Over-developed, or Noctilux soft?

[NikoSperi]

I succumbed (again) to GAS, and while I was minding my own business walking down the street, I saw a Noctilux in the window of my dealer... and it's now mine. I shot a bunch of Acros and developed it last night in HC110, which is a departure. I also had a roll fo APX 400 in the tank, and the slightly compromised time was a bit longish for the Acros.

Well to cut to the chase, I grossly overdeveloped the films and have pretty much bullet proof negs. The problem is all shots are soft or out of focus. Of course, a new Noctilux (well, used of course...) requires everything to be shot at f/1, but I am very disappointed from the results.

Overdeveloping can of course cause huge grain, but is it also so detrimental to accutance and resolution? Or is this lens just not happening? I had great plans for upcoming Cairo trip with the Noctilux, but I would like to have a better idea what messed up the shots; lens softness at wide-open, or gross overdevelopment.

 

[Jerevan]

Depth of field is almost non-existent on such a wide aperture, which means only a small, small amount of change in the position of your camera could ruin things. I've never used a Noctilux, but even at f1.4 with other lenses, I have had quite a few not-so-very sharp photos... I've seen people suggesting that the rf should be checked and calibrated for the Noctilux, but that's just what I've heard so take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Lee L]

I shot once with a Noctilux wide open. As I recall (this was nearly 30 years ago), a rack of greeting cards about a meter away at f:1 had depth of field covering about the thickness of one greeting card. What body were you using? A well calibrated long baseline rangefinder is a very good idea with this lens.

Lee

 

[NikoSperi]

A little clarification is called for I guess... I know about the DOF issue and softness expectations due to shooting wide open. But I was in fact, was shooting subjects where mostly I didn't care where focus landed, I was just after that extremely selective area of sharpness. For example, picture a piano keyboard receding away from you as you shoot from the side of the keyboard... just a key or two in focus is what I was expecting. I have no area of really sharp sharpness, just a slight lessening of blur.
Can overdevelopment reduce sharpness?
For the record, I used two bodies (0ne .72 one .85) and did some wonderfully sharp shots using 35mm Summicron, and 90mm Summicron. Just not on those three overdeveloped rolls...

 

[john_s]

I had a 2nd hand Noctilux for a while. It focussed exactly on my oldish M6 at full aperture, which is of course a very critical test of the focusing mechanism. There is a focus shift with smaller apertures: the focus point moves away as you stop down, and eventually DoF solves the problem, but around f2 it's a dog. After my first test I did it again with a loan lens from a dealer and it was the same. Erwin's figures for the focus shift are quite consistent with my observations.

I suggest you do another test with a suitable target and fine film (e.g. delta_100, TMax_100 or Acros). I did it with TechPan and I was amazed at the detail in the centre of the field at f1. The focus shift at f1.4,2,2.8 was very obvious, and very disappointing.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Can overdevelopment reduce sharpness?

Yes. Both over-development and over-exposure reduce sharpness. A single stop of overexposure can reduce resolution (in lp/mm) by 20 per cent.

I'm currently shooting with a very little used Noctilux f/1 (loaned by a very generous friend, who bought it new) and inside its tiny depth of field it is surprisingly sharp.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Arvee]

This might provide some interesting reading, specifically about the focus shift.

R.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/M10-50.html

 

[NikoSperi]

Update on the Noct

Well, we learn and learn and learn! I've learnt a few things these last few days:

1) APX400 is no where NEAR 400, and a pretty horrible film.
2) Never use an untested film AND untested lens for an unrepeatable event - even if it's just Christmas snaps.
3) The Noctilux was off by miles.

Finally, after burning through about eight rolls, I laid down the tape measure and did the proper focus test with my 50mm Summilux against the Noctilux and the Noct focus was about 12 cm in front when focused on two meters.

The lens is gone, the APX is gone, and I am back onto my true times for development of films I HAVE tested. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the help guys.

 

[Ed Sukach]

NikoSperi;414724

Well, we learn and learn and learn! I've learnt a few things these last few days:

1) APX400 is no where NEAR 400, and a pretty horrible film.

...?!?! AGREED!!! Terrible! Just pack it all up and send it to me ... It will be a burden - but I'll come up with some method of disposal. :rolleyes:

The lens is gone, the APX is gone, and I am back onto my true times for development of films I HAVE tested.

Oh ... Damn! Missed the APX by THAT much!!

 

[Voyager]

can anyone evaluate the Rollei sonnar 40mm?

I am impressed with the lens evaluations that I am reading...so much better to hear from actual users. Given that, I thought I'd take a chance and tag along at the end here. I've just begun using a Rollei sonnar 40mm 2.8 (on a Bessa R body). Only one roll developed so far, one still at the lab, and one in the camera (the develops, and I enlarge), so I haven't nearly figured things out. I am guessing there aren't a whole lot of these lens out there (someone once said they are over priced and terribly marketed). Can I have some user impressions on this lens? Much appreciated.