Anyone own both who could share their experience? Better yet, shoot the same frame and post results WO? Say a waist up portrait with a fairly distant background, better yet with point sources in the frame? And hopefully some backlight?
I own the 50 Summilux V2 close focus. To my eyes it's very close to the 0.95 at plane of focus. And I've seen that OOF BG is very similar when focusing close to minimum focus. The question is how much BG OOF is softened between the 2, WO.
JohnKraus wrote:
Anyone own both who could share their experience? Better yet, shoot the same frame and post results WO? Say a waist up portrait with a fairly distant background, better yet with point sources in the frame? And hopefully some backlight?
I own the 50 Summilux V2 close focus. To my eyes it's very close to the 0.95 at plane of focus. And I've seen that OOF BG is very similar when focusing close to minimum focus. The question is how much BG OOF is softened between the 2, WO.
One aspect your Nokton 1.0 post doesn’t mention - at least between the Nokton 1.0 and the .95… not
sure between the Nok 1.0 and the 50Lux ASPH V2…it appears the Nokton 1.0 carries focus quite a bit farther both in front of and behind the plane of focus than the .95. Your sample images wouldn’t show that… as there are no objects close to the plane of focus. Edward Teller posted this in the Nokton 1.0 vs the .95, 39 or so page post you can find here.
This seems to give the .95 that extra separation that makes it so special.
quote]Jorge Torralba wrote:
i often think about that.
JohnKraus wrote:
Anyone own both who could share their experience? Better yet, shoot the same frame and post results WO? Say a waist up portrait with a fairly distant background, better yet with point sources in the frame? And hopefully some backlight?
I own the 50 Summilux V2 close focus. To my eyes it's very close to the 0.95 at plane of focus. And I've seen that OOF BG is very similar when focusing close to minimum focus. The question is how much BG OOF is softened between the 2, WO.
Thanks for any samples or thoughts-
Also owning the 50 Summilux v2 but never used or had a Leica Noctilux lens. I am sure there are very slight differences between the two lenses - bigger question always for me to ask is it worth the price difference and the difference in weight and bulk.
JohnKraus wrote:
Anyone own both who could share their experience? Better yet, shoot the same frame and post results WO? Say a waist up portrait with a fairly distant background, better yet with point sources in the frame? And hopefully some backlight?
I own the 50 Summilux V2 close focus. To my eyes it's very close to the 0.95 at plane of focus. And I've seen that OOF BG is very similar when focusing close to minimum focus. The question is how much BG OOF is softened between the 2, WO.
the 0.95 has a vanishing thin DOF at 0.95 a better comparison from my view is do both at 1.4 and see what you get, and I would be interested if you give it a try, once you dip below 1.4 is what you pay for for the 0.95 in weight and money and the added skill to make it work, which is not easy in my experience takes more skill than I sometimes have if the subject moves at all
I compared the 0.95 (I've had this lens since 2009) against both the pre-aspherical and modern versions of the Summilux. The original Summilux (v1) is a completely different. Compared to the ASPH Summilux, they look very similar at f/1.4, but at f/2.0, the Noctilux delivers a more pronounced 3D effect. Plus, the Noctilux is sharper—in my opinion, the 0.95 sits somewhere between the Summilux and the modern Summicron in terms of sharpness at f/8.0.
I don't own a Summilux right now—I preferred the Summarit 50/1.5 — but I really like the 0.95 for street photography (though less so for portraits). I regret selling the f/1.0 Noctilux, though; I liked that one better.
In the world of Leica, you can never have too much 50mm.
