akiralx Posted March 16, 2011 Share #21 Posted March 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Seems to me the mysteries surrounding this lens may well exceed its uses. I am guessing that at least half of the people who buy this lens don't end of using it for very long, then turn around and sell it. There are a few posts above this that reflect this fact, as well as the weekly "should I spring for the Nocti" threads. 1.4 has been fast enough for many many top notch shooters. Let your conscience be your guide. Or shoot with the 1.4 for a year and ask yourself how many times that little bit of extra speed would have "made" a shot. As far as the super shallow DOF, that can open a can of worms. I agree - the stupidest thing I ever did was to trade my 50 Summilux-ASPH + cash for a Noctilux f/1.0, which was sold a few months later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Hi akiralx, Take a look here Is noctilux f0.95 worth the jump?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
markgay Posted March 16, 2011 Share #22 Posted March 16, 2011 Q: "Is noctilux f0.95 worth the jump?" A: "No, I wouldn't jump with it. It's fast but not that fast." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 16, 2011 Share #23 Posted March 16, 2011 I don't have a Noctilux, and I have no desire for one (he says bravely). Actually, I've never seen one, let alone mounted one on my camera. I already have a 50 lux (like you), and I don't take enough pictures to start doubling up focal lengths - that seems daft to me. Also, while many images taken with the Noct look fantastic, some I find just plain weird. Conversely, the 1.4 Lux is magical, as is my 35 Cron, but in a different way. I would never part with either of these lenses. So, if I had the selection of focal lengths you do (I almost do - you have a 90 where I have a 75/2), I'd add a super-wide. One of my favourite lenses was a Nikkor 17-35 ED zoom. It wasn't that fast, but at 17 mm, it gave very pleasing results. So when I started looking at wides, I considered the 28/2 (highly recommended, but too close to the 35), the 24/1.4, the 21/1.4 and the 18. I also thought briefly about a WATE. I liked the idea that I could get away without a viewfinder with the 24/1.4, but I still felt it was too close to the 35 for what I wanted. I got the 21/1.4, and I'm very happy with it. So when I make lens decisions (ie, what to take out for a walk), the 75 goes only if I want to get very close to something, I almost always take the 50 & the 35 (they are very different), and the 21/1.4 is an easy choice if I'm looking for drama with close subjects and an interesting background. Usually, the 50/1.4 lives on my M9, and the 35/2 on my MP. There's no space in my life for a Noct, even if I had the money. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richfx Posted March 17, 2011 Share #24 Posted March 17, 2011 Here is another one... That is a terrific shot. Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastgreenlander Posted March 17, 2011 Share #25 Posted March 17, 2011 I love this lens. Here's a image from last weekend: Leica MP. Noct 0.95 wide open Neopan 1600 @ 1200. No PP except spot removal 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! I also have the 50 summilux asph. What a pointless discussion. I would not claim that one is better than the other, they are just different lenses. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! I also have the 50 summilux asph. What a pointless discussion. I would not claim that one is better than the other, they are just different lenses. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/146459-is-noctilux-f095-worth-the-jump/?do=findComment&comment=1617574'>More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted March 17, 2011 Share #26 Posted March 17, 2011 Per , thanks for posting the Noctiulux 50 .95 with film. It's the first shot in film I have seen with this lens. I would love to see more. Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrekeli Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share #27 Posted March 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks everybody, first of all, for the comments and advices. I didn't know there already exists similar posts. I did a search but the resulting topics didn't really answer my questions. Thus, the re-post. I really appreciate it. Love this forum! I was lured into the nocti after seeing its pics by Ashwin Rao and Steve Huff. It's mind-boggling and challenging if I can do it here in Indonesia. It's one of the reasons I get into Leica-land in the first place. I love its color, the thin dof, the 3D pop and the bokeh quality. The object-background separation is absolutely wonderful. I think I have/will never see such pics coming from non-Leica systems. I think/hope it can give more excitement to my photography. However, I am being extra extra extra careful due to its high price. 50lux asph is enough for most of the time but I am just wondering if I can step my photography up a bit. So my question in my mind: Should I step it up by going wider aperture (the nocti) or wider angle (the 21lux)? @John Buckley: love your nocti pics in zenfolio. Quick question, though, I saw in their exif data, most of them were taken at f3.4-4 with the widest you went is probably f1.2. Granted those are daytime pics mostly but even the night shots were taken at 1.2 (if I am not mistaken). May I ask why you didn't even go to 0.95? Is it because of its ultrathin dof? Or, it's the LR inaccuracy in recording the exif data? thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrekeli Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share #28 Posted March 17, 2011 Here is another one... this is exactly the WHY... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 17, 2011 Share #29 Posted March 17, 2011 Here is another one ...This is exactly the WHY ... Nice image indeed—but if it was taken with a Summilux-M 50 mm 1:1.4 Asph at full aperture, it would hardly look any different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted March 17, 2011 Share #30 Posted March 17, 2011 Hi Andre My questions are: 1. Is the 0.95 aperture really that much different from F1.4? Is it worth the jump? you get a stop on axis, the corners are darker, simpler to turn up the ISO... 2. I heard from a reliable source that it's better to wait for a new version of the noct as Leica is redesigning the lens to tackle some of its problems (e.g. excessive CA at wide open). Leica says to buy the version from July onwards. Interesting, normaly only happens if a glass type is no longer available... 3. Is it better to get the nocti F1 instead? If yes, which version should I get? The optical performance of the options are /0.95, (CV) /1.1, /1.2, f/1, but that is opine rather than objective... The f/1 with the detachable hood might survive an accident drop. 4. Should I get the 21lux asph or the 35luxII, instead, to add another focal length? I already have the 90 elmarit for my tele. A wide angle complete my set. I figured 35lux is a bit too close to 50lux... am i right in thinking this way? 21mm are real hard to use other than for buildings and sceanery, if you shoot people, 24 or 28 easier to get a 'result'... In the past Leica lenses held their price better than other lenses, but that may not be as true today. The fast lenses you are looking at may not work as well on a M9 or M8, when you use a UV/IR filter. They are large and heavy as well as expensive, I'd suggest the photos with your f/2.5 will be better quality than your asph shots. My friends borrow my single coated (SC) lenses on shoots for their more pastel signatures. I only carry the SC lenses on sunny days... For a long time HCB fav lens was a 5cm collapsible cron,... an antique today that some people on this thread would not spit on,... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted March 17, 2011 Share #31 Posted March 17, 2011 the 50 lux asph makes everything look good, everything. To get anything better you are going to have to think about your photography. I don't think a 50 noct asph is going to change that. Personally I think 35mm is not too close to 50mm but you have the 35 summarit so you can tell for yourself. I totally agree with Marty, I also have both, 35 and 50 Lux Aspherical and I don't think you can have something better than that, Nocti or not Nocti. The 50 lux is close enough to the Noctilux and on the other side is much more versatile for any other kind of need, just as the 35 is (35 is a totally different lens from the 50 IMO). The Noctilux is worth a couple picture in a lifetime, I would never spend all that money for a lens that would probably bore me in a very short time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 17, 2011 Share #32 Posted March 17, 2011 In the past Leica lenses held their price better than other lenses, but that may not be as true today. Any evidence? As far as I can see prices of used M lenses haveskyrocketed the last few years.The fast lenses you are looking at may not work as well on a M9 or M8, when you use a UV/IR filter. :confused:This is a most puzzling remark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 17, 2011 Share #33 Posted March 17, 2011 There seem to be more and more of these 'shall I buy this or that lens/camera/bag*' etc threads recently - or am I mistaken? I don't really mind them - and I'm a firm believer of ignoring a thread if I think it's uninteresting rather than lecturing someone about what they should or shouldn't do - but to be honest, how can anyone draw any real conclusions about spending approx $10,000 on a lens from the random and partisan advice that you're bound to get here. I'd say, look at images, get hold of old LFI magazines, search on flickr, examine your own interests, and so on. No-one here can really help in any real way imho. *PS: i can understand the bag quest incidentally - at least in that case there are real and tangible questions that can be asked and answered - is a bag too big/too small, strong or weak etc. But the aesthetics of a lens, and the way it renders? How can anyone decide whether it's worth it for someone else? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 17, 2011 Share #34 Posted March 17, 2011 Any evidence? As far as I can see prices of used M lenses haveskyrocketed the last few years. They have but all bubbles burst at some point. Leica lenses, tulips - all pretty worthless when push comes to shove. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 17, 2011 Share #35 Posted March 17, 2011 So now we have to decide whether this is a bubble or a realistic pricepoint. Anybody around here with a crystal ball? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 17, 2011 Share #36 Posted March 17, 2011 Why don't you just order it, wait 6 months for delivery, take a few shots and if you don't like it sell it for a few dollars more because you have it in stock Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted March 17, 2011 Share #37 Posted March 17, 2011 Any evidence? As far as I can see prices of used M lenses haveskyrocketed the last few years. Agreed however the 2nd hand CV prices have been tracking the Yen or better, and that is unexpected, some discontinued are achieveing collector style status by shooters? This may be a function of unavailability of leica lenses? :confused:This is a most puzzling remark. Any UV/IR filters tend to misbehave, more with wide angle and wide aperture lenses. e.g. unacceptable flare with 5cm cron and low sun. though (and OP's) YMMV. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephan_w Posted March 17, 2011 Share #38 Posted March 17, 2011 beside it's a matter of taste, just my two cents: 1. Is the 0.95 aperture really that much different from F1.4? Is it worth the jump? I notice that F0.95 pics at times may take the subject "out of context" with a high object-background separation. First answer: As 0,95 is just for extreme cases, 1.2 is usable, but there is only a tiny difference to 1,4 Second answer: A matter of taste, you like it or not 2. I heard from a reliable source that it's better to wait for a new version of the noct as Leica is redesigning the lens to tackle some of its problems (e.g. excessive CA at wide open). Leica says to buy the version from July onwards. I would be VERY surprised if there will be any change in the lens design of this exceptional and rare lens in the next decade. 3. Is it better to get the nocti F1 instead? If yes, which version should I get? The F1 is an alternative only when you do not need to make portratis. It is much less performant at close distances than the new 0,95 4. Should I get the 21lux asph or the 35luxII, instead, to add another focal length? I already have the 90 elmarit for my tele. A wide angle complete my set. I figured 35lux is a bit too close to 50lux... am i right in thinking this way? That's a totally different question. If you want to spend some money on some glass and don't know what to buy, just buy something or donate your money :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 17, 2011 Share #39 Posted March 17, 2011 Any UV/IR filters tend to misbehave, more with wide angle and wide aperture lenses. e.g. unacceptable flare with 5cm cron and low sun. though (and OP's) YMMV. Noel Well, I would agree in principle, but given the large number of "protective filter" users that we see, that does not seem to be an objection. Personally I never saw excessive flare with UV/IR filters, the main problem being green reflections of specular highlights, which is not linked to focal length. So I would suggest that "tend" is overstating the case,"might" would be a beter word. For the M9, of course, simply remove the filter if there is danger of flare. I'm still lost regarding this link between WA lenses and lens quality on digital.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 17, 2011 Share #40 Posted March 17, 2011 Hi all, I am facing a sort of "dilemma" here... I am looking into the noctilux F0.95. However, given its high price, I have several nagging questions over my head before I make the decision next week (when the lens arrives). I am a newbie in Leica-land and I am loving every minute of it. My current system includes M9 and 50 lux asph as my main lens. In addition I also have the 35 summarit and 90 elmarit. My questions are: 1. Is the 0.95 aperture really that much different from F1.4? Is it worth the jump? I notice that F0.95 pics at times may take the subject "out of context" with a high object-background separation. In terms of aperture the difference is obvious (1 stop+); in terms of "separation"... we have seen, in the forum, several examples of this specific behavior (with 0,95 and 1,0)... imho, in the right hands, this is its most intriguiung feature; personally, I'll never justify, for me, such an expense... If one day I'll feel the will to experience the emotion of such apertures, I'll play with a (2nd hand) CV 1,1... 2. I heard from a reliable source that it's better to wait for a new version of the noct as Leica is redesigning the lens to tackle some of its problems (e.g. excessive CA at wide open). Leica says to buy the version from July onwards. Sounds strange to me, and I think it's very uneven they change something in the design... about glass formulas, maybe... or coating... 3. Is it better to get the nocti F1 instead? If yes, which version should I get? Well, costs are high but of course not at the level of a new 0,95... let's say that if one is driven by the "I HAVE A NOCTILUX" frenzy is a very good alternative... I have overtaken this sentiment in 1989 when sold (stupidly) my Noctilux 1,2 after 1 year of usage. 4. Should I get the 21lux asph or the 35luxII, instead, to add another focal length? I already have the 90 elmarit for my tele. A wide angle complete my set. I figured 35lux is a bit too close to 50lux... am i right in thinking this way? You have a good 35, and 21 is the right complement... you could also think of the 2,8 asph, which maybe is phasing out... is an excellent lens and surely, if production stops, a good investiment... Any opinions and comments from anybody with more experience than me would be highly appreciated.. Thank you much in advance. Cheers, Andre - Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.