Robin Smith Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>Is there a lens that Tom A does not like? You get a prize if you can name one! I like Ken R - it is a personal site and he has a chatty vernacular style. If those are his impressions of the Nokton then so what? In some ways he is right: a f1.1 lens used at full aperture and not used very carefully will give hellaciously soft images if taken overall - they will be all bokeh.</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_cutting Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>I think it is a hell of a lens for the money, it gives you the option to shoot wide open and get some artistic looking images, and then stop down for the sharp type images you need also.<br> The other thing i like when i buy one of these bargain fast lenses (i also have the 35 mm Nokton F1.4), is they are new and have great coatings, i don't have to worry about 30 years of people scratching the optics and i don't have to immediately send off for CLA.<br> I love my summicrons, summiluxes ect for my sharp crisp images, but i also appreciate the character of these Nokton lenses also when shot wide open.<br> For me photography is about art and not producing a photocopy, and i personaly look for the type of scenes/conditions where the nokton @ 1.1 shines, it is best used in low light where your subject is lit by some stray light, in this condition the subject stands out and the surrounding back ground is pleasantly put out of focus with the bokeh effect and i even invite the light fall off and vignetting. I don't shoot it wide open in good lighting that is where the softness and low contrast is noticed. This lens should not to be compared directly to a summilux or summicron, i think it can serve as someones only lens or as an addition for that special moment when the conditions are just right for the F1.1.</p> <p> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_Cooper11664875449 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <blockquote> <p>In some ways he is right: a f1.1 lens used at full aperture and not used very carefully will give hellaciously soft images if taken overall</p> </blockquote> <p>This makes no sense at all. If you are providing a lens review then there is an inherent assumption and expectation that it is used (focused) correctly and carefully. Implying that a poorly focused lens renders a <em>hellaciously</em> soft image as the summary output of any lens test is tantamount to letting a 5 year old undertake the testing - it isn't a test at all.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>FWIW i've used the lens. What do you compare it to.. even the Robber Baron priced Leica Noctilux will do more or less the same imaging at f1.(plus or minus). The Nocton gave very nice performance compared to a Canon f1.2RF lens i once owned. All hi-speed lenses are very soft. The dreamy look can easily be duplicated with cellophane in front of any sharp lens or an older lens that has the elements separating..<br> My opinion is that none of those lenses is worth paying a premium for. Film can be "pushed" and digital can go to way higher ISO., esp for color.Ken Rockwell most likely says the same.<br> i wrote to Alex S. when he originally posted, about his. I have not changed my mind. If any of the users finds it perfect, the dreamy look,the fuzziness and the blur, Hey go for it! Whatever works for one.<br> Sharpness is a sick fetish.(HCB).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>Oh yiks!! I see that somehow an earlier draft of my last posting got mixed up with an earlier draft. That is "hellaciously" unfortunate. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 <p>Don't sweat it ! Nobody is perfect,why should a lens be.. In spite of what i wrote, i really do like some A.S's images with the Nokton.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 <p>I read Ken's review again, he is hard on the lens, but remember his is a comparative review (he clearly shows which lenses he has compared it with in the table). His statements make sense in the context of his test. He doesn't like the lens' bokeh, he thinks it is a poor performer compared to the Summilux (old and new), ZM Planar, Summicrons and Noctilux. He focussed it (correctly) as far as we can tell. He is not finding "interesting" pictures with the razor-thin depth of focus - he is just testing it in comparison to the others. He finds it compares poorly. It is quite possible that Ken doesn't really see the point of a lens like this - many people feel the same. He has not written the kind of "in the field" review which is more what has been written above. Perhaps Ken lacks imagination in seeing its virtues, but otherwise it probably comes down to one's frame of reference for these homegrown tests. Ken prides himself on the common, practical touch (I think) and you would be hard pressed to deny that a lens like this has a specialist purpose and I suspect he is correct that it does not perform as well as the other 50s with which it is compared.</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 <p>I pride myself on the common practical touch too. If a lens takes good pictures and does not fall apart it is a good lens. Ken Rockwell is dead wrong when he calls the Nokton 50/1.1 "hellaciously" bad. The photos on this thread belie this assertion. It's under your nose. Right here. <br> "[H]e is just testing it in comparison to the others..." This requires a dissertation to be done properly, not a quickie review. And it would still be of dubious value (like too many dissertations). A better comparison would have been ultra-fast lenses of its type. But that would require more than a quickie review as well.</p> <p>About bokeh. As I wrote in my review of this lens, some people are obsessed with bokeh and others aren't. I am not. I characterized the Nokton 50/1.1's bokeh as "stark." If this is good or bad bokeh as a subjective judgement.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 <blockquote> <p>This requires a dissertation to be done properly, not a quickie review</p> </blockquote> <p>I guess Ken would not agree with you! Being rigorous is a fairly rare commodity when it comes to lens testing. I stilll thought it was OK given what we know about the way he does things. He did at least show evidence of why he didn't like it. He really seems to have got under your skin on this one!</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knut_schwinzer Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 <p>Just look at KR's "test" of the classic Nikkor 105/2.5:</p> <blockquote>This was a popular lens since its introduction in 1959 through about 1990. It has been sold in all the mechanical configurations from the original pre-AI F mount of 1959 through today's superior AI-s version. The optics remain the same.</blockquote> <p>KR also remains the same. He didn't even bother to check the web, as there is plenty of information about the change of optical formula from Sonnar to Gauss design in the early 70's: Sharper, but less pleaseant OOF rendering.</p> <p>Take it with a sack of salt!</p> <p>He edits a neat HTML easyreader, something like the yellowpress of photo blogs:<br /> Big pics and mainly gossip.</p> <p>Or do YOU enjoy the chatty style and poor readability of RFF?</p> <p>Please support my growling family!</p> <p>Best, Knut</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knut_schwinzer Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 <p>PS: For our contentment: Maybe Erwin Puts and Ken Rockwell should consider a joint venture...</p> <p>And just a pic for to cheer this up:</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knut_schwinzer Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 <p>Here it goes:)</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 <p>Knut,</p> <p>Thats not a bad idea at all - Erwin and Ken together would manage to p**s off everyone!</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Blackwell Images Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 <blockquote> <p>If you must have an f/1.1 lens, go ahead and get one, but the <a href="http://kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f1.htm">LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50mm f/1</a> is far superior optically. In this case, Voigtländer merely is showing us that maybe LEICA isn't ripping us off with what they charge for LEICA lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>Can someone help me understand how he can say this when the Noctilux wasn't part of his comparison test?</p> “When you come to a fork in the road, take it ...” – Yogi Berra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Blackwell Images Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=505561">Alex Shishin</a> said</p> <blockquote> <p >"I read Ken Russell's review and frankly it is silly. ..."</p> </blockquote> <p>Alex: FWIW, his name is Ken <strong>Rockwell</strong>. Be that as it may, I agree with your assessment of his review.</p> “When you come to a fork in the road, take it ...” – Yogi Berra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 <p>Right, Rockwell. Apologies to Ken Russel,</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>I thought it was a witty attempt at discrediting Rockwell by likening him to the often amazing British film director.</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_elwing Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>That's what I thought too. We need a little more levity.<br> I personally would like to hear Ken Russell's crits on Leica gear, but he wouldn't last long on Photo.net<br> At the same time, I appreciate this discussion. I get the impression that the image quality is good, but the odd poor lens slips through, assuming Ken Rockwell has based his crit on actual evidence.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_francisco Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 <p>I read Ken Rockwell's reviews all the time simply for it's entertainment value. I think for reviews, our community's views and opinions here are more than adequate.</p> 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