Noctilux 0.95 vs. Summilux 1.4 - Bokeh?

[Clandrel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know it is said that the noctilux is as good from 1.4 as the summilux.

 

But what are the difference between the lenses, bokeh-wise, at all apertures?

 

What are the characteristic differences?

 

/c

[spydrxx]

IMHO chances are you'll be hard pressed to detect bokeh differences between the two lenses as you advance the apertures unless you are doing enormous enlargements. Of course the one you can't see a difference on is 0.95 as the Summilux doesn't open below 1.4, and that's the one which counts.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello spydrxx,

 

It only counts sometimes.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[pico]

The latest Noctilux has about 3.5 stops of vignetting, making the mean-average speed F2. Is that worth $10,000? I'd go for the Pre-ASPH Summilux 50mm which has less fall-off, better bokeh, and be happy, and use the $8,400 savings on something important.

Edited February 27, 2011 by pico

[spydrxx]

Michael - you're right on the button. That's why I sold mine...the sometimes was too infrequent.

[Jager]

The latest Noctilux has about 3.5 stops of vignetting, making the mean-average speed F2. Is that worth $10,000? I'd go for the Pre-ASPH Summilux 50mm which has less fall-off, better bokeh, and be happy, and use the $8,400 savings on something important.

 

I'll take the other side of the argument.

 

Evaluating the f0.95 performance of the Noct by averaging the true lens speed in the corners where all that vignetting takes place and in the center - where it is a true f0.95 lens - doesn't make much sense. You simply shoot it (compositionally) with that characteristic in mind.

 

Many of us love the signature of the Noct shot wide open. That's why we buy ND filters and otherwise seek to use that maximum aperture even when its raw speed is not necessary.

 

Whether it's worth ten grand is a question each of us must answer, of course - not unlike evaluating the value proposition of buying a Leica in the first place. But I can say that, for me, the Noct is an extraordinary, wonderful tool that does things that are hard-to-impossible with anything else. Most lenses that we purchase don't truly open up shooting vistas for us. The Noct does.

 

I have the old version and have been shooting it exclusively for nearly two months. I can't describe how much I have enjoyed it...

[bybrett]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The latest Noctilux has about 3.5 stops of vignetting, making the mean-average speed F2. Is that worth $10,000? I'd go for the Pre-ASPH Summilux 50mm which has less fall-off, better bokeh, and be happy, and use the $8,400 savings on something important.

 

What? That would make it f3.5 at the corners when shooting f0.95... I've never experienced this.

[lars_bergquist]

What? That would make it f3.5 at the corners when shooting f0.95... I've never experienced this.

 

There are many things in heaven and earth, Horatio, which we perceive not, and still it is there.

 

The five-footed iambic old man

[01af]

Here are a few bokeh test shots I made in the inner city of Wetzlar (near Solms) with Noctilux-M 50 mm 1:0.95 Asph, Summilux-M 50 mm 1:1.4 Asph, and Summarit-M 50 mm 1:2.5 on a Leica M9 camera. All shots were taken hand-held from the same position; the focus was on the red flowers in the foreground.

The first image was taken with the Noctilux at full aperture and is displayed here to show the full frame. Note how the leaves of the tree in the middle become sharper towards the frame's border—that's a side effect of the vignetting. The Summilux shows the same effect at f/1.4 but to a lesser extent.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

The next image is a crop from the central part of the previous frame.

The next two images compare the bokehs of the Noctilux and the Summilux, both at f/1.4. Both are crops from the full frame; same as the image above. The Summilux's bokeh is just a tad smoother even though that's hard to see in the small magnification reproduced here. But the Noctilux's bokeh basically is just fine, too.

The next three images compare the bokehs of the Noctilux, Summilux, and Summarit, all at f/2.4 or f/2.5. Again, all are crops from the full frame; same as the images above. Note the Summarit's slightly wider angle of view; its true focal length is closer to 50 mm while the Summilux and Noctilux are closer to 52 mm.

[bybrett]

There are many things in heaven and earth, Horatio, which we perceive not, and still it is there.

 

The five-footed iambic old man

 

Even the Bard would notice three and a half stops of fall off...

Edited February 27, 2011 by bybrett

[edmond_terakopian]

I'll just add my thoughts on this...

 

In over 21 years as a photojournalist, I've used a large range of M and R Leica lenses, Angenieux as well as the best lenses from Nikon, Canon and Zeiss, covering a range from 8mm to 500mm. I must say that the most amazing lens I have had the joy of using is the new 50mm f0.95 ASPH Noctilux.

 

It is extremely versatile, changing it's character as you change aperture. With use, comes familiarity and with this the joy and understanding of how to begin to make the most of this lens.

 

It is expensive and it took me a lot of thought and a year's saving but I must say, I'm overjoyed to have the Noctilux in my bag.

 

To answer the original post, I don't have the Summilux so alas cannot comment.

 

Edmond

[peter_n]

Thanks to 01af for posting these. I found the comparison at f1.4 of particular interest. For all intents and purposes the two look awfully similar.

[colorflow]

I noticed the Summilux is much sharper on the red geraniums in the f1.4 comparisons. especially towards the lower left. Focus a little off with the Noct?

[sm23221]

In my opinion the only bokeh difference is between the 0.95 and 1.4 f-stop. There is a great price to pay in finances, weight, lens design and lens dimension but it is well worth the added bit of creaminess; that is the reason I enjoy mine, not for the light gathering ability. In essence it sets bokeh apart from all other lenses.

[rfnoob]

In terms of vignetting, how does the Noctilux compare with the Summilux at f/1.4 and smaller?

I'm aware of the vignetting at f/0.95 but at f/1.4, I assume the 2 lenses are similar?

[01af]

I noticed the Summilux is much sharper on the red geraniums in the f/1.4 comparisons. especially towards the lower left. Focus a little off with the Noct?

While at f/1.4 the Summilux is a tad sharper than the Noctilux indeed, the difference isn't big enough to be visible in the small images reproduced above. The focus points on the pot of geraniums indeed differ by maybe one or two inches (closer in the Summilux shot), so that's the primary reason why the flowers look less sharp in the Noctilux shot. Keep in mind the images were shot hand-held with the intention to compare the background bokehs; they are not adequate to critically judge sharpness at the plane of focus.

 

 

In terms of vignetting, how does the Noctilux compare with the Summilux at f/1.4 and smaller? I'm aware of the vignetting at f/0.95 but at f/1.4, I assume the two lenses are similar?

At f/1.4, they are similar indeed but not equal.

 

Regarding the sharpness at f/1.4, the current Noctilux Asph is closer to the Summilux Asph than the previous Noctilux-M 50 mm 1:1 ever was, so it definitely is an improvement. Yet the Summilux still has the edge; at f/1.4 it's sharper than the Noctilux Asph across the whole frame by a small but (at large magnification) noticable margin. It's sometimes said the Noctilux Asph was as good as the Summilux Asph at f/1.4—not quite so. Even at f/2, the Noctilux lags behind albeit by an even smaller margin. In my opinion it still is good enough to serve as your only 50 mm lens even for demanding applications (which the Noctilux-M 50 mm 1:1 was not)—as long as you don't mind the substantial bulk, weight, and viewfinder obstruction.

 

Regarding the vignetting at f/1.4 and f/2 with the M9's automatic lens recognition on (which includes some electronic vignetting reduction), the two 50 mm Asph lenses again are similar but not equal. Both lenses do vignette at f/1.4 and at f/2. The vignetting is stronger in the Summilux both paradoxically still more obvious to the eye in the Noctilux. The reason is the different gradients of the fall-off from the frame's center to the corner. In the Summilux, the fall-off starts pretty close to the center and gets worse towards the corner in an almost linear fashion. In the Noctilux, there is almost no vignetting at f/1.4 and f/2 in the better part of the frame but then a fairly sharp (and thus, noticable) fall-off in the far corners. In both lenses, vignetting at f/2 is substantially less than at f/1.4 but the characteristics of the fall-off remain the same.

 

Furthermore, the Noctilux exhibits some barrel-shaped distortion while the Summilux is almost distortion-free.

 

So at apertures f/1.4 and f/2, the Summilux-M 50 mm Asph is slightly sharper than the Noctilux-M 50 mm Asph but vignettes slightly more. However both lenses easily are good enough in both aspects to make you smile. For most practical intents and purposes, the differences can be considered negligible. The worst things about the Noctilux-M 50 mm 1:0.95 Asph as a general-purpose standard lens are not performance issues but weight, viewfinder obstruction, and of course the price. After shooting the (borrowed) Noctilux Asph and Summilux Asph side by side for half a day, I decided that, all things considered, I like the Summilux-M 50 mm 1:1.4 Asph more.