0.95 or 1.4 50mm, or both?

[Eastgreenlander]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Per,

 

I'm a fan of the Nocti 0.95 as well but please tell us what you mean when you speak of "its ability to isolate a subject after 8 meters with an mazing look."

 

Thanks.

 

PS. I do think the Nocti may beat the 50 lux when stopped down to f4-f5.6. Maybe it has to do with all of that precious glass.

 

 

This kid is standing 8-10 meters away from me and still he and the rope is in focus, I have isolated him from the back ground. The lux 50 will not do this, that evident. Stopped down to f4-5.6 they don't have any noticeable difference between the lenses.

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[tomasis7]

If you can afford it, buy both. The 50 lux ASPH focuses to 0.7 M whereas the Nocti only goes to 1M. This can be a big deal.

 

The lux is easier to focus and relatively tiny.

 

The 0.95 Noct is a dream lens however.

 

14 000 $

 

a car?

[tdtaylor]

The old man from the Age of Practical Cats

 

Okay, Lars, you finally lost me. Age of Practical Cats?

 

Thanks,

[mustafasoleiman]

Why not consider the CV Nokton 50 1.1?

For a tenth of the price you can add a similar look and feel of the Noctilux to the better quality of the Summilux and play around with both.

 

If you then decide that you actually love the big bad boy, you can sell the Nokton, loosing like $300, and spend the serious money required for the Noctilux, knowing that it is a good choice.

 

If this works out you can send me 2cents...

[tgray]

I think it's a silly idea, but a 50/0.95 is a huge fraction of my yearly salary. A 50/1.4 ASPH is a significant portion too, but one I can actually manage and pretend to justify. The 50 ASPH is fast enough for most situations. And if you had a Noctilux, when would you ever take out the 50/1.4? Why not pair it with a much cheaper and smaller 50?

 

If on the other hand you make enough money that spending $14k (on top of $7k for the M9) is something you can go splurge on without it affecting you financially at all, then sure, why not go buy both?

[ianspector]

For me I love the M system for allowing me to shoot in a minimalist way with small weight and little bulk. I love my f/1 Noct and its magic is never far away when it is mounted. I find, however, that when I travel I never leave it at home but that I also pack my little jewel like optic, the 50mm Summicron. During the day the 50mm Cron is mounted on one body and the 35 or 28mm Cron an another. At night or for a special project I will just take the Noct and one body. Thus I have one tool that serves all my low light, ultra shallow depth of field needs, and for all other stuff I use Crons. I just don't see this as a compromise. I fell into the trap of believing that the 1.4s are a better buy for that extra stop and ordered the 50 lux and the 35 Lux. After shooting constantly with the Noct I realised that so much of the Noct magic is in the Cron designs and they are so tiny, so easy to use and much lower cost.

 

Of course if you are only gong to have one then there is a lot of logic in going just for the 1.4. For the money I am delighted with my f/1 and f/2.

 

Ian

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the old and new Notiluxes, the pre-ASPH and ASPH Summilux, the Summicron and the Elmar and my favourite is the Elmar for its compact dimensions. After that, it's the Summilux ASPH. The Noctiluxes are of course interesting lenses but as other have said, M photography is not about using such a massive lens all the time. So, in answer to your question, if you are only going to have one 50, get the 50mm ASPH Summilux.

[wparsonsgisnet]

What he said.

 

I owned and used the Nocti' f1.0 for about 6 or 8 years. It was my standard workhorse for theater photography.

 

Somehow I managed to work with the narrow DOF. In the end, I decided I didn't like the way the lens drew the image (thank you Sean Reid) and got rid of it.

 

The only shortcoming to getting rid of that lens is that I sold it when Leica lenses had dropped in value. I wish I had it to sell today (and also a bowl of ice cream, please).

 

I prefer the "drawing" of the 50 'lux-a as well as the colorations of the lens. I found the Nocti' to cold and harsh for me.

 

As for the price of the car -- those things depreciate too fast for me.

[neli]

14 000 $

 

a car?

 

well, you can't take pictures with a car, nor mount M lenses I think.

[tomasis7]

well, you can't take pictures with a car, nor mount M lenses I think.

 

buy a car for 13k, add nokton 1,1 to old film LEica M and drive around in countries..

 

or buy car for 1k, nokton and 12k for films for the whole life

 

lots of options. maybe buy ring 14k for wife

[Wiggi]

The new Nocti 50/0.95 has such a high quality when you use it with f/1.4, f/2 and so on. So you don't need the Summilux also.

 

When you need a second lens, which is not so fast, but on the other side very light, why not the Summarit 50/2.5.

[ShotCapture]

Thanks again for all the comments!

This photo helps me understand the differences in the 1.4 & 0.95.

This kid is standing 8-10 meters away from me and still he and the rope is in focus, I have isolated him from the back ground. The lux 50 will not do this, that evident. Stopped down to f4-5.6 they don't have any noticeable difference between the lenses.

[ATTACH]228115[/ATTACH]

As I think about it, and have looked at many many photos on flickr tagged leica 50mm 0.95 noctilux and 1.4 summilux, I see a very few that show a clear quality difference. There are some outstanding 0.95 photos and some outstanding 1.4 photos. For the most part maybe the difference is not worth the bulk & weight of the 0.95? However I am just switching from a 1DsII 24-70 weighing 5 1/2 lbs, and with my 70-200 7 lbs. So the 0.95 is TINY with the M9. (Though I am switching in part because of the weight differences, {and the quality and type of photos that I long to get back to}).

Anyone have photo examples of 1.4 & 0.95 of the same subject, direct comparisons? Or links to some. I've seen one of a liquor bottle and glass, where the look was very close between examples.

[SJP]

14 000 $

 

a car?

Every time I replace the tyres on my (~ 13 years old) car its value doubles, roughly equivalent to a Leica lens cap.

 

Maybe I need an upgrade (of the car). Maybe I will stick to the idea that keeping a car on the road untill it self destructs is better for the environment/mineral resources/sustainabilty etc. Maybe I have other more urgent things to deal with.

 

A Noctilux is expensive but not too bad in terns of keeping (or increasing) its value. I am not sure yet as the 1m vs. 0.7m minimal focus is a point of concern.

[rstrathman]

Thanks again for all the comments!

This photo helps me understand the differences in the 1.4 & 0.95.

 

As I think about it, and have looked at many many photos on flickr tagged leica 50mm 0.95 noctilux and 1.4 summilux, I see a very few that show a clear quality difference. There are some outstanding 0.95 photos and some outstanding 1.4 photos. For the most part maybe the difference is not worth the bulk & weight of the 0.95? However I am just switching from a 1DsII 24-70 weighing 5 1/2 lbs, and with my 70-200 7 lbs. So the 0.95 is TINY with the M9. (Though I am switching in part because of the weight differences, {and the quality and type of photos that I long to get back to}).

Anyone have photo examples of 1.4 & 0.95 of the same subject, direct comparisons? Or links to some. I've seen one of a liquor bottle and glass, where the look was very close between examples.

 

If you get a chance look at ashwinrao shots with .95 of new York streets on dpr. I'd post link to other forums but don't know if that's ok here.

[mwilliamsphotography]

I have the 0.95. After getting it I never used the 1.4 ASPH very much, so I sold it. I Thought about getting 50/2 for size/portability ... well see.

 

The 0.95 basically IS a 50/1.4 ASPH when shot at f/1.4 and above ... at 0.95 to 1.4 it stands alone in light gathering power, subject isolation, and IQ.

 

However, it's a LOT of money to tie up in one lens. If business doesn't pick up real soon it may have to go on the sacrificial alter : -(

 

-Marc

[SteveYork]

Both? When I got into Leicas in the 1990's no one wanted the Noctilux. Or not many. They were big, heavy, and only one extra stop of speed.

 

I would only get a Noctilux if you really need the special properties of a f/1 lens (e.g., shallow depth of field, coma, ect.).

 

My Leica stuff has done a good job in appreciated in value, but I'm not sure any of this will continue. In less then a decade, prices have jacked up almost 100%. Really, $12k for a lens?

 

If I ever had to purchase new lenses, I would look to Voightlander or Zeiss. Have you considered the Voigtlander f/1.1 -- it has gotten very good reviews.

 

I love the pictures with the Noctilux, but it seems like a specialty lens. And I do have the 50mm Summilux ASPH. Had one since it came out in '05.

 

And if truth be told, I would probably be just has happy with the older model.

[epand56]

I do own the Summilux ASPH, and I have tried the Nocti 0.95. No way I would lug that unwieldy monster around. If you want big and clumsy gear, buy a Canon DSLR. A Leica M exists because it is small and agile and not scary.

 

If you must absolutely have the current Nocti, go buy a 50mm Summarit-M for when you would normally use a 50mm lens. But the Summilux is still the best all-round 50mm lens there is. Its image quality is stupendous. Wide open, its d.o.f. is shallow enough to count. To me, the only alternative to the Summilux is the 35mm Summilux ASPH (v.2) -- which I also own.

 

The old man from the Age of Practical Cats

 

Plus 1 but I do not yet really know what I like most between the 50 and 35 Lux asph.

[brill64]

nice to have both but for the weight, you will choose the 1.4 summilux over the 0.95 noctilux, especially when traveling. although the bokeh is desirable, there are only so many exposures you can practically make with the 0.95 before repeating yourself again and again. if it was a question of cost, i would buy the 1.4 first or consider the f2.0 summicron which is a lovely lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ShotCapture]

If you get a chance look at ashwinrao shots with .95 of new York streets on dpr. I'd post link to other forums but don't know if that's ok here.

just as I begin to decide to have the 1.4 only, I take your suggestion and find those and many more of his using the 0.96........ (just google his name).

But still, it is so hard not seeing the same shots side by side taken with both the 1.4 and the 0.95. Hard to tell which I like the most. I lean toward the 1.4 only. I'm having a wonderful time with my new 1.4. No art yet, but fun. So one part is decided. Yes to the summilux-m 50mm 1.4 ASPH. Now is it yes to the 0.95 also? Probably not.

[shootinglulu]

If i could afford both lenses i would have and use both because i LOVE the 50mm focal length. Do you love that focal length?

I have the 50mm Lux asph, it is easy to love this lens. If i was in your situation i would find it a difficult choice but the Lux is a dream, easy to carry around and use and so i would probably start with the Lux. I will never sell this lens i am sure.

Ashwin's NY pictures are dangerous!, I really lusted after his lens when i saw them..i would LOVE both.

Good luck:confused: