Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/06/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 6/25/04 8:35:59 AM, bdcolen@earthlink.net writes: << Okay, since Clive said it first, I'll wade in. Look at these images, and Joe's otherwise appealing snake sequence, I want to throw-up; the bokeh is really, really disturbing, a bit like looking through a bottle bottom on acid. I'm someone who normally doesn't 'see' bokeh, and doesn't consider it particularly importance. But this lens is the exception to that rule. I can see using the Nocti when there's no other way to get the shot - which means capturing images in near darkness, when even 1.4 at 1/15th won't do the trick, or when you need a faster shutter speed, and the Noct. Will allow you to go up to 1/30th or 1/60th. But under those circumstances, most of the image will be in deep shadow anyway, so the bokeh isn't jarring. But I just don't get the idea of using this lens in relatively normal to normal light, when any number of other film and lens combinations will do the trick. In both these posted cases, Mitch and Joe were using relatively slow film. And Mitch had to shoot at 1/1000th to be able to shoot at f1. Yes, it's nice to isolate the subject, but another lens at f 1.4 or even f 2 would provide good isolation - without the smeary, swirly, blurs. Just my opinion - rarely humble, but usually honest. ;-) >> Different strokes for different folks. Not being of fan of reality, except for when reality needs to be real, I love the shots. I also like the bottom of bottles and certain types of acid as well. Nope, unlike BD, these shots don't make me want to throw up, but rather they tend to remind me that trees and nature are often in motion, leaves and branches swirling, wind teasing, sunlight dappling. To me, here is a case, where the less literal the shot, is perhaps more real. Kim