mohir_ali Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Probably a derivative of the CV 40 at a 50% higher price, lol. PT Barnum immediately comes to mind. If I want a poorly performing replacement for the pre-a lux, I can buy the CV, or a better idea, replace the lux I sold for the same price as the CV and get the 'glow'. btw, I also sold the asph lux. Call anything a 'classic' and the fools and their money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r22eng Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Alex, Thanks for sharing the Notkon photos. The lens seems to be sharp even wide open. It should be interesting to see how the pictures look at f5.6 & f8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 You're welcome, Ricky. It is actually quite good stopped down. Again, this is not a glowy lens with creamy bokeh, which I wouldn't, however, dismiss as "yuck." <p></p> <a href=" title="L1002817 di Alex Es, su Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2022/2281374897_0646676c69_b.jpg" width="1024" height="683" alt="L1002817" /></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohir_ali Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Motion to blame for the blur, this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 The other night I did a quick and dirty comparative shoot with the old Summilux pre- aspherical 35/1.4 and the Nokton 35/1.4. First here is the Summilux:<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 And here is the Nokton:<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaijin Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 The new 35/1.4 Nokton is, I believe, actually known (according to CV) as the 35/1.4 Nokton "Classic." The 35/1.2 Nokton still reigns as the supreme Nokton. The ugly bokeh of the "classic" is just that. Fugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I am finding out that the Nokton is quite sharp close up. Wide open is sharper that the old Summilux. Next I'll compare it to my star lens, the Summicron 35/2 Asph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohir_ali Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 While even I admit 'testing'/comparing lenses and even viewing the results on a screen is interesting to me, I'll leave the activity for others to pursue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohir_ali Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0326/breaking35.htm Reported today by Reuters: http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/01/porsche-officially-files-for-takeover-bid-of-vw/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohir_ali Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Sorry, wrong thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Sorry, Alex, but what I see in those pics which I've linked to are donut shaped OOF highlights (see sample 2) and double lines (as in sample 3, the branches) - synonymous to bad bokeh. In fact, the OOF areas are so "busy" in all the three of them that they totally detract attention from the foregrounds. <p> As for your comparison pics (self portraits), it's astonishing to see how well contained the "glow" of your 35 pre-asph sample is at 1.4, while resolutionwise the Nokton wins hands down. Also interesting, IMHO, is the fact that the Nokton appears to have a more restricted DOF than the 35 pre-asph - a phenomenon which has already been discussed at length in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003N7w">this thread</a>.<p>Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm1 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Sorry if I also come across as aggressive and clueless... :-) I might be outnumbered here because I don't care for "bokeh" or other cabalistic science because sharpness, contrast and absence of distortion are my vital interests. Am I old-fashioned? Maybe. All those Flickr shots I have seen are not qualified to show sharpness, contrast and absence of distortion. Of course, these night shots are the real world, we all want to shoot at night in the streets with such a lens. But if you want to show how good or bad a lens really is you need a flat, extremely detailed motif and a tripod. If the motif is something as boring as some newspaper sheets on a wall it will show much more than 'handheld vivid japanese street shots'. You might put some pinup girls in the foreground to see how the bokeh affects skin tones and to liven up the photo, but that is not essential :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Well, Clemens, I'm more interested in photographing skintones and vivid street shots rather than newspaper sheets on a wall with a tripod, hence my interest in <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml">"cabalistic science"</a>. But YMMV. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Yes I saw the drat donuts and double lines. I think that if they distract from the foreground it is because the foreground is not all that interesting to begin with. I checked Tom Abrahamsson's shots with the SC version on Flickr (T&T and Mr B) and in none of his shots is bokeh a problem. I also did a close up check of my first photo above and found the circles and double lines, which were not pronounced, not to be distracting. It is important to understand the tendency of this lens, as any lens, in order to get the best out of it. The old Summilux has it virtues but has flare, ghosting and wide-open resolution issues. The Nokton is amazingly sharp at f1.4 and handles ghosting and flare very well. Look at my two portraits shot into the light. I have other not great bokeh lenses that are nevertheless excellent performers, like my Nikkor 50/1.4 2000. My old Summilux 50/1.4 has nice bokeh (I think) not the overall crispness of the Nikkor. The best reason to have many lenses. I got a call today telling me I need a mug shot for my upcoming joint exhibition. Guess which one of the self-portraits above I sent, after converting it to black and white and cropping it a little. The Summilux one. I liked the mystery in it, which the other one lacks, sharp and clear as it. What we accept from a lens is a matter of personal taste. Your yuck is someone else's ahhh or ho-hum. Consider how readily acceptable those out of focus donuts in mirror lenses generally are. My beef with the Nokton 35/1.4 is the focusing tab feels slippery. It's getting easier to use on the M8 but still a pain on the film Ms with Rapidwinders. Hoping the stiffness in the focusing ring will mellow out soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm1 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Lutz, what else than sharpness and contrast are important for street photography? I set my lens to hyperfocal or similar and I want everything to be really sharp. Period. That's what I am doing with my Leica most times, since many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 <i>http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4625825-lg.jpg</i><p> Hmm, Clemens. <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4625825-lg.jpg">Bokeh</a>...? <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4625765-lg.jpg">Or</a>... <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3119397-lg.jpg">or</a>... ;-) These lenses' qualities (Hexar AF 35 @2.0, Summilux 75 @2.4, Summicron 50 @4.0) may not be important to you, to me they are. When I want *everything* sharp I, too, stop down. But sometimes I prefer a shallow DOF, and that is where bokeh steps in. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm1 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Lutz, 20 years ago when professional photography was 100% analog nobody gave a penny for a nice 'what's that?'. Sharpness, contrast and lack of distortion, that has always been the essence of lens quality. Probably "bokeh" is a matter of personal preference and photographic style. But I also expect that "bokeh" is a marketing thing introduced by manufacturers of not-so-sharp lenses. I must admit, I will never understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dstate1 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Alex, thanks for posting your shots. The Summilux shot reminds me of all the reasons why I didn't keep that lens. Not that it wasn't just fine stopped down and good for portraints etc, but when you need a good all purpose walkaround lens that can be used at f1.4 the amount of coma and flare from the Summilux made it too unpredicable for me. The Nokton seems to be a great compromise between size, performance at full aperture and PRICE! The fact that it costs 1/3 of a used beater Summilux makes it a great option. Bokeh is such a subjective judgement that I don't let what I see in posted shots determine my own opinion. I've had crummy shots from some of the "bokeh kings" like the Summicron V4 and Summicron 50's. I've had beautiful images from lenses that should be all rubbish. Distance, motif and processing are such great variables that it's best to judge for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Thanks for your thoughts, Dan. You've summed up old Summilux very well. Like the proverbial little girl: When she was good she was very good but when she was bad she was awful. Knowing that, I was always careful where and how I shot with it. It was very good in Paris this winter because Paris's light was either subdued or hidden behind dark clouds. The Nokton is a surprise. It is better than I expected. And the price is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_gleason1 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 <i>'But I also expect that "bokeh" is a marketing thing introduced by manufacturers of not-so-sharp lenses.'</i> <p> Actually, <i>bokeh</i> is a Japanese word introduced into English language discussions of photography by Michael Johnston. And, as I recall, he's also the one who proclaimed the Version 4 35mm Summicron to be "the kong of bokeh". That's a lens I'd not characterize as "not-so-sharp". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_gleason1 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Err, make that "<i>king</i> of bokeh". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_gleason1 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Actually, might as well just offer M. Johnston's discussion of the topic: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html (Scroll downward to the entry for January 24, 2006.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dstate1 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Wow, that's some good old fashioned net trash talk there. Alex definitely owes you a refund of what he charged you for this tread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now