After using both these lenses in a variety of settings for a week, many, not all, of the image pairs (not all shown here) have struck me as if the images from the Noctilux were as if from a dream, and the images from the Nokton were as if from a documentary. Not a very nuts and bolts appraisal, and possibly I've looked at them too long.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Yes, they are confusing lens contrast with image contrast, which people do all the time. A high contrast lens can resolve a wider tonal range than a low contrast lens. The contrast of an image from a high contrast lens can be lowered in post.
That said, the vintage look that people often like is easily achieved by using lenses with lower contrast but very good high frequency detail. The lower contrast of the lens isn't as much of a detriment today with modern high-DR sensors.
I am in no position to argue with you, but over the last week in all the image pairs I have produced from the Nokton and the Noctilux, there were some which looked quite different in regards to contrast, dependent on lighting mostly, with the results from the Nokton having significantly more contrast (as we know). In no instance where I tried to lower the contrast of the Nokton image to match the results from the Noctilux, by using only the contrast slider in LR, was I able to match them very closely at all. I've always thought that it would be an easy thing to do, but this is the first time I have ever tried to do it to separate images taken under the exact same lighting conditions at more or less the exact same time.
Maybe it's possible to achieve the same look by working with curves, probably is, but I'm no longer so sure that just moving the contrast slider down will yield an identical result. The contrast goes down everywhere in the image, but in images with large differences in contrast within the image, the resulting image seems very much not "the same." At least this last week for me it hasn't been, and I've tried.
First off, great review by Fred. Seriously outstanding.
I'm surprised by how less sharp the .95 is. It almost looks like the pics are OOF but Fred obviously knows what he is doing!
When I used/tested the .95 at the Leica Store LA, I frankly hated it. The size and vf blockage was just miserable on an M body, and it seemed like a one trick pony to me for $13K.
The new Nokton 1.0 seems to have most of the "benefits" of the .95, and then some. But is smaller and waaay cheaper, so even if this was acquired as a one trick pony lens, it at least is $11K cheaper than the Leica!
This current new gen of Voigt lenses are so nicely made, and optically so good, that the tired idea that you only buy them because you cannot afford Leica glass should finally be put to rest.
I absolutely love my 40 1.2 - it is the lens I use the most on my M7 - and Leica does not provide any alternative apart from shopping the used market for a 20+ year old Summicron 40. Which while absolutely terrific does not have the speed I sometimes need on film.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Is this a modded or stock z7? Thanks for the comps either way.
This is just a stock Z 7.
FWIW, I was using M and R lenses on a Leica SL, with coding applied in camera, before I got the Z 7, and the Leica lenses were yielding better results on the Z 7 than they did on the SL. Even the Noctilux. There was that much difference in the quality of the respective sensors, which more than made up for the lack of coding. Sold the SL pretty quickly. I'm sure that has flipped now with the SL2, but I just generally enjoy using the Z 7 more anyway.
FWIW, I was using M and R lenses on a Leica SL, with coding applied in camera, before I got the Z 7, and the Leica lenses were yielding better results on the Z 7 than they did on the SL. Even the Noctilux. There was that much difference in the quality of the respective sensors, which more than made up for the lack of coding. Sold the SL pretty quickly. I'm sure that has flipped now with the SL2, but I just generally enjoy using the Z 7 more anyway.
I was asking for sensor stack and OOF areas in your comps But glad you love the Z7–seems like a great camera! Thanks again for all the comps!
Edward Teller wrote:
I am in no position to argue with you, but over the last week in all the image pairs I have produced from the Nokton and the Noctilux, there were some which looked quite different in regards to contrast, dependent on lighting mostly, with the results from the Nokton having significantly more contrast (as we know). In no instance where I tried to lower the contrast of the Nokton image to match the results from the Noctilux, by using only the contrast slider in LR, was I able to match them very closely at all. I've always thought that it would be an easy thing to do, but this is the first time I have ever tried to do it to separate images taken under the exact same lighting conditions at more or less the exact same time.
Maybe it's possible to achieve the same look by working with curves, probably is, but I'm no longer so sure that just moving the contrast slider down will yield an identical result. The contrast goes down everywhere in the image, but in images with large differences in contrast within the image, the resulting image seems very much not "the same." At least this last week for me it hasn't been, and I've tried....Show more →
I was able to get the Voigtlander 50/1 Nokton images closer in look to the 50/1 Noctilux by adjust curves, clarity and texture in LR. It's not the same since the Noctilux's character is distinctive and goes beyond contrast. The Nokton images are much sharper/contrasty and reducing these settings do not impact IQ significantly.
Edward Teller wrote:
What follows are a few tripod based comparisons of the Nokton 50/1 to the Noctiflex 50/1, shot adapted to a Nikon Z 7, for anyone interested in adapted lenses.
All of these will be at f/1.
.DNG files opened in LR with either the Adobe Color preset, or the Camera Standard preset (there are vastly more profiles available in LR for the Z 7 than there are for the M10-R), minimal sharpening in PS and resized. What processing there is was exactly the same for each lens.
It's interesting to see that while the Nokton effectively avoids typical onion ring texture in OOF specular light sources, caused by standard aspherical elements, in some of these examples the blur discs are not uniformly illuminated from center to edge.
Edward Teller wrote:
I am in no position to argue with you, but over the last week in all the image pairs I have produced from the Nokton and the Noctilux, there were some which looked quite different in regards to contrast, dependent on lighting mostly, with the results from the Nokton having significantly more contrast (as we know). In no instance where I tried to lower the contrast of the Nokton image to match the results from the Noctilux, by using only the contrast slider in LR, was I able to match them very closely at all. I've always thought that it would be an easy thing to do, but this is the first time I have ever tried to do it to separate images taken under the exact same lighting conditions at more or less the exact same time.
Maybe it's possible to achieve the same look by working with curves, probably is, but I'm no longer so sure that just moving the contrast slider down will yield an identical result. The contrast goes down everywhere in the image, but in images with large differences in contrast within the image, the resulting image seems very much not "the same." At least this last week for me it hasn't been, and I've tried....Show more →
If I'm understanding the article I linked to correctly, it sounds like lenses can exhibit different levels of contrast (ability to distinguish tonal levels) differently depending on the frequencies of detail in an image. The f/1 Noct may have more or less tonal separation in certain frequencies of detail to which we respond to as being more aesthetically pleasing. We can mimic this globally by adjusting the CV images in post, which can come close but may never match exactly.
We also don't really know that the CV has more *lens contrast* than the f/1 Noct. Everything we've been saying about how these lenses compare is still based on the *image contrast* – the contrast of the images posted. We'd need an optical expert to evaluate the lenses to know for sure.
This is why I rarely step into discussions about lens contrast because it's just easier to say "let's just all pick the lenses that render well to our own eyes". The "why" gets really tricky and exceeds my own knowledge on the subject.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Nehemiah,
Yes, I would like to see that comparison. Did you finally bought the Noct 50/1?
Yes, I did find one Fred! I have been shooting it quite a bit the last month, and have posted some samples on FM, but on the less trafficked threads. If this thread becomes an ultra fast 50mm thread (seems that way a bit now) I can post examples, but otherwise I’ll start a new one when I test.
I have also ordered the Syoptic 50/1.1 though the shipping is delayed with the Chinese New Year.
After using both these lenses in a variety of settings for a week, many, not all, of the image pairs (not all shown here) have struck me as if the images from the Noctilux were as if from a dream, and the images from the Nokton were as if from a documentary. Not a very nuts and bolts appraisal, and possibly I've looked at them too long.
Dream vs. Documentary, what a great way to express the difference (and the fact that you have looked at both of them so well makes you uniquely qualified to offer that appraisal).
genji wrote:
Dream vs. Documentary, what a great way to express the difference (and the fact that you have looked at both of them so well makes you uniquely qualified to offer that appraisal).
I need to sell one, as that was the original plan, but as strange as it might seem, I can’t decide which one. Am leaning towards keeping the “worse” one, but that seems wrong.
Edward Teller wrote:
I need to sell one, as that was the original plan, but as strange as it might seem, I can’t decide which one. Am leaning towards keeping the “worse” one, but that seems wrong.
Keep the 50/1 Noct, pick up a cheaper used smaller smoother rendering still modern CV 50/1.2
genji wrote:
Dream vs. Documentary, what a great way to express the difference (and the fact that you have looked at both of them so well makes you uniquely qualified to offer that appraisal).
Edward Teller wrote:
I need to sell one, as that was the original plan, but as strange as it might seem, I can’t decide which one. Am leaning towards keeping the “worse” one, but that seems wrong.
The VM doesn't change character much as it's stopped down. To my eyes the Nocti 50/1 is more of a 'dual character' lens wide open compared to stopped down a bit. This could offer some versatility. If you already have one or more modern 50s, then I'd lean towards keeping the Leica over the VM. If you need the best sharpness, contrast, etc. at f/1.0, then pick the VM.
Edward Teller wrote:
I need to sell one, as that was the original plan, but as strange as it might seem, I can’t decide which one. Am leaning towards keeping the “worse” one, but that seems wrong.
I’d choose the Noctilux over the Nokton without hesitation. As for what you should do, if your heart says “Noctilux” then I don’t believe it’s the “worse” of the two nor that you’d be making the “wrong” choice.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Keep the 50/1 Noct, pick up a cheaper used smaller smoother rendering still modern CV 50/1.2
Which Noct version do you have?
That was one thing I was considering after going through the CV 50/1.2 thread here. I’ve been considering a lot of things. The longer the Nokton stays here, the more likely I’d keep it, as if it was a stray dog we got attached to, in addition to the Noctilux, so am trying to avoid that. Noct I have is a late E60 which was gone over by Leica before I bought it out of a Leica shop in Germany. So, I suppose it’s a good one 😬
Edward Teller wrote:
...
I need to sell one, as that was the original plan, but as strange as it might seem, I can’t decide which one. Am leaning towards keeping the “worse” one, but that seems wrong.
Decisions. That's how a 7A 1.25/75 joined a 1.5/75 VM which joined a Summarit 75. And the three of them are looking at me wondering when I'm going to pick up the 1.8/75 Heliar. (I threw them a curve with a 10.5cm Nikkor though...).
rscheffler wrote:
The VM doesn't change character much as it's stopped down. To my eyes the Nocti 50/1 is more of a 'dual character' lens wide open compared to stopped down a bit. This could offer some versatility. If you already have one or more modern 50s, then I'd lean towards keeping the Leica over the VM. If you need the best sharpness, contrast, etc. at f/1.0, then pick the VM.
I’ve got the 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH already, so either the Nokton or the Noctilux is really going to be a niche lens, used mostly at 1.4 or below, used mostly those times when I just want to go out and look for things to shoot at f/1. At 5.6 it’s certainly nice, but those pictures could have been made by a lot of nice lenses, unlike the ones shot at f/1. There’s just something about the look I like, if I nail it, and I don’t know if it’s just because I’m older and grew up with film, or what. But, it’s definitely a niche lens, the way I use it. I’ve got a Pentacon Six with a 50/4 Flektogon, and an 80mm Biotar I like, so I’m a bit off.
When I bought the Noctilux, I might have been eventually able to swing an .095 version if I found a nice price on a used one, but I preferred the rendering of the f/1. Maybe that’s my answer right there.
But glad you love the Z7–seems like a great camera! Thanks again for all the comps!