OK, a type of comment I never do (not being a Leica kind of guy), but I’m not entirely sure about this .95 Noctilux. It’s a stunning technical achievement (at a stunning price) but,
while it separates to a fair thee well, it also smears all the background context an awful lot.
I think, more often than not, I have a preference for out of focus, but not quite undecipherable. I suspect that, except for Haute, I’d just as soon see this and all the parade shots through the 1.4 ‘lux like in Guess Who’s Coming and Jump at Night.
(Speaking of Jump, you should put together a montage or sequence of all of them as a poster.)
I appreciate your candid commentary, Greg.
I have the same issue with this lens — that 1.4 would suffice or in fact be preferable in most situations — and that the extra burden presented by the size, price, and loss of minimum focus distance is just not worth it.
There are very specific situations, however, where the 0.95 confers a magical quality to the image. For me it occurs in the context of close-up (well, at the minimum focus distance of 1m :)) portraits where the background doesn’t matter, or is neutral.
For example:
Even the Police image from the other day works, at least for me:
Anyway, your thoughts are certainly appreciated. And I know you know that, in posting an image every day, I’m not always going to be creating art!
And, interestingly, I don’t mind the “smearing” in this image. It confers a softness around the young man that is pleasing to my eye — it’s like looking at a water colour image without the colour!
haha, funny for me it’s just the opposite and I agree you Peter:-). This is beautiful example of how the Noctilux is capable to blur the background/out of focus area of an image. In this case it reminds me to an Indonesian wajang play:-). It’s a pleasure to my eyes!
Thanks Jeroen.
I agree with both of you (Greg and Peter)! Parade Boy was probably the most recent example where this comes to mind. The 3d effect was stunning yet there was something about the bokeh which detracted from that image at a technical level.
The colours and composition of that image are beautiful. Yet I think someone even asked “did you add blurring?” Obviously I couldn’t really picture (excuse the pun) doing this Peter! But interesting someone thought this. Given the contrast of that photo with what not a neutral background I am sure it did not help.
The photos you added here Peter I agree. It does its job very well.
I am also not a Leica guy but if I was (costs aside) I would go with the lux. I doubt I’d have the skill to shoot consistently with the .95 anyway!
Good comments Andrew – thank you.
I would never be able to control the focus with that lens wide open but it seems effortless for you. My only criticism is the lack of dot info in the sky. I would use selective color in Photoshop to add some dot info then just a tad bit of noise to blend.
Prosophos 
OK, a type of comment I never do (not being a Leica kind of guy), but I’m not entirely sure about this .95 Noctilux. It’s a stunning technical achievement (at a stunning price) but,
while it separates to a fair thee well, it also smears all the background context an awful lot.
I think, more often than not, I have a preference for out of focus, but not quite undecipherable. I suspect that, except for Haute, I’d just as soon see this and all the parade shots through the 1.4 ‘lux like in Guess Who’s Coming and Jump at Night.
(Speaking of Jump, you should put together a montage or sequence of all of them as a poster.)
I appreciate your candid commentary, Greg.
I have the same issue with this lens — that 1.4 would suffice or in fact be preferable in most situations — and that the extra burden presented by the size, price, and loss of minimum focus distance is just not worth it.
There are very specific situations, however, where the 0.95 confers a magical quality to the image. For me it occurs in the context of close-up (well, at the minimum focus distance of 1m :)) portraits where the background doesn’t matter, or is neutral.
For example:
Even the Police image from the other day works, at least for me:
Anyway, your thoughts are certainly appreciated. And I know you know that, in posting an image every day, I’m not always going to be creating art!
And, interestingly, I don’t mind the “smearing” in this image. It confers a softness around the young man that is pleasing to my eye — it’s like looking at a water colour image without the colour!
haha, funny for me it’s just the opposite and I agree you Peter:-). This is beautiful example of how the Noctilux is capable to blur the background/out of focus area of an image. In this case it reminds me to an Indonesian wajang play:-). It’s a pleasure to my eyes!
Thanks Jeroen.
I agree with both of you (Greg and Peter)! Parade Boy was probably the most recent example where this comes to mind. The 3d effect was stunning yet there was something about the bokeh which detracted from that image at a technical level.
The colours and composition of that image are beautiful. Yet I think someone even asked “did you add blurring?” Obviously I couldn’t really picture (excuse the pun) doing this Peter! But interesting someone thought this. Given the contrast of that photo with what not a neutral background I am sure it did not help.
The photos you added here Peter I agree. It does its job very well.
I am also not a Leica guy but if I was (costs aside) I would go with the lux. I doubt I’d have the skill to shoot consistently with the .95 anyway!
Good comments Andrew – thank you.
I would never be able to control the focus with that lens wide open but it seems effortless for you. My only criticism is the lack of dot info in the sky. I would use selective color in Photoshop to add some dot info then just a tad bit of noise to blend.
Thanks Bob.