Nocti 1.0 verses 0.95 test

[carstenw]

According to comments on the l-camera forum, the new Noctilux is very close to the 50 Lux ASPH throughout the range from 1.4 and up. I haven't tried it myself, but seeing the performance wide open, I can believe it.

 

[fotografz]

This wasn't a Bokeh test. I know the Bokeh is different between the two lenses, it was a "clarity of subject" verses the background I was interested in.

I can't remember very many lower light digital files that didn't need some contrast and sharpening ... but hey, as requested, here are the files again straight out of C1 with nothing altered from "as shot".

Cropped this time to show the the point of focus and some OOF surrounding areas, as well as a tight crop of the focus point.

IMO, without the slight contrast bump, the lower contrast f/1.0 lens fares even worse in subject clarity.

:salute:

 

[KurtKamka]

That would be very impressive, Carsten. An expensive choice for certain ... but, here in the upper Midwest with 6 months of gray and overcast skies, fast lenses rule. I've found that I really don't want/need a bag full of specialist lenses ... I only end up using several focal lengths 90% of the time.

 

[fotografz]

Hi Marc, glad to see this comparison. As a big fan of the 50mm focal length and wide open shooting, it looks to be an intoxicating option. I can't believe I'm asking, but have you tried it stopped down? If it's an excellent normal lens (equal or nearly equal to the 50lux) it'd be awfully tempting down the road. A perfect all-around, 1-lens dark to light wrecking crew.

Kurt

Hi Kurt, yeah the couple things I've shot at f/1.4, 2.8 look remarkably good and seem to compare quite well with my 50/1.4 ASPH ... but that lens isn't here for me to do a f/1.4 to f/5.6 shoot out ... to be sure.

Yep, it's a one 50mm shooter if you don't mind the extra size and weight.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

That would be very impressive, Carsten. An expensive choice for certain ... but, here in the upper Midwest with 6 months of gray and overcast skies, fast lenses rule. I've found that I really don't want/need a bag full of specialist lenses ... I only end up using several focal lengths 90% of the time.

Me too Kurt, 6 months of "Moscow Grey Skies" here in the upper midwestern, Detroit Michigan area. It's the Great Lakes effect.

I'm always envious of people like Guy and all these California/Florida shooters who actually get to see a blue sky and the sun. They whine about the contrast, but except for tests, who shoots at noon anyway ... :ROTFL:

The other thing is that weddings are often shot in dim, very warm lighting at receptions, and most churches don't allow flash during the ceremony. (rationalization alert! )

Believe me, I've tried everything out there and no one makes optics for wide open, fast aperture shooting like Leica.

Speaking of irrational, lust driven justification, here's a take on costs that didn't occur to me when getting this lens:

When I told my pal Irakly I had this lens, he asked if I had come into an inheritance, and quipped that I was crazy and could have gotten a MF digital back for that much money ... then thought about it and changed his mind, "... in 5 years the digital back will be almost worthless, where this lens will still be expensive." Hope he's right.

I can tell you from experience, I've shoot weddings with 4 different systems and fast optics, and the Leica M stuff jumps out at you when they are all mixed in together. :thumbs:



-Marc

 

[carstenw]

Marc, I know you have worked with a lot of these lenses, so I am curious to know how you would compare the 50/0.95, the Canon 85L and perhaps the Nikon 85/1.4? Apart from the availability of the 0.95 I mean, just character, sharpness and boke.

 

[fotografz]

Marc, I know you have worked with a lot of these lenses, so I am curious to know how you would compare the 50/0.95, the Canon 85L and perhaps the Nikon 85/1.4? Apart from the availability of the 0.95 I mean, just character, sharpness and boke.

Yes, I've shot extensively with lots of speedy lenses ... Canon 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L-MKII, CV 35/1.2, Sony Zeiss 85/1.4, Contax N 85/1.4, CZ 85/1.4, ZF 85/1.4, Nikon 85/1.4 ... etc. etc.

Strictly personal opinion:

The Canons have a very nice character and the OOF areas feature creamy transitions ... but what I missed was a consistent 3D pop of the subject off the background and sense of unique character that I got with Leica R35/1.4 and 80/1.4 or M50/1.4, 75/1.4 and this Noctilux ... and oddly the Canon front Bokeh seemed less pretty to my eye. Much the same with Nikon. The V/C 35/1.2 just didn't work for me ... the specs were exciting, the printed shots weren't ... but for the money it was a GREAT lens.

The Zeiss stuff often produces better 3D POP, yet I always felt the over-all character a little to "clinical" for my tastes. I must say though, some of the ZA lenses for Sony are very nice in feel and character with pretty nice 3D effect wide open ... yet, the ZA 85/1.4 has too much CA which can affect the appearance of subject clarity at the point of critical focus when shooting in the type of contrasty light I often encounter in dark receptions and night street work.

IMO, for 35mm, 50mm and 75/80mm there just isn't anything close to Leica ... whether R or M.

Here's an odd observation ... with certain Zeiss lenses and a lot of the Leica M optics, even slightly missed focus shots look okay... especially when printed at the sizes I usually do which is 8X10. I never could figure that one out. Irakly's take on it is that it is due to the effect of over-all micro contrast which there is less of with other lens makers products. No clue if that's right ... i just go with what I see in prints.

-Marc

 

[carstenw]

Thanks, that is really interesting.

There was once a huge thread about the 3D-look in images over on FM, and the general question of boke also came up. One of the items of discussion was exactly how sharpness rolled off with distance. We tend to just discuss boke as if all lenses have equivalent roll-off (in magnitude if not in character) at the same f-stop, but this isn't true, as is easy to verify. Different lens designs have a different sharpness falloff with distance. The Zeiss designs tended to be more gradual, and the boke had more "character", i.e. more detail was discernible in it, leading to greater 3Dness, whereas the Leicas were pretty abrupt, and the boke was very blurred, leading to less 3D, but more subject isolation.

Do you have any experience with the famous 50-/60-Jahre editions of the Zeiss 85/1.2?

I have only tried the 85L-I briefly, and was surprised to see that CA was quite visible. Other than that, it had a really nice look, something I don't recall seeing in other Canon lenses I have tried. The 200/1.8 and 200/2 are also meant to be excellent.

I used to have a Canon 5D and an 80 Lux-R, and that is to this day one of my favorite lenses. It was soft-on-sharp wide open, a beautiful look.

 

[fotografz]

Thanks, that is really interesting.

There was once a huge thread about the 3D-look in images over on FM, and the general question of boke also came up. One of the items of discussion was exactly how sharpness rolled off with distance. We tend to just discuss boke as if all lenses have equivalent roll-off (in magnitude if not in character) at the same f-stop, but this isn't true, as is easy to verify. Different lens designs have a different sharpness falloff with distance. The Zeiss designs tended to be more gradual, and the boke had more "character", i.e. more detail was discernible in it, leading to greater 3Dness, whereas the Leicas were pretty abrupt, and the boke was very blurred, leading to less 3D, but more subject isolation.

Do you have any experience with the famous 50-/60-Jahre editions of the Zeiss 85/1.2?

I have only tried the 85L-I briefly, and was surprised to see that CA was quite visible. Other than that, it had a really nice look, something I don't recall seeing in other Canon lenses I have tried. The 200/1.8 and 200/2 are also meant to be excellent.

I used to have a Canon 5D and an 80 Lux-R, and that is to this day one of my favorite lenses. It was soft-on-sharp wide open, a beautiful look.

Yes, I owned 2 copies of the Zeiss/Contax 85/1.2 Anniversary model ... and used the very rare 55/1.2 briefly. Some of my favorite film shots were taken with the 85/1.2 on the odd Contax AF AX ... which allowed more keepers, and actually allowed the lens to be focused closer than marked due to the internal AF method of the AX camera. I also used one with a slightly shaved back on the Canon 1DsMKII ... but it was a bear to focus manually and I just sold it preferring to use the AF Canon 85/1.2L. If you can't focus the darn thing, it doesn't matter how good it is

 

[woodyspedden]

Thanks, that is really interesting.

There was once a huge thread about the 3D-look in images over on FM, and the general question of boke also came up. One of the items of discussion was exactly how sharpness rolled off with distance. We tend to just discuss boke as if all lenses have equivalent roll-off (in magnitude if not in character) at the same f-stop, but this isn't true, as is easy to verify. Different lens designs have a different sharpness falloff with distance. The Zeiss designs tended to be more gradual, and the boke had more "character", i.e. more detail was discernible in it, leading to greater 3Dness, whereas the Leicas were pretty abrupt, and the boke was very blurred, leading to less 3D, but more subject isolation.

Do you have any experience with the famous 50-/60-Jahre editions of the Zeiss 85/1.2?

I have only tried the 85L-I briefly, and was surprised to see that CA was quite visible. Other than that, it had a really nice look, something I don't recall seeing in other Canon lenses I have tried. The 200/1.8 and 200/2 are also meant to be excellent.

I used to have a Canon 5D and an 80 Lux-R, and that is to this day one of my favorite lenses. It was soft-on-sharp wide open, a beautiful look.

Carsten

I currently own a mint condition Contax 50 Jahre 85 1.2 and I personally think it ranks with the Hassy 110 2.0 as a portrait lens. The boke is very beautiful and the in focus areas, even at 1.2 are quite crisp.

Sad that the only way to use it any longer is on my old film RTS III or on a modified Canon body. I am out of the film business except for my Mamiya 7II and I don't care for the look of Canon files.

So the lens is for sale if anyone is looking for one. Contact David Farkas at Dale Labs as he is selling it for me.

Woody

 

[carstenw]

Woody, you might try posting a notice on fredmiranda.com in the Alternative Equipment forum. The lens is kinda legendary in that forum

 

[woodyspedden]

Thanks Carsten

Woody