mm f/2 that only covered a x1.3 or x1.6 crop sensor, it would be the f/2 that was flying off the shelves in greater numbers.
If in the future FF sensors become the norm - the VC wins again, as it's customers then buy newer lenses - at that time.
But for now µ4/3* might represent a big enough opportunity/market to make smaller image circle lenses a valid proposition.
(* VC being a paid up member of the micro4/3 circle - may give us a indication that such things are being considered)
R
Ranger 9
Guest
Could have been worse; see pics at top of this thread...