Justifying the 0.95 Noctilux

[yanidel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

These are good points, especially on low light conditions.

 

Since you are on that thread, I should congratulate you for your skills with the Nocti. Your shots are not particulary sharp, nor are they always completely in focus, but you definitely know how to use the Nocti to create fascinating atmospheres.

[Advertisement]

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

[NB23]

These are good points, especially on low light conditions.

 

Since you are on that thread, I should congratulate you for your skills with the Nocti. Your shots are not particulary sharp, nor are they always completely in focus, but you definitely know how to use the Nocti to create fascinating atmospheres.

 

Thanks Yanidel.

The sharpness and the focus are there more often then not. The explanation to what you said lies in the fact that my shots are Kodachromes or negative scans, therefore a lot of the sharpness and color is lost.

If I was using a M8 or M9, I could add selective sharpness and many tricks to enhance the images, but to me, for my personal photography, it always feel like cheating.

[SteveYork]

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 ...

 

Leica acquisition is always a fusion of the right and left brain. If one purchases a big expensive lens based on want, without the need, then the drawbacks of that big lens (and there are many) will likely come back to haunt you. Now if you really like the narrow depth of field, or the special way the noctilux handles light (coma?), or if you need the extra stop of speed, then that's a different matter. In theory the old noctilux was a great lens -- who wouldn't want to shoot by available candle light -- but in practice it barked.

[SteveYork]

Let me qualify my statements -- if you actually use a pice of equipment, then it isn't a waste. It's individualistic. But there's a big difference in thinking you'll use a piece of Leica trinket (sometimes to justify a purchase) and actually using it to make pictures. The Noctilux has a romantic quality to it, but in practice many people feel they don't use the lens -- it's big; it's heavy and expensive; and the optics of the old lens was not as good as the Summilux; and it's only a stop faster then the Summilx. I've heard too many people over the years purchasing this lens, and then dumping it for one or several of the reasons above. And at $10K a pop, you need to use a lens a lot to justify it. But then I'm an anti-collector. I only beleive in having equipment you use.

[kidigital]

Thankfully, the discussion is back on topic.

 

Interesting points on printing Noctilux images. I'd be very curious to see how images from the new Noctilux stack up compared to the older version ... when printed. My thinking is that because there is a little more precision and definition in the focus at wide open apertures with the new version of the Noctilux (less swirly background), it actually might provide a nicer look when printed large.

 

Kurt

[Marty]

Isn't it obvious. If the new Nocti is the best lens in the M lineup or even the best full-frame 50mm lens bar none and if you want the best then nothing else will do. How is that for justification. Why split hairs.

[sm23221]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I might as well throw in my $0.02. I use a Noctilux 0.95, paid $10,000 for it and feel it is worth every penny (btw, next year it will probably be worth $11,000, a better investment than the stock market). There is no way I could have captured many of my favorite photos without this lens; the 1 stop does make a significant difference in the final print. Yes, the bokeh at f/0.95 does set photos apart from f/1.4, not to mention the ability to capture subjects in dark lighting conditions (save the "just up the ISO" argument - it's not the same and allows for a faster shutter speed).

 

Even if you own a Lux 1.4 I would still highly consider the additional purchase the Nocti 0.95. If you are sore about high Leica prices, then I suggest selling your lenses and invest in the lower priced DSLR competitors and save all of your poor excuses. If you have trouble focusing one, go have your eyes examined.

 

Also, Doug_M is a very fine portrait photographer - I've seen some of his work and it's great stuff. Realize that web sent/viewed photos doesn't do justice to the original. If you don't know this by now, you really have no business owning a Leica.

[docmark]

Doug,

 

This is a very lovely shot but it doesn't justify paying $10,000.00 for a lens by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Again I apologize to the Nocti consumers for being a wet noodle, but I believe honesty is at a premium. Honesty is far more valuable than the need to have something that doesn't measure up in terms of usefulness when compared to the cost..

 

Sorry, but what the hell does honesty have to do with a discussion of the Noctilux? Unless you mean that I have a 0.95 Noctilux, and I honestly love it.

[brt3]

Sorry, but what the hell does honesty have to do with a discussion of the Noctilux? Unless you mean that I have a 0.95 Noctilux, and I honestly love it.

I agree, and we all have individual standards when it comes to how much the difference from Summi to Nocti is worth. No one can judge how this equation works for someone else. Just because it might not make sense for me does NOT mean it's not worth the upcharge for someone else.

 

I, for one, would love to have a Noctilux! How much are they offering for lightly-used kidneys these days???

[stevem7]

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?

 

Hey guys, just saw this.

 

Yanidel, just counted and I actually took only 163 street shots (I thought it was more like 300) I also took 100 personal and family images. But out of the 163 street shots I have about 35-40 keepers, but I feel only 2 are really good.

 

Over 100 were either just plain lousy or out of focus but honestly, I counted up the OOF shots and there were only about 18.

 

Yes, it is a challenge to use on moving objects, such as people But, if I was out with a 50 Lux and shooting at 1.4, I probably would have about the same ratio. I found the new Nocti very easy to focus and a bit faster than the old one.

 

Still, it was fun and I am happy that I came away with two that I really liked, and I even sold a large print of one of the images, which is always nice

 

I will never own a Nocti at $10k+ but its a great and pretty amazing lens for those who can afford it, and believe me, there are many that can. I'm just not one of them.

 

I do love the old Nocti though and had thoughts of selling it as its the only lens I own now with my M9! Imagine that. I can keep it, and not be able to add another lens for 6-9 months, or I can sell it, buy a 50 ASPH and a nice gift for my wife (or a used 28 cron, ha ha)

 

I think I decided to hang onto it and shoot it more at F1.4 and F2 as my copy is pin sharp at those apertures. Here is one from tonight at F1 and ISO 800 of my son working on a school project. You gotta love that Nocti look

 

 

Yanidel, that 60 you have is also a sweet lens.

 

Thanks

 

Steve

[SteveYork]

I agree, and we all have individual standards when it comes to how much the difference from Summi to Nocti is worth. No one can judge how this equation works for someone else. Just because it might not make sense for me does NOT mean it's not worth the upcharge for someone else.

 

Yes, but each and everyone of us has lived through LAS ("Leica Acquisition Syndrome").

[SteveYork]

I might as well throw in my $0.02. I use a Noctilux 0.95, paid $10,000 for it and feel it is worth every penny (btw, next year it will probably be worth $11,000, a better investment than the stock market). There is no way I could have captured many of my favorite photos without this lens; the 1 stop does make a significant difference in the final print. Yes, the bokeh at f/0.95 does set photos apart from f/1.4, not to mention the ability to capture subjects in dark lighting conditions (save the "just up the ISO" argument - it's not the same and allows for a faster shutter speed).

 

Even if you own a Lux 1.4 I would still highly consider the additional purchase the Nocti 0.95. If you are sore about high Leica prices, then I suggest selling your lenses and invest in the lower priced DSLR competitors and save all of your poor excuses. If you have trouble focusing one, go have your eyes examined.

 

Also, Doug_M is a very fine portrait photographer - I've seen some of his work and it's great stuff. Realize that web sent/viewed photos doesn't do justice to the original. If you don't know this by now, you really have no business owning a Leica.

 

Yes, yes, if you are into different bokeh and depth of field you may be able to justify it. And if you actually use it then you can justify it even more. But the collective experience of it from film users is that after the novelty wears off it sits on the shelf.

 

And the mtf graph of the new noctilux at f/1 blows. It must be better stopped down. Which brings me to one of my points: Why use it if you're not going to shoot at f/1? Slinging around a Summilus ASPH should be enough status for the ego maniacs.

 

Own both -- have you ever heard of Leica Acquisition Syndrome. You sound like a fondler when you talk like that. That's absolutely no reason to own both. Don't kid yourself.

 

As far as your comment about us "poor boys" and excuses -- it's unbecoming.

[massimom]

I frankly would find it a little hard to justify 10K on the .95 and owning the f1 I don't see the need. What I do like about the f1 is the classic look and its imperfections. That softness, veil, glow is what makes that lens special and from the .95 shots I have seen, that lens seems a little too...perfect? Also, let's face it, one is spending $6-10K here for shooting wide open, as the performance past f2 is as good or worse than a Lux or Cron so that makes it harder to digest. Then again, if money was no object I'd buy every Leica lens..

 

This was shot with little light available and hand held @ f1

 

[Bo_Lorentzen]

massimom, lovely shot.

 

yeah 10.000 is a little steep for shallow dof portraits, but Im thinking the f.1 will stay a favorite for years with all M users.

 

.

[Googaliser]

A spontaneous shot with the 0.95 - cropped, no other adjustments.

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!

[Googaliser]

I must say this is the most magical lens I have ever had the pleasure to own. I love the 50 'lux, but the way the Nocti draws is actually very different. Its got nothing to do with an extra stop here or there - its something I cannot describe. My wife is a camera novice but even she agreed without any prompting that there is a quality that words or stats can't sum-up. I have shot a couple of thousand frames over the last couple of weeks. The split has been roughly 50% 35mm 'cron, 30% Nocti, 15% 90mm cron, 5% 50mm Lux. The Nocti sitting on the shelf gathering dust ? Hell no, its on the M9 every evening.

 

In terms of hit-ratio - I have absolutely no trouble with focussing. I do use a 1.4x magnifier though on 50mm and longer (perhaps my eyes aren't that great). I would say my keeper rate is 90%. In fact some of my favourite images are slightly out of focus - but the way they are rendered is so smooth - that it actually doesn't trouble me the way it would with other fast lenses.

 

Its ghastly expensive and it wont make you a better photographer, but if available light and *sharp* super shallow DOF are things you get excited about - its the lens to own.

A 'lux gets you most of the way. But then, so does a Nikon D3.

The 0.95 is a no compromise lens with a price tag to match. I just wish it was 1/4 of the price tag so photographers who are infinitely more talented than I am could make the best use of this lens for all to see.

 

Coming back to my opening comments in this thread... For me - the ends justify the means - this is my all time favourite lens and has rendered some photos that for me personally are magical and could never be repeated since they are of my growing family.

 

I would like to wish you all the the very best for the holiday season and the new year ahead.

 

Greetings from Australia,

Googaliser

[doug_m]

I have noticed the same thing as Googaliser. It seems like the Nocti 0.95 slightly out of focus areas and the areas just beyond the just out of focus zone have a quality/rendering unlike any other lens I have used.

Maybe its the two ASPH elements.

[KM-25]

I just wish it was 1/4 of the price tag so photographers who are infinitely more talented than I am could make the best use of this lens for all to see.

 

A *very* nice thing to say, I certainly wish I could put the .95 in front of some of the Kodachrome 25 I have left, but the request I put in to Leica to borrow and showcase the lens on a chapter of portraits in "Kodachrome at 75" went unanswered, no surprise since it is not digital. My 50 1.4 aspheric will have to do..:-)

 

But again, thanks for putting it how you did, certainly much better than others have. Not all of us are loaded with capitol at the moment, including many of my clients.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[KM-25]

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 know, my mood often dictates the scribble. I have been using digital for so long now though,16 years. When I was first using it, I was helping AP try to figure out how to not always get nuclear explosion flash shots with the NC2000, for a few years the light always had to be diffused, never direct. But in any case, the hype and gear-bating now days is what pisses me off about this craft anymore, at least in the digital realm. So I do my own thing and it works, thankfully, clients pay for it.

 

Who would not like to try a nocti on certain shoots? I want to but I can't, not even the 1.0 at this point, I am going to have very little if any income over the next year because of my project, so I have to hunker down, fiscally speaking.

 

But that's OK, because if you look at what DAH, Allard, Webb and many other really great Leica shooters have done with Leica glass even decades ago, it still fully eclipses what is being done now by most. So if I can't make it happen with a 28, 35 and 50 Leica aspheric, I have bigger problems than worrying about having a Nocti at my disposal.

 

But really, my world and work is less and less digital and it feels DAMN good man!

[KM-25]

I think I decided to hang onto it and shoot it more at F1.4 and F2 as my copy is pin sharp at those apertures. Here is one from tonight at F1 and ISO 800 of my son working on a school project. You gotta love that Nocti look

 

That looks great to me Steve, maybe in a year or two, I will get a 1.0 and not even concern my self with the .95.