Convince me I need a Noctilux.......

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Whilst I concede the current 50/0.95 is a miracle of optical engineering and I can think of many excuses for why I really must get one........ I am a bit concerned about the 'real world' performance of this lens...... particularly at 0.95.... which as far as I can see is the only reason to get it....

 

I escaped buying one of these before xmas when Leica Mayfair offered me one (in a mad fit of generosity solms had sent them 3) ...... and asked to think about it .... the next day they phoned for a quick decision as a gentleman from california was in the store and wanted it .... which, after some dithering, I generously donated to him ...... he subsequently left with an M9 Titanium and all the lenses they had available (£40k) ..... and did the same again for a second M9 Titanium and more lenses (£40k) in the new year (and he wasn't interested in getting the 20% vat back....). Must look like Rambo when fully tooled up with Leica gear.......

 

Being slightly more continent in my financial affairs I returned to try one again before I had another phone call tempting me to buy one........ this was a dull overcast london day.... first shot is at 0.95 and the second at 2.8 taken through the shop window. I was already aware of the fringing issue but surprised at how easy it was to cause it and the impact. It was noticeable on interior shots too with basically anything in frame that was white.

 

I know from several threads that several buyers have returned lenses as they have found this unacceptable. Just how big a problem is this in everyday use and does it vary between lenses and M9's ????

 

I think this is one piece of Leica extravagance I will pass on..... unless someone can convince me otherwise.....

 

ps. the car was Lord Youngs..... he was in collecting his repaired M9 which had a shutter fault. Nice chap. You do tend to meet a better class of people in Leica stores.....

 

 

The only reason you would need a Noctilux, of whatever description, 1.2, 1.0 or 0.95, is, that you umm...need it. So the thing to do is to analyze your photography and ask yourself: Would I get better photographs with one of these lenses? Would I get the effect I am striving for by using another lens? Would I see any difference in print? Do I have the technique to use the Noctilux (othrewise it would make my images worse)? etc. For myself, the answers to these questions convinced my that a Summilux asph was more than enough for me and that I do not need a Noctilux. So I didn't get one.

Of course if the motivation is bragging rights ( which I would not think would apply in your case) the answer is far more simple.

[earleygallery]

Another interesting plug in…Alien Skin Bokeh 2 | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

Digital is great, you don't need to buy expensive glass, just a plug-in.

[jaapv]

Thanks, James. That piece by Steve, especially the examples he posts, gives us all the reasons we need to use lenses to create bokeh instead of computers.

[neli]

Thanks, James. That piece by Steve, especially the examples he posts, gives us all the reasons we need to use lenses to create bokeh instead of computers.

 

+1

 

Also, out taking pictures, or, in clicking mice/pads/balls/gizmo.

[earleygallery]

Actually I jest.

 

One thing that really irritates me is when I'm told/read that there's no point in using film now, because you just use a plug-in or whatever to replicate the look you want.

 

IT'S NOT THE SAME!!

 

So, if anyone really believes that, why waste money on fancy lenses too?!

[k-hawinkler]

James,

 

This reminds me of putting a humidifier and dehumidifier in the same (computer) room and let 'em slug it out.

 

Cheers, K-H.

[bybrett]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks, James. That piece by Steve, especially the examples he posts, gives us all the reasons we need to use lenses to create bokeh instead of computers.

 

Yes thanks James that is one scary plug in.

[jaapv]

I think this one will go the way of the "polarizer digital filter" plugin that B&W introduced with much fanfare some years ago - oblivion.

[thighslapper]

The only reason you would need a Noctilux, of whatever description, 1.2, 1.0 or 0.95, is, that you umm...need it.

Of course if the motivation is bragging rights ( which I would not think would apply in your case) the answer is far more simple.

 

Quite the reverse...... my concern would be the embarrassment of spending a huge amount of money on a lens that I couldn't/didn't use.......

 

The main temptation is the resale value which would allow me to try it and see..... and potentially sell it on to another deluded Leica afficionado at minimal loss if it proves to be a mistake.....

 

Not a very good excuse, I know, but I am very curious about the way this lens functions and the images it can produce.....

[Xmas]

Hi

 

Sadly there is no cure for GAS available today.

 

But at /5.6 and smaller a slower lens will have less risk of veiling flare... If you take a lot of shots with your lenses wide open then you need it..., otherwise you just want it

 

Noel

[richfx]

After shooting with the new 50 Summilux ASPH for a year, I got the urge for a faster 50mm lens. I bought a new CV 50mm Nokton 1.1 and have been very pleasantly surprised / impressed with its build quality, IQ and overall performance. I think I got a good one, as CV sample variance is well known. The Nokton 1.1 is a tad faster than my 50mm Lux ASPH. Different otherwise, of course, but the Nokton is absolutely no slouch and represents remarkable value. I then thought I'd take things a step further and tried a Nocti 1.0 (which I returned because it was not in the condition advertised). For me, the six fold increase of the Nocti 1.0 over the CV Nokton 1.1 and two-fold increase over the 50 Lux ASPH (plus its excessive weight and size) was simply not justified. I'm now totally content with my 50 Lux ASPH and 50 Nokton 1.1, but treading into Nocti land was a worthwhile exercise, as my questions and yearnings were fully answered.

Rich

[Mikep996]

"Today it seems to be a phase that you have to go through"

 

There you go. As I said earlier, it was fantastic for a couple of months and then I never used it. I totally agree that if you have developed some sort of "art" involving the use of a Noct and that is the signature you want, then it's worth it. But it's primary purpose - low light - is not really necessary when shooting digital.

 

Certainly it's a cool lens and I wouldn't mind still having mine just to say "I have a noctilux" but I wouldn't carry it around now, just as I quit carrying it around back then.

[Mauribix]

Sorry, with the risk of being pushed down, I can just say some things:

 

-You need a nocti if you want "that" signature. (being it F/1 or F/0.95). No matter what they say. The Nocti is a beast, sometimes hard to handle.

 

-You can handle a nocti if you can use it stopped down too, because you "understand" the nocti.

 

-People uses the nocti only when it's dark because they ignore the fact that the nocti (I'm referring to the F/1.0) is probably the best lens when it's up to handle THE light. Any kind of light, not just the "available" light. Try a shot against the light with the nocti, and you'll know what I mean.

 

-People complains about the shallow depth of field of the nocti, but as a matter of fact, you hardly see someone complaining about the 90cron, 75lux or 75cron. Those will give'em even shallower depth of field.

 

 

in the end:

 

-People complains about the nocti because they don't understand the nocti.

 

then you may like it or not, but that's always been neglected by the most when it was up to the nocti.

 

just my 2cents

[edmond_terakopian]

Nicely summed up!