Noktor 50mm f.95

Here's Phil Bloom's review of the lens.

If it were one or the other I'd definitely go with the Voightlander.

I guess you could justify getting the 50mm if you need low light capability but the dof will be much shallower on the 50 as compared to the 25mm Voightlander - meaning harder to control focus.

Still it would be cool to have an arsenal of super fast lenses.
 
Paul Vicente said:
That lens is very soft from what I've read. It is a re-housed c-mount machine vision lens.
Click to expand...

I assume you are refering to the one on this link.
http://www.graftek.com/pages/navitarlensesffl.htm#DO-5095

That one is for a 1 inch chip and probably wouldn't cover a 4/3 chip. Also they are making a Canon full frame version according to Philip Bloom's blog (thanks Steve), so I doubt that it's a rehoused machine vision lens. Where did you hear that Paul?
 
Last edited:
Paul Vicente said:
'They' told me.
Click to expand...

"They" as in Noktor, Machine Vision, or the aliens from "They Live"?

they-live.jpg
 
Steve Kahn said:
Here's Phil Bloom's review of the lens.

If it were one or the other I'd definitely go with the Voightlander.

I guess you could justify getting the 50mm if you need low light capability but the dof will be much shallower on the 50 as compared to the 25mm Voightlander - meaning harder to control focus.

Still it would be cool to have an arsenal of super fast lenses.
Click to expand...

Not to be another stickler for math, but the DoF would be inherently be the same between the two lenses... in the real world sense. Let me explain:

A 25mm Voightlander at a F/1, 6 feet away would give you almost the same DoF and frame as a 50mm Noktor at a F/1 at 12 feet away. So if you were shooting a film, and you were wanting a close up, medium shot, or etc... keeping the composition of the subject the same will actually have the DoF stay the same. Of course the angle of view is different, thus one would show more background than the other, thus, making the 50mm background enlarged which gives the illusion of being slightly more shallow in regards to focus. Barry has demonstrated this with his classic 'sol/luna-windchime' HVX200 demonstration.
But as far as controlling focus, as if you were a 1st AC, there would not be any difference in how much depth of field you would be afforded, should you change the camera to subject distance to get the equivalent composition. Of course if using the Voightlander and you just switch over to the Noktor without adjusting the camera to subject distance (to match composition), then it will be shallower. (But remember your Voightlander would be just as shallow if you moved it closer to get the same shot.)

I would really choose based on how sharp they are wide open, because some lenses will fall apart at open apertures in that range. Hell, even some Zeiss Superspeeds begin to really trash out at T/1.3s. Having both the Voight and the Noktor would be good if they were to match well. Then you can choose the AoV for the shot and get either larger CoC and less background in the shot, or get smaller CoC and more background.

But with camera sensors being so sensitive, I wonder why anyone is shooting at F/1! :) You guys are crazy! I dig it.
 
Last edited:
We always assume that wide angle lenses have greater DOF; of course it's not true, but it can appear so because for any given subject size the wide angle shows us more of the back ground. To see how this works, imagine shooting a head and shoulders framed subject with a background that is a large type word; a very long lens may show just part of a couple of letters, not enough visual information for the brain to see it as a word; with a wide angle, we may see the whole word and although it is equally out of focus our brains have enough information to see what it is. It therefore can be perceived as having greater DOF when, in fact, it does not.

There's more to this game than math!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Ticheli said:
We always assume that wide angle lenses have greater DOF; of course it's not true, but it can appear so because for any given subject size the wide angle shows us more of the back ground. To see how this works, imagine shooting a head and shoulders framed subject with a background that is a large type word; a very long lens may show just part of a couple of letters, not enough visual information for the brain to see it as a word; with a wide angle, we may see the whole word and although it is equally out of focus our brains have enough information to see what it is. It therefore can be perceived as having greater DOF when, in fact, it does not.

There's more to this game than math!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...

Agreed :) I tried to explain what you did in my post, and made reference to Barry's classic example. I probably would not have posted had he said it would have a 'more shallow look' or would have 'perceived less depth of field'... however the poster actually said "harder to control focus"... a mechanical reference (versus an aesthetic.) Whether or not it looks like the circles of confusion are larger or smaller (the illusion of less depth of field or more depth of field), the mechanical ability to control focus should be equal in difficulty (if discussing the same shot composition with two different lenses).
 
Last edited:
Agreed. If you are going from the 25mm to 50mm the dof will be the same if you move the subject twice as far away. But as film makers generally use longer lenses to dial in a shorter dof my point really was really regarding the same focal distance.

For many indoor narrative scenes where you're limited to how far you can actually move from the subject the 25mm would be easier to use for a given f-stop... was the point I was trying to make.
 
Last edited:
While the pier footage is pretty good, it's soft as hell. For 750 bucks, I'm not sure it's worth it. I mean, a 300 dollar 50mm f1.4 is also "surprisingly sharp", so for a 50mm lens that is only useable closed to 1.4, 750 seems like a lot of money...
 
This lens is only a bargain if you actually need the f.95 stop; if you do not, it's money thrown away; if you do, it's dirt cheap.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top