jhapeman wrote:
Here is a comparison image made of crops from both lenses. The best thing to do is select "All sizes" from above the image, then choose "Original" and look at the huge file in detail.
I am wondering if the plane of focus was slightly different for each lens. At f1.1, f1.4 and f2.0, part of the Nokton lower left crop looks sharper than the Noctilux (the brick face), and part (the mortar which is raised out from the brick surface) look less sharp.
foto-z wrote:
This puzzles me a little. One of the advantages of shooting at a wider aperture is to achieve a narrower DOF. If you upgraded your M8.2 to an M9, all your lenses would be 'upgraded' in the same way - you would achieve a more blurred background with the same lenses just by increasing sensor size and getting a little closer to your subject to achieve the same framing.
Well, that would be the case if the Noctilux didn't have an insanely long MFD of 3.3 ft, for a 50mm. Crazy.
b]Lotusm50 wrote:
Well, the Nokton seems to have a nicer bokeh.
I am wondering if the plane of focus was slightly different for each lens. At f1.1, f1.4 and f2.0, part of the Nokton lower left crop looks sharper than the Noctilux (the brick face), and part (the mortar which is raised out from the brick surface) look less sharp.
That just goes to show that bokeh is a very subjective thing!
Good eye. At first it looks like the Noctilux is worse in the corners, but as you noticed, the focal plane is just very slightly different on the two. Without Live View (which would be awesome on the M-series, but I am not sure we will ever see it), it's virtually impossible to rangefinder-focus two lenses to precisely the same point. That doesn't always matter, but when the DOF is on the order of millimeters, it does. In this case, the Noctilux appears to have the plane of focus a few millimeters back of Nokton. I believe this is why the corners look just a tiny bit off on the Noctilux.
Jman13 wrote:
Well, that would be the case if the Noctilux didn't have an insanely long MFD of 3.3 ft, for a 50mm. Crazy.
It's not as crazy as it seems. The closest-focusing 50's in the RF world focus to 0.7m, and a lot have a close focus range around 1m: The close focus for the Voigtlander 50/1.1 Nokton is 1m, and for the Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton ASPH, it's 0.9m. Remember, you won't get a RF-coupled lens that focuses closer than 0.7m anyway, and at closer distances parallax issues really come into play, messing with composition, for example. There are some constraints that can be attributed to the system.
The reality is that its not ideal to be shooting a lens like that in that close anyway. If I really want a tight framing and great OOF background, I pull out a longer lens--the 85/1.2 on the Canon, or the 75/2 or 90/2 on the M8.2.
jhapeman wrote:
That just goes to show that bokeh is a very subjective thing!
Opps. My mistake. I meant to say the Noctilux had better bokeh. (the names are way too similar). I'll edit my original post. I would further say that subjectivity would have little to do with the choice here.
Ahh! Well, that said, I have had some people tell me that the like the more defined bokeh of the Voigtlander. The price of the Noctilux is a steep one for better bokeh and slightly better sharpness.
Having had a chance to look at the crops, the Noctilux is definitely the better lens, edge CA excepted (where the Nokton looks to have a slight edge). Bokeh looks beautiful and center resolution is simply stunning. I do agree with Yakim that for a $10K 50mm, the crop-sensor edges are a bit too soft....I'd imagine on full frame, the corners are downright blurry for quite a while. But, you can't argue with the center resolution.
The Nokton looks to be a very nice lens, and certainly the better bargain. I know that unless I won the lottery, the Nokton would be my choice.
My pocket has decided to favor the Nokton (90% savings) and after seeing some excellent work with this lens, it was a no brainer for me in terms of a fast 50mm to use with my M8. The discussion here has been very helpful. I've ordered the Nokton, and can't wait to slap it on the M8.
What I see more in the comparison is the Nokton has less color saturation. Sharpness is a coin flip, and I am one of those people who does not give one bloody whit about bokeh
Well, my excitement was short lived. I received the Nokton but was not happy with it wide open, I found it too soft, otherwise it was an excellent value but there are even less expensive alternatives if you are not going to use it wide open. So for the moment I'm giving up my quest for a super fast M lens. I returned the Nokton to the dealer. Even if I could afford it, I would not pay $10,500.00 for a 50mm lens. Perhaps Leica prices this lens so high to promote a certain image? I don't buy the hype.
Sorry to hear that Wilfredo. Two things to consider: There is considerable sample variation--unfortunately--with the Voigtlander lenses. It's possible you got a bad copy. Additionally, the Nokton--like many very fast lenses--suffers from reduced contrast wide open. Given that the Voigtlander lenses are already lower contrast than the Leica lenses, it will look even worse in comparison. Because we tend to perceive contrast as sharpness, this can lead one to conclude that the lens is less sharp than it really is. I always shot in DNG, so what I tended to do with all of my CV lenses (but in particular the Nokton f/1.1) is dial up both the contrast and the clarity sliders in Adobe ACR. The result was a marked improvement in the perceived sharpness of the images.
Finally, there is a big difference in the Leica Noctilux ASPH in native sharpness. I found the Nokton to be sharper than the old 50/1 Noctilux and similar in contrast, but the new f/0.95 is even sharper and contrastier, especially at the plane of focus. In this way, it's much like the 50 'Lux or 75 'Cron AA. This is achieved by the use of two aspherical elements and a floating element group. All of this leads to the hype surrounding what the lens can do, and it also increases the cost of the lens. So while the hype and the cost are related, one does not lead to the other as you imply; rather, the extremely complex nature of the lens results in a significant cost. No doubt that does lead some people to feel like they have to justify their purchase with glowing rhetoric, but it doesn't change that this is, and always will be, and expensive and exotic lens to manufacture, and will therefore command a price premium. If that wasn't the case, you would see every manufacturer cranking out 50/0.95 lenses, but in fact, in the last 50 years, we have seen exactly three 50/0.95 lenses made for the 35mm format, and all commanded sunstantial price premiums.
Thanks Jeff for the comparisons.
Also, from the comparisons I have seen at GetDPI comparing the new 50/0.95 to the old 50/1 Noctilux, it looked like Leica got rid of the swirly bokeh that the old one had. Right?
whit about bokeh