LBJ2
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Leica Noctilux-M 35mm f/1.2 ASPH. lens | |
retrofocus wrote:
patotts wrote:
I'm impressed how Leica managed to keep this lens fairly quiet given how many iterations there seems to have been, and how many photographers have been involved in testing it. Then again, I don't really stay on top of Leica or any camera rumours...
The more I read reviews, look at photos, videos by photographers, etc, the more I like it. I have always been a 50mm guy (Summilux) but I am more and more drawn to 35mm. And character glass.
If I could only own 1 manual focus/Leica lens, this would probably be it. #NewGrail But then again, I doubt I will decide to cough up the money needed.
Not trying to badmouth this lens and the innovative aspect Leica showed here with this one. But at least from my experience owning both fast lenses like the CV 35/1.2 II and slower ones like the Leica 35/2.0 Vers. IV and the Leica 35/2.4 Summarit-M, my favorite and most often used is actually the slowest of these, the Summarit lens. I wonder why many are hyped about this new lens at faster speed - to get some specific bokeh/blurriness?
Decades ago, lens manufacturers tried to compete with faster lenses at f/1.2 or even 0.95 (in case of the Canon 50/0.95 LTM) to cope with ISO speed limitations of film and being able to take photos in darker environments. Some depth of field is lost, but the photographer could still take a photo by being unable to change ISO to several thousand up to tens of thousands like in modern digital cameras. It is interesting to me, that now that fast aperture is no longer required to get "the" shot, even more faster lenses pop up by all kind of lens manufacturers. Also, lenses have become so good in quality, that stopping down one stop from the maximum wide open one is often no longer needed to get significantly better image quality like in the old days. The bokeh circles of fast f/1.2 lenses will differ in size from some slower f/2.0 lenses for example - but does it really change the context of the photo so much especially at wider than 50 mm focal length? There might be some situations where the answer is yes, but in the majority I believe the effect is not very distinguishable for an outside viewer of the final image. Is this the reason why users are willing to pay so much more over a slower f/1.4 or even f/2.0 lens?
---------------------------------------------
nehemiahphoto wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
patotts wrote:
I'm impressed how Leica managed to keep this lens fairly quiet given how many iterations there seems to have been, and how many photographers have been involved in testing it. Then again, I don't really stay on top of Leica or any camera rumours...
The more I read reviews, look at photos, videos by photographers, etc, the more I like it. I have always been a 50mm guy (Summilux) but I am more and more drawn to 35mm. And character glass.
If I could only own 1 manual focus/Leica lens, this would probably be it. #NewGrail But then again, I doubt I will decide to cough up the money needed.
Not trying to badmouth this lens and the innovative aspect Leica showed here with this one. But at least from my experience owning both fast lenses like the CV 35/1.2 II and slower ones like the Leica 35/2.0 Vers. IV and the Leica 35/2.4 Summarit-M, my favorite and most often used is actually the slowest of these, the Summarit lens. I wonder why many are hyped about this new lens at faster speed - to get some specific bokeh/blurriness?
Decades ago, lens manufacturers tried to compete with faster lenses at f/1.2 or even 0.95 (in case of the Canon 50/0.95 LTM) to cope with ISO speed limitations of film and being able to take photos in darker environments. Some depth of field is lost, but the photographer could still take a photo by being unable to change ISO to several thousand up to tens of thousands like in modern digital cameras. It is interesting to me, that now that fast aperture is no longer required to get "the" shot, even more faster lenses pop up by all kind of lens manufacturers. Also, lenses have become so good in quality, that stopping down one stop from the maximum wide open one is often no longer needed to get significantly better image quality like in the old days. The bokeh circles of fast f/1.2 lenses will differ in size from some slower f/2.0 lenses for example - but does it really change the context of the photo so much especially at wider than 50 mm focal length? There might be some situations where the answer is yes, but in the majority I believe the effect is not very distinguishable for an outside viewer of the final image. Is this the reason why users are willing to pay so much more over a slower f/1.4 or even f/2.0 lens?
Photogs are bored and need bokeh is why. Many of us have to glam on to extreme bokeh or other tricks to make our photos feel special or different. Look at how many photos are shot at 1.2 or 1.4 and then what would happen if those photos these photos were taken at f4. Some types of photos (landscape or street for example) are exceptions. Look at most of the photos on FM on IG or where ever—so much crutching on bokeh and shallow DOF. The subjects, photo aesthetic, deeper commentary, processing is lacking IMO.
I also thinks we are seduced by marketing and manufacturing—think of Leica or Thypoch or Zeiss or whoever. Much of their revenue for these high end lenses is built on OOF. Like you said, gone are the days of needing 1.2 lenses because of film limitations and whatnot for much of the time.
Not throwing stones—I love my Noct 50/1 and I really only shoot it WO because that’s where it’s special. But are my photos much meaningful, singular, speaking to larger issues? Nah, I am just a hobbyist photog who likes to shoot photos of my family or hikes and such and needs the OOF to give photos more juice.
What would be very fascinating (and an impossible hypothetical) is if you have everyone a 35mm f4 lens and said go make interesting photos and watch what happens…I think many of us would been quite challenged and disheartened. At least I would be.
I think this write up by "elmars" on LUF posted below, might align with my own feelings about the Noctilux allure. Today we not only have yet another fascinating accomplishment by Leica, but also a relative tiny 1.2 achievement as well:
"If Rembrandt had been a photographer: The Noctilux look
Why are Noctilux lenses so fascinating? On the one hand, it is probably because they push the boundaries in many respects: they represent the limits of what is technically feasible; they are the lenses with the highest light intensity; they have the smallest focus area at open aperture; focusing requires great skill and experience. But above all, it is because you can tell when photos have been taken with a Noctilux at open aperture. They have the Noctilux look, which is a mixture of optical performance, minimal depth of field, bokeh and unique vignetting."–By elmars ( LUF)
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/426782-if-rembrandt-had-been-a-photographer-the-noctilux-look/
|
