The Noct is a very nice and legendary lens, but any f/1 or f/1.2 lens has a
VERY shallow DOF. I had a 50/1.2 and liked the character a lot. But I had
a devil of a time getting it focused wide-open. The DOF is only about 3/4"
at 3 feet; very easy to screw up hand-held . The Noct is almost as
difficult to work with. It also suffers from a long minimum focusing
distance of 1m. Typically you have to have the M body that you're going to
use it on checked out with the lens, as the RF focusing is especially
critical.
I doubt you'll find any detailed comparisons of these two lenses anywhere.
But unfortunately, I'd be surprised if the 50/1.2 can measure up to the
Noctilux' performance. In general, the abberations and vignetting tend to
overwhelm most of the high-speed lenses; they're all special purpose. If
you use them, you should expect vignetting, poor wide-open performance,
especially away from the center. The Noct is no exception. It's
performance is far below the Summicron f/2.0 or Summilux 50/1.4.
The Noct is a LOT heaver, but that's what you get for the extra 1/2 stop.
Look here for a detailed test and commentary
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/M10-50.html
Look here for some Noct images
http://www.shinozuka-family.com/f1/index.html
Skip
Original Message:
-----------------
From: ALEXSCIFI@xxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:19:38 -0500
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] The Leica Noctilux vs the OM 50F1.2?
On the various Leica lists, there is a constant stream of reverance (and
sometimes irreverance) for the Noct. Much of it concern's it's "character"
as opposed to it's function of simply providing the ultimate low light
platform with a suitably adjusted Leica M rangefinder. Many adherents seem
to like it's rendition even at full high noon. I have rarely seen pictures
that highlight the Noct's strengths--it's ability not to flare out from
bringt lights in the frame and/or nice compositions with a single item in
focus against a highly blurred background. So people seem fascinated by
it's "chracter" as such.
My question is this--for those that use both, how does the OM 50F1.2
compare in "character"/bokeh to the Noct--particularly wide open? I know,
of course that an RF will beat an SLR by 1 to 2 stops less vibration--so an
M RF/Noct will decisively win in very low-light. Otherwise, I can't help
but feel that the OM 1.2 is better, more elegant design. It's much lighter,
doesn't have nearly as much vignetting as the Noct, has excellent bokeh,
and it isn't bad wide open.
Alex
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|