denoir wrote:
Yeah, but you've got the wrong Lux. It's the pre-ASPH 50 Lux you've seen compared and indeed the Nokton does outperform it center frame. The pre-ASPH has nicer (smoother anyway) bokeh though.
It's actually a common choice - the Nokton 50/1.5 or 50 Lux pre-ASPH v3. You choose the Lux if you want character and the Nokton if you want a bit better optical performance.
to me it looks like the nokton does a bit better in the center than the lux asph, but i don't remember how they focused the RD-1 - the lux shot could be slightly miss focused (and the RD-1 has a fairly short rangefinder base). either way i've seen a number of shots with the nokton on the NEX that look better than your shot with the nokton at 100% on the m9 which shouldn't be the case unless there's something wrong with both lenses versions you had.
Yeah, the tests in question are with the Sumilux asph. Honestly, Lula, I think you must have been unlucky with two copies of the Nokton, because those samples don't look nearly as good as I've seen with my copy or other tests.
I have to agree, that 100% Nokton crop looks quite soft to me. Mine was visibility sharper than my Zeiss Planar, which in itself is a good lens wide open, with a bit more classical rendering and near the 50 Lux ASPH, though again, not in corners of course.
This was on a M8, though I still did have the Planar and Nokton when I had my M9 as well and the Nokton was always excellent wide open. Forgot who I sold it to....
I don't know, sometimes people can get pretty different results, perhaps based on sample variation or whatever.
For example, I believe Luka find the ZM35 f2.0 to be a superior lens, though having had both, my F2.8 Biogon C actually I found to be sharper and have smoother transitions and the all around superior lens unless one needs f2.0.
It may not be so much that anyone is right or wrong, rather that based upon their copy, their RF calibration etc what they are seeing is right.
Regardless, with a Nokton being about $500 used, its about half the price of the ZM offerings and 1/4th to 1/9th cheaper than some Leica offerings so its a pretty good place to start.
The RD-1 tests were done by Sean Reid - if you're a subscriber, check out his 50 tests on the M8 - they include the 50 Lux ASPH and the 50/1.5 Nokton. In those tests the Nokton is consistently behind the Lux, but the difference is not as dramatic as in my crops. The results are very different from his RD-1 tests. In both tests (especially the RD-1) his Lux samples are weaker than they should be.
Anyway, sample variation is always problematic. I saw no difference between the two copies that I tried (although the tests with the second one were limited), but one can't rule out two duds. OTOH Reid uses as a rule press sample lenses that he evaluates and often comments on how beat up they are and that one shouldn't jump to conclusions based on his tests as the lenses may be off.
Usually one could check an MTF chart to see if the lens behaves as expected, but CV doesn't provide them unfortunately..
By the way, center frame the Lux at f/1.4 is virtually identical to the Zeiss 100 Makro Planar at f/2: 10 lp/mm @ 90%, 20 lp/mm @ 80% and 40 lp/mm @ 60%.
The ZM 50/2 Planar is well below that and you have to go up to f/4 to get those kind of values. The corresponding values for a Canon 50/1.4 (actual measured MTF by photodo) is 85%, 65% & 35% which are typical values for a fast 50.
millsart wrote:
For example, I believe Luka find the ZM35 f2.0 to be a superior lens, though having had both, my F2.8 Biogon C actually I found to be sharper and have smoother transitions and the all around superior lens unless one needs f2.0.
Stopped down, not wide open. Wide open IMO the 35/2 ZM sucks (not always but relatively often). It's stopped down at infinity that the 35/2 ZM is really the king of 35 mm lenses - something that can be seen in the MTF charts. At f/2.8 on the other hand, I'd pick the C-Biogon any time over it.
millsart wrote:
Regardless, with a Nokton being about $500 used, its about half the price of the ZM offerings and 1/4th to 1/9th cheaper than some Leica offerings so its a pretty good place to start.
+1
It's definitely good value for money. Unfortunately many make the mistake to choose the f/1.1 instead which isn't nearly as good.
@Pen - you added some shots since my reply.. very good examples. I tried to peek at some exif data, but - I don't see any relevant to the lenses. Was that mf legacy glass used to take those shots?
You're clearly more advanced than me, based on those and other shots of yours I've seen.. and you also seem to have a very balanced post workflow particularly in the sharpening. I guess I should skip moving on until I get better!
I'm also impressed by the color you are able to extract. I have recently learned a few new things in post that have drastically improved my processing for max dynamic range - and I'm starting to think that for me - lightroom isn't as great as I thought - seemingly I can do better in photoshop (maybe due to the lessons I am watching being about photoshop!) .. but back to point.. partially because I live in a place that is literally 90% brown and brown green but also I have not had very good success with color from the gf1 compared to say, the x1 or x100.. or 5d2.
Oh and what you said about noise at base iso... I rarely shoot at base. I'm typically shooting at 800 or more.. which is a bummer with mft as you stated.
I think you're giving me far too much credit h00ligan. Sorry but I forgot to turn off EXIF suppression in LR when I published those pics.
All those shots were with the 20mm F1.7 IIRC.
I generally just work pretty haphazardly in LR3 and tune to my taste. I don't do any intense PP unless I think its really worth it for that specific photo.
If you shoot at ISO 800, the difference between the X100 and GF1 are night and day in my experience.
d.topp wrote:
@Yakim,
could you please erase the pictures from this quote, it just fills the page with no new information and we have to seek your comment ?
dierk
I'm not sure I agree, as I think these beautiful pictures enhance my point, but as it's an issue for you I have removed them.
do you guys never sleep or how do you manage to post so many interesting things here
I have a big problem,either I read all these very interesting posts --- or I play and tune my own pictures
I decided to post pictures from today: Leica Summilux-M 1:1,4/35 mm ASPH. FLE
much PP with Lucisart (for struktures) and Nik Silver Efex
therefor it does not show very much of the NEX and Lux
f/5.6 and 1/5 sec. hand held
I don't know if this is present in the C3, but looking at a promo guide for the 5n, it says that the MF assist will zoom in to 4.8x and 9x. No more 14x?
