Justifying the 0.95 Noctilux

[SteveYork]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A 50mm summilux asph is w/o doubt the better option. The noctilux only made sense with film, where you can't ramp up the iso with a flick of the button, unless you want the super narrow depth of field at f/1.

 

As a practical matter, neither the noctilux or summilux make sense in a digital world. For digital, a summicron is way fast enough.

[Advertisement]

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

[KM-25]

Well, first off, it is not a digital world, it is the same world that has always been here for thousands of years. It is up to the individual to make the decision as to whether his or her world is digital or film. Secondly, The only limits one might have in terms of what is practical or not in regards to gear is highly subjective. I routinely use a D700 at ISO 3200-6400 with F/2 or faster lenses to get into specific blends and looks of light, works like a charm.

 

So maybe F/2 at ISO 1,600 on the M9 is all you need, but not everyone.

[NB23]

Wolfredo, I'm amazed at your very very narrow thinking. Did it occur to you, even for a split millisecond, that the ones who buy the noctilux have more then just 10'000$ in their account? Those people surely run companies, create jobs, probably help people like you would.

You sound like you think that the noctilux owners spent their last dime on the lens. What makes you believe they are soulless losers? And in the event that they help other people by giving them money (which is highly possible given their wealth), why would they brag about it in a PHOTO FORUM?

 

Yeah.

[SteveYork]

Well, first off, it is not a digital world, it is the same world that has always been here for thousands of years. It is up to the individual to make the decision as to whether his or her world is digital or film. Secondly, The only limits one might have in terms of what is practical or not in regards to gear is highly subjective. I routinely use a D700 at ISO 3200-6400 with F/2 or faster lenses to get into specific blends and looks of light, works like a charm.

 

So maybe F/2 at ISO 1,600 on the M9 is all you need, but not everyone.

 

I said "As a practical matter..." That's facts; not subjective mumbo jumbo. Most people use fast lenses because they need the extra stop or stops of speed. That's just a fact. Very few of us have the luxury to have expensive lenses sitting around based on bokeh or depth of field or any other marginal characteristic. Of course, anyone can make up reasons to justify a lens purchase, but that's just it -- justification, not need, nor often use. This is just what happens in the real world.

 

And as a further practical matter, even in the film world, many people who purchased a noctilux, would later dump it in favor of a summilux. The noctilux is only a stop faster; much heavier; more expensive; and the old noctilux was a vastly inferior lens.

[gwelland]

The noctilux is only a stop faster; much heavier; more expensive; and the old noctilux was a vastly inferior lens.

 

Ah but what is the criteria for 'inferior'? If you cherish the look and characteristics of the old noctilux then it's hardly inferior. It might be inferior according to YOUR criteria but that doesn't mean that it is for others.

 

If you want the truly narrow depth of field of an f/1 or f/0.95 well you can't get it using a Summilux, Summicron, Summarit or Elmarit. Sure you could attempt to replicate it digitally but it'll never be the same (for better or worse, of course).

 

As regards the pure speed argument - I mostly agree with you on that one. It's less of an issue today than it was with slower films. That said, if you want to keep the shutter speed reasonable in low light at ISO 1250 or below then you're going to want as fast a lens as possible. The f/0.95 might be that lens that gets you the shot of a lifetime.

 

Generally though I think there's some confusion here over 'need' and 'want'. If you can afford the lens and want it, go for it. No justification needed. If you need the speed or character of the lens but need to budget or trade other things to get it, well then you are in the realms of having to find justification.

 

In my own case I confess that I have no desire for the latest f/0.95 Noctilux, regardless of whether I can afford it or not. It looks to be a true wonder of a lens but I don't have a need for it. However, I do own the f/1 Noctilux and fully recognize that I'll most likely never ever shoot much beyond f/2 with it, especially to take advantage of it's inferior, abhorrent foibles and distortions. I have the 50 'cron for all those other technically better shots ...

[cheewai_m6]

i almost despise this lens because of the hype about it. i don't actually hate it, but i feel it's a bit of a trophy lens. for 1 stop, the nocti goes against what the m system stands for. discreet and compact.

 

i do like its ability to render in its unique way, but we saw the new nocti is almost the same as the lux at f1.4. UNLESS you only shoot at 0.95, for that particular 'look', i see no point in having the nocti other than being able to say 'i own a nocti'. i don't mean to offend anyone, certainly not my intention.

[NB23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i almost despise this lens because of the hype about it. i don't actually hate it, but i feel it's a bit of a trophy lens. for 1 stop, the nocti goes against what the m system stands for. discreet and compact.

 

Please be objective.

 

You're quite wrong and subjective as it is now. Rangefinders in general simply happen to be compact because there's no mirror in the way and the lenses' retro-focus designs. How can a SILVER Camera stand for discreteness is beyond me. And the fact that SLRs happened to develop and get bigger along the way didn't suddenly make it a Leica goal to be compact and discreet.

The M system, as opposed to the S or P systems, stands for prestigiousness, high mechanical quality and exclusivity. All of which the NOCTILUX fulfills to perfection.

[Nikkor AIS]

Well Im one of those individuals who spent there last dime to get a 50 1.0 Noctilux.. Not everyone who buys high end glass is rich, at least Im not. For me it's all about choices and value's. I value the look I get with the Noctilux and my film Lecia's more than the $5,000 sitting in the bank. If I had 10,000 sitting around I would buy the new Noctilux in a heart beat and another $8,000 M9 to go with it. It seems reasonable to me.. Lecia gear has never been cheap. You want the best it's going to cost.

 

It's kind of sad that someone post a very nice picture of the wife and child for the viewing pleasure of the forum and he gets jumped on for giving us an sample image. Which I think is quite lovely. Not every image taken with the Noct has to scream "look at me I was taken with the Noct' . I have no hesitation using mine at all apertures F1-F16. I never understood why I should limit my depth of field if the situation/picture warrants it because Im using a fast lens. Stopping down is not a crime:o. Iv been known to stop my Nikkor 300 2.0 IF ED AIS on occasion when I needed some depth of field. While i admit that in most cases I do use the Noctilux wide open. But I Ill tell you it's VERY NICE at f 56.-8 in the need arises.

 

Gregory

 

wwwrogaltacdesign@smugmug.com

[wilfredo]

Wolfredo, I'm amazed at your very very narrow thinking. Did it occur to you, even for a split millisecond, that the ones who buy the noctilux have more then just 10'000$ in their account? Those people surely run companies, create jobs, probably help people like you would.

You sound like you think that the noctilux owners spent their last dime on the lens. What makes you believe they are soulless losers? And in the event that they help other people by giving them money (which is highly possible given their wealth), why would they brag about it in a PHOTO FORUM?

 

Yeah.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth "souless losers" are not my words. The person who started this thread is required to do a lot of selling of his Nikon equipment in order to purchase this one lens. I hope he sincerely thinks about his options, with his feet on the ground.

 

I am convinced however that the corporate sector is souless. Making money has become an art for sociopaths who take what they can and give nothing back in return. Here in the U.S. worker productivity has doubled since the 70's, yet wages are lower, and hours are longer. So much for the rich giving back. Half the workforce in this country is employed by small businesses, not the big corporate sector with the guys who wear $10,000.00 shoes, yet there is no government bailout for them. I'm amazed at how gullible most of us have become, how easily bamboozled the general public is, but it shouldn't surprise me given the fact that mass media in this country is also a corporate enterprise...

 

Adios...

[jruffolo]

I am convinced however that the corporate sector is souless. Making money has become an art for sociopaths who take what they can and give nothing back in return.

 

Yes, for example the selfish and soulless donation by Birkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffet of $31 billion to the Gates Foundation to reduce poverty and provide needed healthcare for those who cannot afford it.

[gwelland]

Is that the sound of moderator footprints I hear? It seems to be getting decidedly ugly in here ...

 

p.s. Well I quite liked Doug's picture regardless of whether it extolled the virtues of the Noctilux or not.

[NB23]

They we're my words, but what else was I supposed to understand when you implied that all Noctilux owners should "get a life"?

 

Wilfredo, have you thought of founding a Communist party? No kidding here.

[delander †]

I wonder how many Noctilux f0.95 shots would stand up as good sized print. Small areas look in focus when shown on the internet but are they really?

 

For me, whatever the bokeh, something has to be in focus - preferably that which was intended to be in focus. I have trouble with the summilux wide open.

 

Jeff

[Peter Lea]

Just for the record, I was lucky enough to buy my second hand F1 Nocti for just over £1,000 a few years ago. "Upgrading" to the F1.4 now would probably cost me more, and I'm certainly not well off enough to have both, even if I wanted to. But I don't - I love the way the F1 draws. Peter Lea

[spersky]

That's a nice way to ease the conscience, but I won't buy it. If you want to spend money, spend it where it will make a difference. Extravagant purchases will not help the ranks of the unemployed. Please don't turn the purchase of a Nocti into an altruistic event, an act of kindness and generosity to stimulate the economy. It isn't that and that is not the reason why people purchase this lens. Forget it!

 

This new trend that people are jumping on is frightening. It seems it is now bad to be successful and actually achieve your goals, because others have not gotten there yet. Wealth or the show of wealth is now very taboo. I am not sure how far this populist socialist trend will take our society, but it is a little bit scary.

 

Even if you are successful from extremely hard work, you are now a "bad guy" exploiting the poor unfortunate worker who is struggling. I guess that is "Change we can believe in" You want the see unemployment get worse? Well keep attacking the successful, and the innovators. They are the people who create jobs.

[yanidel]

I wonder how many Noctilux f0.95 shots would stand up as good sized print. Small areas look in focus when shown on the internet but are they really?

 

For me, whatever the bokeh, something has to be in focus - preferably that which was intended to be in focus. I have trouble with the summilux wide open.

 

Jeff

I think you are right spot on with that comment. In purely photographic terms, the questions would be "What shots can the Noctilux 0.95 take that I cannot take with an older Nocti or even a Lux?"

IMO, all these lenses are extremely difficult to use in situations where they will really add to the picture. Focusing a 60mm 1.2 (my Nocti...) on a moving subject wide open is a hit or miss (more often the latter in my case). So any additional sharpness capability will be irrelevant in most cases, a slight focusing error making it disappear. You would need to print very big to notice anyways. And finally, sorry but one does not need a Nocti to shoot a portrait. Most long lenses have very thin DOF and a bigger reproduction ratio so backgrounds will be so blurred that bokeh will become irrelevant in most cases. This is only my opinion, but for me, the Nocti's shine in the mid range, when you want to isolate a subject from its surroundings and create a you name it : "magic, surreal, dreamy" atmosphere. Probably why many love it for weddings or street photography.

 

So obviously when one posts an image that basically any lens could take,you start wondering about the reason behind the purchase. I fully respect those people that love well built object with the best quality and have the money to afford them, in this case the 0.95 is a sound purchase. But don't expect your pictures to suddenly become great because they were shot with the best in class because the Nocti's are very challenging lenses.

[spersky]

I know the Noctilux is a very tough lens to use. I am amazed at the great keepers/action shots that Steve Huff was able to get in NYC with the Nictilux wide open.

[yanidel]

I know the Noctilux is a very tough lens to use. I am amazed at the great keepers/action shots that Steve Huff was able to get in NYC with the Nictilux wide open.

I agree but maybe we should ask him his ratio of success with the Nocti. If I had to estimate mine (in street photography) with the 60mm Hex wide open, I would say 50% spot on, 30% with acceptable focus, 20% not usable.

 

Steve, out of 100 shots, how many did you get with the focus spot on in NY at F0.95?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[NB23]

I think you are right spot on with that comment. In purely photographic terms, the questions would be "What shots can the Noctilux 0.95 take that I cannot take with an older Nocti or even a Lux?"

IMO, all these lenses are extremely difficult to use in situations where they will really add to the picture. Focusing a 60mm 1.2 (my Nocti...) on a moving subject wide open is a hit or miss (more often the latter in my case). So any additional sharpness capability will be irrelevant in most cases, a slight focusing error making it disappear. You would need to print very big to notice anyways. And finally, sorry but one does not need a Nocti to shoot a portrait. Most long lenses have very thin DOF and a bigger reproduction ratio so backgrounds will be so blurred that bokeh will become irrelevant in most cases. This is only my opinion, but for me, the Nocti's shine in the mid range, when you want to isolate a subject from its surroundings and create a you name it : "magic, surreal, dreamy" atmosphere. Probably why many love it for weddings or street photography.

 

So obviously when one posts an image that basically any lens could take,you start wondering about the reason behind the purchase. I fully respect those people that love well built object with the best quality and have the money to afford them, in this case the 0.95 is a sound purchase. But don't expect your pictures to suddenly become great because they were shot with the best in class because the Nocti's are very challenging lenses.

 

Not so true, IMO. The difference between F0.95 (or f1.0) to f1.4 is One stop (or a sixth more). This means that the unfocused BLOB on the f1.0 shot will have a somewhat more pronounced silhouette if shot with a summilux but it will still be a huge undiscernable BLOB (unless the f1.4 is a magical f2.8).

 

F1.4 aperture absolutely won't help you when you will track focus at dawn of a moving subject. Especially since you'll even be introducing movement BLUR to the BLOB.

 

In practice, I see no real difference in the focus area being thinner then any 50mm summilux. The difference is in the far edges.

[noah_addis]

I wonder how many Noctilux f0.95 shots would stand up as good sized print. Small areas look in focus when shown on the internet but are they really?

 

For me, whatever the bokeh, something has to be in focus - preferably that which was intended to be in focus. I have trouble with the summilux wide open.

 

Jeff

 

Not to wander off-topic, but I figure this is more relevant than socio-economic and political insults...

 

I have a theory that one of the reasons for the trend towards super-shallow DOF photographs is that they look very good on a computer monitor. They pop out and have a lot of impact at small sizes on a cluttered screen. I'm sure some look beautiful in large prints too, but the focus better be spot on:D

 

And sorry KM-25, but this is a forum about a digital camera, and the () fact is that many photographs made with this lens will ONLY be disseminated widely on the internet. So for the sake of discussion, calling it a digital world is not too far off. You may not like it and you may be doing beautiful work with a traditional medium, but it doesn't change the fact that film is nowhere near as widely-used as digital. That's not a value judgement on the relative merit of film or digital, just a fact. The OP mentioned an M9 but did not mention film. I do agree with you, however, that it's not for others to decide what you need in terms of lens speed, it's a personal choice.

 

I don't want one, but even if I did I couldn't possibly justify the cost of a Noctilux (new or old, though it's a shame I didn't buy one back when they could be had for a song). In general I prefer lenses that don't have a strong signature, lenses that just get out of the way and let me make photographs. I don't want people to talk about the bokeh or be thinking about which lens was used when they view my photographs.

 

But occasionally, especially for wedding work, I do like the unique signature of some of the older Leica glass. But for me the 50 'Lux Pre-Asph is more than capable when I want atmosphere and the old leica glow in a normal lens.