Jump to content

Noctilux: Why do you love it, or why not?


tom in mpls

Recommended Posts

I love the Noctilux because I think its colors are nicer and more realistic than those of the Summilux. Below are two photos, the first of them taken with the Noctilux, the second taken with the Summilux. White Balance is identical.

 

 

Which look do you prefer?

 

I like the one where the subject is OK with her picture being taken-the second-the lens come does come into the equation for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the monster for 10 plus years; I used it occasionally, mostly in the South of France where it excelled, but never in the UK much. It was heavy, and difficult to nail the focus. I didn't regret it when I sold it, and still don't. Unless you have specific usage for this lens, then it is not worth the outlay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue I have with all of the Noctilux lenses (I've owned and used both the last f/1.0 version, and the current f/0.95 version) is the minimum focus distance of 1m. I find it quite limiting, at least for my type of shooting.

 

Perhaps the new SLR Magic lens will be worth considering. IMHO the minimum focus distance of this lens is the best thing about it.

 

On a pleasant note, I've been quite surprised by the new Leica 35/1.4 FLE.. it's incredible (and much smaller to carry) and... focuses down to 0.7 m!

 

Peter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue I have with all of the Noctilux lenses (I've owned and used both the last f/1.0 version, and the current f/0.95 version) is the minimum focus distance of 1m. I find it quite limiting, at least for my type of shooting.

 

Perhaps the new SLR Magic lens will be worth considering. IMHO the minimum focus distance of this lens is the best thing about it.

 

On a pleasant note, I've been quite surprised by the new Leica 35/1.4 FLE.. it's incredible (and much smaller to carry) and... focuses down to 0.7 m!

 

Peter.

 

So the image size between the two are close enough to make little difference. No?

35/50 == ? :)

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The biggest issue I have with all of the Noctilux lenses (I've owned and used both the last f/1.0 version, and the current f/0.95 version) is the minimum focus distance of 1m. I find it quite limiting, at least for my type of shooting.

 

Perhaps the new SLR Magic lens will be worth considering. IMHO the minimum focus distance of this lens is the best thing about it.

 

There are f/0.95 70cm vs 1m comparison shots here:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/01/28/the-slr-magic-50-t0-95-in-the-studio-noctilux-vs-hyperprime/

 

Getting the zone of sharpness in just the right place on any animate object is going to be even more of a challenge at 70cm than 1m.

At these distances, even moving from the 35mm to the 50mm Summilux gives me to a significant fall in hit rate.

Edited by FrozenInTime
Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I'm using the Noctilux for portraits, but I had to remind myself why I do love this lens. This is a mediocre shot, granted - but by using the Nocti, it does take on an almost ethereal feel.

I was just about to sell this lens yesterday - had 2 buyers interested - 1 fell through and I decided to stay in the Nocti world for a bit longer.

 

M9, Noctilux @ 1.0

 

My God, man! Don't do it!! Have you gone mad?!?!?! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the noctilux, because I can separate the object from the background perfectly even with full body shoots.

 

Picture 1-9 taken at f.95 with ND8 grayfilter under bright conditions

 

For me, it isn´t difficult to use, I can focus better and more accurate with the nocti than with the Summilux because of its big size and smooth focus machanic. It´s not my choice for everyday, but it is perfect for full body isolation and low light situations. I like the special 3d look of the images at f0.95 The limited focus distance of 1m is no problem for my shooting style.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Loved the lens. Owned one once. Borrowed one once for a shoot. Was shooting a story on an adult child moving into a group home. Spent time with the family the last week they were together. For me it only works on non moving objects in very controlled situations or fixed objects. It's very heavy and to me that alone defeats the whole purpose of the M system. Really a one trick pony. But a very beautiful pony. I really like to shoot and go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread. I have/had been vacillating on whether or not to take the plunge and purchase a Noctilux. I knew/know that it is a lens that is virtually beyond comparison when it comes to the magic of low light, Leica photography. My only problem with the idea of owning one was size and weight of the thing. One day, while browsing used lenses in my favorite camera shop I noticed an example of the voigtlander 35mm 1.2 lens. It, too, is a large fast lens. I purchased it with the idea that it would give me a perfect opportunity to see if the size and weight of Noctilux would be justified by to magic of a super-fast lens. I would never claim that the VC lens compares to Noctilux, but it is a good lens. Use of it made it apparent, for me, the size and weight thing was something I did not want to deal with. I still have that 35 1.2, but use it on only very rare occasions.

Edited by Wayne
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have the Noctilux M 50/1.0 (#11822).  There is a saying - "never say never," so instead I will say this:  I cannot ever imagine myself letting this lens get away. 

 

I cannot speak for the capabilities or image quality of the 0.95 Noctilux ASPH, but the #11822 Noctilux is almost magical in the way it renders at f/1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For my 2 cents, I don't have or need a Noctilux. I seldom use the fastest apertures in my photography and I actually think that the very shallow DOF looks a little un-natural for my personal taste.

I have walked around shooting on the street for a day and spent a day in studio using the 0.95 and it behaved impeccably. Stopped down it just looked like my Summilux asph in any case. For me like the Summilux wides it is just bigger snd heavier than I like to carry and use with an M. Of course if you need/ like that maximum aperture then there is no substitute.

I would guess that I am a minority opinion in this!

Edited by hoppyman
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
  • 3 months later...

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!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad Leica gets bragging rights and income from the various versions of the Noctilux, but the reasons I don't love it are:

1) 50mm just is not my focal length, generally. Hasn't been since ~1980 (except for a brief period with a Summicron on the M8, as an effective "70mm").

2) 50mm with a minimum focus of 1m is really not my focal length - gotta be able to get at least "chin to forehead" framing for horizontal portraits.

3) Weight and size - not horrible, but I'd rather put my "bag weight budget" into carrying a 75, 90, or 135mm.

4) Cost - the only thing sillier than using a lens that is not right for me - is paying a 4/5-figure fee to use a lens that is not right for me. ;)

Too bad I won't be around in 2100 - it would be interesting to see how many Noctilux pictures have made it into the permanent human archive of "great photographs" by then. I suspect five fingers will be more than enough to count them. Could be wrong, of course.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...