Is noctilux f0.95 worth the jump?

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Jaapv

 

Well weasel words are weasel words, but on a low sun street photoshoot my companion was getting about 5-10% of his modern coded 5c cron shots with large iris images, they were sun colored. My earlier type IV cron has never irised imaged.

 

My J12 (35mm f/2.8 Zeiss Biogon clone) did not do as badly on film...

 

The IR filters perform less well with oblique rays. Wides especially large aperture wides stress test them more.

 

I accept you should or it would be better to remove the filter with a M8 or M9.

 

Noel

[akiralx]

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.

 

Just what I was thinking...

[Advertisement]

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

[SteveYork]

If you have to ask here - don't!

 

Exactly. When it comes to equipment, you'll know when you need or could really use something. If you have to ask, or if there is any internal struggle, then you probably don't want to go down that road.

[SteveYork]

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.

 

This was always the consensus among M users, until a few years ago when the popularity of the Noctilux took off.

[Jeff S]

until a few years ago when the popularity of the Noctilux took off.

 

Coincident with the onset of bokeh fever. One hopes a few aspirin will cure this malady. Enough with the background bubbles.

 

Plus, I think about 99+% of photos I see with this lens have distracting (uneven) focus on the subject (at least I assume the intended subject).

 

Any lens can work wonders in the right hands. Must be a lot of left-handed users out there.

 

Jeff

[plasticman]

I'm thinking people should be allowed to take whatever pictures they like.

 

I'm surprised HCB hasn't been thrown around a few times by the photo-snobs in this thread yet.

Come on, someone enlighten us what our beloved Henri would've said about the Nocti?

 

*Chr*st - I looked back and naturally HCB has already made his compulsory entry into every thread ever written on the forum.

Edited March 18, 2011 by plasticman

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Exactly. When it comes to equipment, you'll know when you need or could really use something. If you have to ask, or if there is any internal struggle, then you probably don't want to go down that road.

 

People who ask these questions are often just looking for fellow conspirators; they just need some help convincing 'the wife'.

 

.

[Jeff S]

HCB would have only cared about the pictures. The issue with lots of Noctilux users IMO, it seems, is that it's much about the lens and its wide open acrobatics, with the pictures being driven by that, not the other way around.

 

But, I agree, people should take whatever pictures they like.

 

Jeff

[JHAG]

Here is another one...

 

Clandrel example says it all, IMHO. Pure magic.

 

I'll try to add some itches to your itchings.

1. Noctilux (and in some extent, the more practical 75 Lux too) are Leica most poetic lenses. To me, it's not so much the extra stop, but the unique eerie glow these lenses do share (both Noct and 75). The 75 being more a "plastic" lens, really carving a subject from bokeh, both Noct seeming rather plunge it in soft relief tissues.

2. If you're a large shooter, don't bother. If you're a long shooter, you're in for trouble.

3. I, for myself, have long known 50 mm is my focal of choice (plus 75 mm). So in time I bought and used and loved almost every 50 available lens (Leica or Zeiss). I don't regret it. To have another analogy, to me, 50 lenses up (75 included) are cymbals, percussive lenses. Anything larger would be more bass drums (or cellos) = larger spectrum, less acuteness.

4. Ask not what your lens can do for you, ask yourself what you can do for your lens.

In other words, ask yourself why you need this lens. Before buying my 1.0 Noctilux, I reviewed many pictures done with it and truly loved its signature, even in bad images.

So I decide I could do some things for that lens…

5. If price is an issue, I'd go for a 1.0. I paid mine almost new 2400 USD. I would leave you time to master the glass, then if need be, in a year or two, you might even see some 0.95 crop up at a bargain price.

Edited March 19, 2011 by JHAG

[pico]

With respect, I have yet to see here any image made with a Noctilux of any version that shows that its signature has a special quality. That is the bottom line, for me. Can you Noctilux owners rationalize your choise/purchase as it regards web presentatons? I think NOT. Frankly, I think you point your Noctilux and post your pictueres and expect us to see a difference (from what?). In this low-rez environment all we see, for the most part, are ugly renderings. Is it your fault, or the fault of the lens?I suggest it is the former.

[IkarusJohn]

With respect, I have yet to see here any image made with a Noctilux of any version that shows that its signature has a special quality. That is the bottom line, for me. Can you Noctilux owners rationalize your choise/purchase as it regards web presentatons? I think NOT. Frankly, I think you point your Noctilux and post your pictueres and expect us to see a difference (from what?). In this low-rez environment all we see, for the most part, are ugly renderings. Is it your fault, or the fault of the lens?I suggest it is the former.

 

I think that's a bit harsh.

 

The image posted by Clandrel is exceptional, in my view, and it captures the best of what I've seen of this lens. I still wouldn't buy one - I have a lot to learn from my 50 Lux; and I'd like to think I can capture something of this standard.

 

But to call the renderings ugly goes too far. Sometimes weird, I'd agree.

 

Cheers

John

[JHAG]

With respect, I have yet to see here any image made with a Noctilux of any version that shows that its signature has a special quality. That is the bottom line, for me. Can you Noctilux owners rationalize your choise/purchase as it regards web presentatons? I think NOT. Frankly, I think you point your Noctilux and post your pictueres and expect us to see a difference (from what?). In this low-rez environment all we see, for the most part, are ugly renderings. Is it your fault, or the fault of the lens?I suggest it is the former.

 

Why so much hate ?

 

Two masterpieces :

am7:40 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

sentinel | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

This one being not far from Fukushima…

 

Apart these two examples, I must add this :

- more often than not, the most extraordinary Noctilux pictures I saw came from japanese of scandinavian photog. I guess there some discretion on that lens that matches exactly the work and spirit of many japanese or northern traditions. E.g. Yamamoto Masao, one of my favorites, whom I possess a few prints.

- I saw on this Forum some rich examples, and also on LFI :

http://gallery.lfi-online.de/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=3612

LFI Gallery - Information

LFI Gallery - Information

LFI Gallery - Information

http://gallery.lfi-online.de/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=34956&categorized

LFI International

Fashion Portraits on the Behance Network

Edited March 19, 2011 by JHAG

[otto.f]

Well the Fashion series JHAG is referring to is absolutely very good work indeed (the other links are empty, btw) but I still do not see the exclusive Noctiluxness in it. It can occur however that only a Noctilux can inspire an artist to such high level photographic work, that's an other aspect to it and we mostly don't know because we mostly live once. In a recent LFI a careful comparison has been shown between the latest S'lux and Noctilux, and especially in bokeh. I did not see anything that justifies a factor 3 price difference, for me.

Edited March 19, 2011 by otto.f

[JHAG]

Just type "Noctilux" in LFI or Flickr…

[otto.f]

Just type "Noctilux" in LFI or Flickr…

 

And if you do that, do also type Summilux 75 in flickr, Summilux 80 in flickr and Canon 85/1.2 in flickr. See what that brings you in selective focus and bokeh quality.

Guess with what lens this was made:

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!

[Jager]

I think we all understand the limits that the internet poses with respect to images. But to suggest that one cannot discern the way a lens renders in a web posted jpeg is a rather gross overstatement. There are many fine images posted on this forum. And a great many of them clearly exhibit the signature qualities of whatever piece of glass is being talked about.

 

I'd also offer that there is no lens that is entirely unique - that will capture an image that no other lens can. So when a fellow posts an image in a good-hearted effort to show its characteristics, follow-on suggestions that that image could just as easily have been duplicated with a different lens belong mostly in the realm of... I should certainly hope so.

 

I took my Harley Road King for a ride yesterday (M9 and Noctilux went with me). It was a lovely ride. The big Harley puts its own unique spin on rolling down the road. Had I taken my R1200GS or my K1200RS or my GSX-R1000... each of those would have changed the flavor of the ride in their own unique way. Each would have been a different experience. But even with those differences, much of those four rides would have been the same. Same roads. Same speed. Same scenery. Same weather. My wife, who doesn't ride, might suggest that, given all that sameness, it doesn't matter which bike I take. She'd be wrong.

[JHAG]

And if you do that, do also type Summilux 75 in flickr, Summilux 80 in flickr and Canon 85/1.2 in flickr. See what that brings you in selective focus and bokeh quality.

Guess with what lens this was made:

 

A 50 if full frame.

[otto.f]

It is full frame and not a 50

[luigi bertolotti]

And if you do that, do also type Summilux 75 in flickr, Summilux 80 in flickr and Canon 85/1.2 in flickr. See what that brings you in selective focus and bokeh quality.

Guess with what lens this was made:

 

I like to make bw when use my Summarex 85 1,5... isn't it, by chance ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[otto.f]

Not the Summarex 85