35mm Nokton f1.2 ... I'm a bit dissapointed :(

[Haya]

Well I was so excited about getting the 35mm/1.2 and after 2 days of using it I must say I am thoroughly dissapointed!

Wide-open the lens is very soft.... at lower resolutions the focus looks fine but as soon as you zoom in to 100% it seems so soft that it's out of focus.


one of the first shots I took:

click here for Full size ( warning 3mb+)

Am i just spoiled by Leica glass and is this what I'm suppose to get?

or is there something wrong with my lens

any feedback would be appreciated...

I can also post a portrait shot tommorow once I get the chance to download the latest images from my camera.... when shooting people it's even more noticeable!

 

[Haya]

forget tommorow lol I decided to forego some sleep and upload the people shots

35mm Nokton @ 1.2

100% crop:

28mm Elmarit @ 2.8:

100% Crop:

so what do you think ? I'm really not sure if there's something wrong with the lens or I'm just expecting too much from the lens wide open.

 

[robertwright]

well on the first one you can see focus an inch back from the eye glasses and on the second one you pretty much nailed it imo.

It bears repeating, at f1.2 on this effective magnification (47mm) you prolly have less than an inch of dof at this distance.

so if you exhale and your subject exhales or inhales, you are out of focus...

I base this on having used the canon 85mm 1.2 a lot and it is very difficult to get 100%.

also these ultrafast lenses like the noct and the canon have a lot of aberrations which contribute to the soft look, if not in focus in contrast. I actually appreciate the softness for portrait work.

practice helps. my first outing with the 85 I hit only 50% of the time. 5000 captures later and I am up to 85%. you'll get there.:thumbup:

 

[Haya]

Thanks Rob I guess you maybe right I'll just need to keep shooting with the lens and see if I can improve on the focus, the lighting was a bit dark and I was hand holding...

but I took like 20 shots of my husband ( poor him) and I didnt nail a single one lol maybe I should have gone for the Black lens instead of the heavier chrome I can be so vain sometimes :grin:

In 2 days I haven't got a single shot wide open that looked in focus to me.... tommorow I'll try it with a tripod and the 2 second timer release, I'll feel really silly if I get them all in focus! :shocked:

 

[JWW]

It may be worthwhile to take a photo of a ruler or tape measure at wide open, close in to make sure the lens and M8 are focusing at the correct point.

Jan

 

[eekimel]

Haya, I'm not going to be able to add anything on the technical end that hasn't already been said but ... I did want to add that you captured some wonderful expressions by your husband.

 

[Jack]

Frankly, I think it looks pretty darn good for f1.2 -- on the first shot, it appears you might have focused more to the ears than the eyes. On the second, it looks pretty good on the frames of the glasses.

 

[helenhill]

Shots 1,3, & 4 are BRILLIANT of 'The Man' series
Those shots are Crisp / He reminds me of the great actor Peter Sellars /
Strong Character
Cheers !....... helen

 

[helenhill]

(sorry, didn't finish writing my thought)
Strong character with a great sense of humor.
helen

 

[Haya]

Jan: That's a great Idea I'll check for backfocus on a ruler today!

eekimel: Thanks! he's my most captured subject I'm glad he's a patient man!

Jack: you're probably right about the first image being focused on the ears I don't know if that was user error or I have a little front focusing issue.... The 2nd image is from my 28mm elmarit I didn't explain in the post that I was trying to compare results from 2 diffrent lenses I just labeled the images... and I know f2.8 is not f1.2 but I'm just amazed at the diffrence!

Helen: Thanks ! I hope he never gets bored of posing for me I love his expressions !


Thank you all for your feedback I will try everything suggested to pin point the problem!

 

[LJL]

Haya,
Sorry for not jumping in a bit earlier on your new CV 35/1.2 Nokton shots and questions. I think several folks have covered it. Shooting wide open at f1.2 is not anything like even f1.4 and up, I have found. The DOF is so skinny, and the roll-off of focus seems to go quite soft faster than from smaller apertures. That is pretty much the nature of the game. Once you know where you are hitting things, as you are already finding, they get very nice and very attractive. It is a learning curve. The Leica 50/1.0 Noctilux is much the same. Folks tend to get frustrated at first, mainly because many have pre-conceptions about what to expect and what they will see. If you look at lots and lots of f1.0-f1.2 images from folks, many have a signature "glow" that is a softness, but they also have a plane that is razor sharp. The CV 35/1.2 has this too, but even breathing, as someone mentioned, can move it off your mark. For the record, if you are shooting the CV 35/1.2 wide open at a distance of 1m (3ft or so), the DOF is about 1.6" (0.04m), or about the distance from the tip of a nose to the eyes of a person looking straight at you. Not a lot of wiggle room. One of the keys to shooting portrait type shots wide open with these lenses is to think about that plane of focus, and get your angle to it so that you get what you want. Many times the more striking shots are from a 3/4ths side view, where the nose is on a plane with the near eye, and maybe the ear. Then you get the entire side of the face pretty much in focus, while everything else rolls of nicely for that dreamy bokeh look. As you are well aware, the thickness of the DOF does increase with distance, but even something 4m away (13 ft.) only has a DOF of 0.71m (2.25ft), which is not so much. And, within any DOF zone, about 1/3rd of the focus is in front of the plane, and 2/3rds is behind the plane. That is another way of saying to ever so slightly "front focus" on things at your widest apertures so that you get what you want.

Just some technical things to think about on the DOF. I have found the CV 35/1.2 Nokton to be quite good, and it gets really sharp stopping down to f1.4-2.0 and smaller. Not unlike the Noctilux in that regard. By f5.6, it is looking like other Leica 35mm glass, I think. Maybe without quite as much micro-contrast, but that actually helps hold open the shadows a bit. Like all lenses, and as Sean Ried characterizes things, it has its own way of "drawing" the image.

LJ

 

[Haya]

Thanks for your input LJ I did a lot of testing with the lens today and you are all spot on it's ME! not the lens lol

There is a bit of a learning curve when focusing at f1.2 and I think I've got a long way to go before I'll be able to get 80% of the shots in focus, I've spent most of today just shooting random things with the lens wide open and I'm just starting to get the hang of it.

You're absolutely right that shooting portrait shots requires a bit of planning but hopefully I can get used to it and it will become 2nd nature!

I'll be sure to post some more pictures once I think I got it down!

 

[cmb_]

How do you like the 35mm FOV compared with the 40mm? I remember you posted elsewhere that the 40mm was your favorite and probably most used but you did not have a 35mm.

 

[Haya]

It's still early but I think I like it more than the 40 since the framelines actually work and also wide open the extra field of view really helps framing a subject ... Very rarely but it does happen with the 40mm I feel like I don't have enough space to work with!

 

[Sean_Reid]

Looks you're all sorted out now but, yes, a properly adjusted 1.2 Nokton is quite sharp wide open. And, yes, the Noctilux is much harder to nail focus with because the DOF is so much narrower.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[LJL]

As a reference comparison with the Noctilux.....the DOF at f1.0 for the 1m minimum focus is about 18mm....6mm forward, 12mm back. That is about the average thickness of a person's finger. The other thing that makes it really difficult is keeping the sensor plane parallel to the target plane of focus. This messes folks up more times than anything, by shooting an upward or downward angle when hand holding. That may have been some of the problems you were experiencing at first also.

LJ

 

[Peter Klein]

Haya: First of all, hello and welcome!

Here is a technique you might try when shooting at wide apertures like f/1.2. Instead of using the lens' focus ring to fine-tune your focus, use your body. Some people call this the "Leica shuffle" or the "Leica sway."

You pre-focus, but then you sway your body slightly forward or back to get the rangefinder image exactly right. And gently squeeze the shutter release at the instant the RF image coincides.

The idea is that since you are naturally going to breathe and move your body anyway, you might as well be aware of it, and use it to find the focus. So it works for yo rather than against you. Also, many fast lenses have a long "throw" (the amount of "twist" it takes to focus). So it takes too much time to constantly adjust the lens as you or your subject move. It's easier to move your body.

Another thing you might try is a soft release (sometimes called a "softie"). This is a little disk that screws into your shutter release button and sticks up a few mm. You place the first knuckle joint of your finger on the "softie," rather than your fingertip. It helps you to gently squeeze the shutter release rather than jab it. Sometimes "softness" at wide apertures is due to slight motion blur. The best soft release I know is made by Tom Abrahamsson in Vancouver, Canada (www.rapidwinder.com). Some Leica and Voigtlander dealers also sell them.

Taking portraits at the closest possible distance is very tricky at f/1.2. Back off a couple of feet, and you might be happier. A fast lens is really nice in a dimly-lit cafe when you want to take a picture of the next table.

Available light photography with fast lenses takes practice. It's kind of like playing a musical instrument.

I have an old Canon 50/1.2 lens from the 1950s. It is a low-contrast lens wide open, probably not as sharp as your Nokton. But when I get the focus correct, it's beautiful in its own way. Here are a couple of examples, on of my mother-in-law, then two of my wife:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/family/PetersBday2007/L1002325-w.jpg.html
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/album170/L1002263KatyaRead50-1_2-w.jpg.html
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/album170/L1002212KatyaKitchen50-1_2-w.jpg.html

and here a couple of shots of a 92-year old pianist playing Bach at a concert:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/L1002312HokansonChord.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/L1002314HokansonBow.htm

Finally, remember that nobody but photographers look at digital pictures at 100%. At 50%, you will see on the screen about the level of detail you'll see in a medium sized print, somewhere between 8x10 and 11x14 8 inches.

I hope this is helpful. Keep posting pictures!
--Peter

 

[Maggie O]

Here is a technique you might try when shooting at wide apertures like f/1.2. Instead of using the lens' focus ring to fine-tune your focus, use your body. Some people call this the "Leica shuffle" or the "Leica sway."

You pre-focus, but then you sway your body slightly forward or back to get the rangefinder image exactly right. And gently squeeze the shutter release at the instant the RF image coincides.

I've been doing that with my 35/1.4 Nokton, leaning back a bit, and it seems to work most of the time for me. However, in my case, I'm focusing on a thing and then moving back to compensate for backfocus.

 

[matmcdermott]

Finally, remember that nobody but photographers look at digital pictures at 100%. At 50%, you will see on the screen about the level of detail you'll see in a medium sized print, somewhere between 8x10 and 11x14 inches.

I completely second that. And if you print larger 13x19, 17x22 if it looks good at 33% or even 25% on the screen it will be acceptable on paper. Obviously if it looks great at 100%, even better, but I've been surprised at how an image that's a bit soft due to motion blur, slightly missed focus, camera shake, whatever works just fine as a print. Some of the most iconic images of the last century aren't sharp by the 100% standard by a long shot.

 

[Sean_Reid]

Some of the most iconic images of the last century aren't sharp by the 100% standard by a long shot.

True, in fact many of them are not even sharp in book reproduction or print.

Cheers,

Sean