Noctilux vs. other lenses (poor mans Noctilux), which is the best value?

gdi said:
I think it may be because your eye "picks" the smoother shots and passes on the jarring ones? The Noctilux can misbehave (harsh, double lines, etc.) as well.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I disagree completely. If you look closely at the shots that I "hand picked" above, you will see precisely those characteristics, but they are smoother than those painted by the Hex (and, perhaps, the Canon).

If you are just as happy – or happier – with the Hexanon, then I'm delighted for you. But to my eye, the Noctilux clearly produces the smoothest, most pleasing OOF renderings.

The Noctlilux fingerprint is unique, and my favorite of the super-fast lenses. If you prefer another, then you've saved a lot of money – congratulations.
 
3232638031_c8a9dd0a74.jpg

This shot from noctilux + m8.
For me, I like not only bokeh but the way it renders from noctilux. I haven't had a chance to use
other one yet. This thread is really interesting me. sorry off the topic.
 
Last edited:
Tony C. said:
Sorry, I disagree completely. If you look closely at the shots that I "hand picked" above, you will see precisely those characteristics, but they are smoother than those painted by the Hex (and, perhaps, the Canon).

If you are just as happy – or happier – with the Hexanon, then I'm delighted for you. But to my eye, the Noctilux clearly produces the smoothest, most pleasing OOF renderings.

The Noctlilux fingerprint is unique, and my favorite of the super-fast lenses. If you prefer another, then you've saved a lot of money – congratulations.
Click to expand...


I did look and, again, I see nothing smoother than shots from any other lens in the class. I do see much softer rendering of the in focus areas in many shots - and particularly in the shots you posted above. I have seen Noctilux shots that were sharper than those. Maybe an adjustment is in order?

And, yes, the rendering of all these lenses are unique (I am beginning to see "fingerprint" used more and more here - but I try to avoid fingerprints when it comes to my lenses! :D) As you say, personal taste is the final word here, and you save a little money when buying a Hex and a lot with a canon 1.2 (the Noctilux can be had in a more reasonable $3500 ish range now). But in the end, no matter how much you pay for the Noctilux, it will not approach the Canon 1.2's look. ;)


And BTW, I didn't mean to imply that you hand picked the shots to prove a point - just that everyone has a look they like and will naturally select those. You probably have many shots you bypassed that do not show the same smoothness in bokeh - much as the example in the link I posted.
 
WoolenMammoth said:
I never did, the 2.4 to my eye looks too close to the f/2 to pay a giant premium for. Im patient.

I get the jist of what you are saying, but make all these comparisons at 2.8 if you want to talk about what the lens LOOKS like. The speed is just a cherry on top after that. The noct and summilux both have this sorta thick drawing to them that no other lenses seem to have. Comparing it to anything canon or anything else is just really bizarre to me. Any similarity comes to a screeching halt for me once you get past "they both go to 1.2".
Click to expand...


I have decided I will just be happy with a 2.8 elmar that was a lot cheaper than the Hex.

I don't uderstand what "thick" means in the context you use it. I had a Pre Asph Summilux and don't recall any look I could describe as thick.

But yeah - if you are buying a Noctilux to use at 2.8, then my viewpoint really isn't pertinent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top