Noctilux f/1 or summilux 50 asph? Seeking expert advice

[click]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know this has been talked about before but I want some insight into this idea for my specific situation.

 

I shoot Tmax 400 rated at 200, though I could have my camera cla'd and improve my system rating. I shoot "on the move" zone system work and want to take it into the darker areas of life.

 

In your personal experience is F/1 really necessary to get the candle light, smoky bar, dark situation, go everywhere shots with 400 speed film?

 

The prime reason I ask is the 0.7 focus distance is important to me but if 1.4 isn't enough and I have to up-rate my film that's a deal killer. My DR summicron fails me constantly with it's 1 meter minimum focus distance, by the time I take a step backward the shot is over and I'd prefer to keep my perception of distance constant (fourteen years of shooting and practicing with a 0.7 lens), not to mention sometimes there isn't room to back up. I also want shadow detail and uprating really doesn't provide that luxury.

 

I'm aware of the characteristics of the noctilux at F1 and I really like the painterly effect, though I've never shot one. I'd be using it for documentary work where changing film and writing on my canister isn't always an option because I have to work quickly. I want my customers to forget I'm there and waiting on me to change film, jot a note on a canister slows things down and makes them more aware.

 

I know both are hard to focus but I practice, practice practice. I can find every distance on my lenses without looking and will embrace the same dedication with a lower light lens.

 

In an ideal world I'd just rent both of them and compare but the 1.0 isn't exactly available. I cannot afford the 0.95 so it is out of the question.

 

I've read that the 1.0 is amazing at avoiding flare, is the 1.4 asph as flare free?

 

I've noticed that most people seem to use the 1.0 by centering the subject in the frame. I rarely use the center, does this lens dictate centering the subject? This would also be a deal killer.

 

Is the shallowness in the depth of field really that different?

 

Trying to examine these differences with Flickr isn't practical because I never really know what I'm looking at and I don't consider digital valid for my purposes of understanding.

 

How does the tuning of the focus differ in each lens? I've read that the 1.4 is well tuned to provide excellent focusing capability and assume the 1.0 is as well but the 1.0 was designed a long time ago in comparison and Leica may have refined the process.

 

Which lens is better in the near range? I'm not intimidated of getting close to my subjects and most of my pictures are made at the 0.7 to 3 meter range. I'm not a "set the lens to infinity and shoot" kind of guy.

 

FILM pictures taken with 400 (Tmax would be a boon) in very low light with both lenses posted here would also help me see what's possible and what isn't and provide clear insight into these questions. I know this is a tall order but this decision is keeping me awake at night and the more information I get the better.

 

Thank you kindly in advance for your insights.

 

Shine on,

 

Click

[jamesk8752]

Have you considered the razor-thin DOF of the Noctlux at f1.0? Will it suit your subject matter? The Summilux is a bit more forgiving of focusing errors.

 

Regards, Jim

[Jager]

First of all, yes, you'll need every bit of f-stop help you can get in a "candle light, smoky bar, dark situation." Even f1 won't be enough in many dark-bar-type lighting situations if you're shooting 400-speed film. If you can't get your shutter speed off the floor, nothing else is really going to matter. So I'd say your first priority needs to be bringing a film emulsion you feel comfortable shooting at 800, 1600, and even 3200 iso.

 

Even with a bump in iso, having f1 available will be a big help. Getting a 1/30 shutter speed rather than 1/15; or 1/15 rather than 1/8 makes a big difference.

 

Technically, the two lenses are very different. The 50 Lux ASPH is smaller, lighter, has a shorter (quicker) focus throw, it has that 0.7 minimum focus distance you like, and optically loses little when shot wide-open or within that 1-3 meter range you anticipate. It's easily the right choice... except for that one stop that it's missing

 

Conversely, the Noct is arguably a pain in the ass. It's bigger, heavier, and slower. It's optical performance notably declines at that 1-3 meter range. It has that slightly irritating 1-meter close focusing range that you don't like. And it vignettes on the order of 3-stops around the edges - albeit that's not something that is normally noticeable in a dark, smoky bar. Really, it has only two things going for it... that extra stop; and a signature unlike anything else. Are those two things worth all the aggravation you have to put up with?

 

Some of us would say, yeah, you bet.

 

Shooting in the dark is much about the art of the possible. It's wrangling the confluence of too little light, too slow shutter speeds, wide-open apertures that give you too little depth of field, subjects that are difficult to see, hard to focus, and move too fast. An extra f-stop simply extends the game, moving the boundaries of what is possible further out.

 

The 50 Lux ASPH is the best all-around 50 prime lens in the world. It's the perfect wife, the one that constantly reminds you why you fell in love with her and why she's your best friend and how many good times you've had, and will have yet in the future. It's amazing.

 

The Noct is more akin to that high-maintenance mistress you never thought you'd have, the one that takes you to a place you never imagined existed, the one that is demanding and hot and perfect in her imperfection. You wish to be rid of her, but every time you try she sits there stuck in your heart and your head. You can't get her out of your mind. That one, too, is amazing. In a different way.

[lars_bergquist]

I'm not going to be poetic like Jeff, and I cannot really advise you because you are film-based and I am not, anymore. But I can make two remarks:

 

– The 50mm Summilux ASPH is remarkably reflection- and flare free. That is really why I replaced my Summicron with it. It is one of the most dependable lenses I have ever worked with. And Sweden and many other European countries now ban smoking in restaurants and bars ... another point in is favour.

 

– The f:1 Nocti has a very noticeable fall-off in definition as you move out from the optical center. That is one reason why you seldom see pictures taken with it with the main subject off-center. Also, because of that paper-thin d.o.f., focusing on a subject and then moving it off-center when composing, will likely take it out of the d.o.f.

 

Going digital has two advantages for this kind of work. First, ISO2000 works fine with the M9 if you want black and white pictures. Second, you do not have to change film after 36 shots. This means that you can do lots of repeat shots and alternative exposures, so your chances are improving considerably.

 

Also, for working in bars and across a table, the 35mm Summilux ASPH is my mainstay lens. I can hold it at 1/8th with fair reliability (and there is always that second shot). The picture below was shot with that lens at 1.4 and the only lighting is the candles. 1/8th and ISO1000.

 

The old man from the Candlelit Age (o.k., kerosene lamps too)

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!

[giordano]

I shoot "on the move" zone system work and want to take it into the darker areas of life.

 

Zone system. On the move. Without a proper exposure meter.* I can't grok it. Or is this the new dumbed-down zone system where you use the built-in meter and assume it's reading Zone 5?

 

* If the OP had a good hand-held meter s/he wouldn't need to ask this question but could simply go and take some readings in a few dark smoky bars.

[!Nomad64]

I thought I needed a Nocti f1 until I got my PreAsph 'lux and realized that what the Nocti achieves at ISO 640 f1 the 'lux gets at ISO 1250 and F1.4. And I have an M8, which has a worse rendering at higher ISO speeds.

Besides, when the light is very poor I can barely see the frames and the rangefinder patch is very fuzzy, so focusing becomes a matter of guessing. And if so I prefer the slightly larger tolerance margin granted by f1.4 over f1.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Summilux M 50 ASPH. on Neopan 400.

Park sculpture photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/91238261

http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/91237794

http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/91237948

http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/91237966

[doug_m]

In my opinion 0.7 m is a huge advantage over 1 m. Also, the 50 lux ASPH may be the overall best lens for 35 mm photography ever made.

 

Never used the noctilux f1 but the 0.95 is superb. It is just not an all rounder like the lux.

[pico]

For the vast majority of viewers, there is no rationale for purchasing a .95, or even a .1

 

Let the owners of these lenses fight over on this low-rez medium of LCDs. Most of the justifications will be verbal, and not pictures which cannot possibly show the real differences which must be seen in high-quality prints.

 

But go with the flow of your budget and ego and be happy.

.

[stephan_w]

Hello

 

The Summilux is the far better lens IMHO, lighter, more versatile and with much more contrast especially at short distances. The Noctilux 1.0 gives nice results too, but the subject should be at least 4-5 m away.

[lars_bergquist]

In the old days, with slow film emulsions (remember when Tri-X was rated at ASA200 and Panatomic at 32ASA?) we could use a f:1 lens wide open at a shutter speed of 1/8th and there was still light enough to focus by. Today, that aperture and that speed and a M9 means that we can barely see the frame lines, and would have trouble even finding the rangefinder patch. This means that a Summilux today gives me all the night vision I can use.

 

The current Summilux ASPH also gives me pretty well the most shallow d.o.f. I can use – and the nicest bokeh I can wish for. Case closed. And I also have a 35mm Summilux ASPH up my sleeve ...

 

The old man from the Age of Glass Plate Negs

[cbretteville]

I decided several years ago that the Nocti is too hard to focus to warrant the price. My eyesight isn't good enough. The any of the 50 'Luxs does it for me.

 

Carl

[menos I M6]

The 50 Lux ASPH has been my very first and for a long time my absolute favorite Leica lens.

At some point, I shipped it to Solms, to get the focus perfectly adjusted, as it was my most critical lens, not exactly fitting to my kit.

 

The lens has been away for about 6 weeks and I was itchy, to find a make shift 50mm, when I have been offered a mint v4 Noctilux. After one night of sleep, I decided, to pick up the Noctilux and never looked back since.

 

The Noctilux is my main lens on the M8.2 and film.

 

There is nothing, substituting a faster aperture.

The 1m is a bad point, although a very, very small one, as it makes photos possible, when the 50 Lux is out.

 

This shot is one of the later ones, I have on the internet with the Noctilux.

It is shot on pushed TX400 @ ISO3200, wide open @ f1 and low shutter of something between 1/15 − 1/45 (can't remember anymore).

 

 

The Noctilux separates a lot more, even with subjects not far away from the background - it adds a certain look, the 50 Lux ASPH simply can't give (this is very difficult, to see in small images, but immediately visible in prints).

 

 

One thing, the Noctilux cannot do though, the Lux APSH simply masters, is giving amazing, razor sharp detail right from f1.4 on with extremely smooth, perfect backgrounds:

 

 

This has been shot at the highest ISO speed in RAW with the R-D1 (it gives a look in print even a lot closer to pushed BW film, than the digital Leicas).

 

In your personal experience is F/1 really necessary to get the candle light, smoky bar, dark situation, go everywhere shots with 400 speed film?

Often

 

I also want shadow detail and uprating really doesn't provide that luxury.

The Noctilux is on top of it's one stop advantage less contrasty than the Lux - more shadow detail in the center.

It has a very heavy light falloff in the outer frame though.

 

I'd be using it for documentary work where changing film and writing on my canister isn't always an option because I have to work quickly.

The Noctilux gives the luxury, to be usable from f1 into far stopped down apertures, making it "the superzoom of primes". For me, the noctilux is a universal lens, which really shines in low light though.

 

I know both are hard to focus but I practice, practice practice.

I find the Noctilux @ f1 easier to focus, than the Lux, as for it's bigger barrel and longer focus throw. You have to anticipate much more though, to prevent having to rack from close to infinity, when caught in surprise.

 

In an ideal world I'd just rent both of them and compare but the 1.0 isn't exactly available.

You might consider buying one and selling it later, as most people, interested in one seem to do at some point.

 

I've read that the 1.0 is amazing at avoiding flare, is the 1.4 asph as flare free?

The Lux ASPH is even better in this respect, which is amazing! It doesn't suffer as much in loss of contrast, when shooting into the sun. The Lux gives almost geometrically perfect flare rings, when challenged the most in shooting into extremely bright light sources.

 

I've noticed that most people seem to use the 1.0 by centering the subject in the frame. I rarely use the center, does this lens dictate centering the subject?

No, but it is harder, to focus off center as of it's uneven plane of focus at open apertures. The Lux is much easier, to use here.

 

Is the shallowness in the depth of field really that different?

Yes - a lot actually. The main difference reveals itself, when shooting at medium focus distances of 5-10 meter. It is amazing, how much the Noctilux still separates the subject form the background, compared to an f1.4 lens.

 

Which lens is better in the near range? I'm not intimidated of getting close to my subjects and most of my pictures are made at the 0.7 to 3 meter range. I'm not a "set the lens to infinity and shoot" kind of guy.

The Lux is clearly better at those distances, regarding optical performance. The Noctilux though offers a certain look, no Summilux and post processing could possibly replicate.

If you happen, to like this look, you're in for finding a favorite lens, if you're after MTF charts and pixel perfect detail, the Lux ASPH is the best lens, you can get @ f1.4.

 

FILM pictures taken with 400 (Tmax would be a boon) in very low light with both lenses posted here would also help me see what's possible and what isn't and provide clear insight into these questions.

The shot @ f1 with pushed speed @ ISO 3200 and very low shutter above would have resulted in a much lower possibility of getting a usable shot with the Lux.

The shutter speed was already on the edge (not handhold-ability, which is actually better with the Noct, but subject movement).

[250swb]

You don't need more than f1.4 Click. Anything beyond that is getting into such refined territory that you won't see a smokey bar anyway, the majority of the picture will be pure bokeh with no details other than the razor thin zone you focused on.

 

If you want to play with such shallow DOF try a CV Nokton f1.1. You will discover in that a great lens and a fraction of the price that will do all you need, but I don't think you need it.

 

Steve

[Clandrel]

I was in the same situation as you. I had both the 50 Summilux and Noctilux on order.

Then I found a Noctilux and went for it. I thought that at least I would try it out. Worst case, I could get my money back.

 

I tried it for a few days but wasn't very happy. I guess one of the reasons is price. I just couldn't justify the cost. But the main problem for me was size and the 1m focus.

 

If I was gonna have a $10.000 lens it should be perfect for my needs. It shouldn't be a compromise lens.

 

Ironically, the same day I sold it, they called and said the Summilux had arrived.

Couldn't be happier. It really small compared to the Nocti. Easier to focus, and a third of the price.

 

Actually, pretty easy choice. But it's hard because one want to try the Noctilux.

[jerryharwood]

Hi- late in the day I think, but I had a Noctilux; I used it for investigation work- but I soon went back to the 50 F1.4- not so large, better DOF, and I didn't really matter where I put the focus point- I still got the pictures I needed; too much left to chance with the Noctilux- I could not afford mistakes of that kind; You are trading with price versus what you hope to get- not the really smart way; you could always try to rent one for a day; I think you would be surprised; not an easy lens to use at all. For example I had to take a series of shots 2 1/2 miles underground, using what ambient light there was from head torches. That was one eye opener regarding the nocti; sharp they weren't !!!

[peter_n]

In your personal experience is F/1 really necessary to get the candle light, smoky bar, dark situation, go everywhere shots with 400 speed film?

In my experience, no. The pic attached below was taken at f4.0. I use a Noctilux f1.0, Summilux 50 ASPH, and Summicron DR and while I love the rendering of my Noctilux the f1 isn't necessary but I do understand the need for a 0.7M closest focus. I sold a rigid Summicron to get the Summicron DR because it focuses down to 0.7M.

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!

[click]

Hello,

 

I do greatly appreciate the insights and advice of your experiences and the poetic thoughts. I have read this thread many, many times in search of a decision and considered each element many times. I've decided to rent each lens and experiment, though I can't rent the F,1 noctilux the 0.95 is available but I could be spoiled by it.

 

As I recognize the razor thin depth of field of the Noctilux I also believe, perhaps falsely, that a somewhat imperfect focus picture is better than no picture or an excessively blurry one.

 

Jager, I like your analogy of the perfect wife versus mistress, I cannot even begin to express how much sense this makes to me, I type this as my ridiculously hot flight attendant girlfriend keeps calling. Seems like every thing I own and everyone I know falls into the exotic and difficult category. I also read your site, thanks for sharing this valuable information.

 

Lars, I've also considered the 35 lux as a dedicated low light lens because the lens is shorter and therefore easier to handhold. I've been apprehensive about getting another wide angle because that's another lens to carry and fiddle with and I largely just want to have two lenses. I've been in love with my 24 since '98 and a 35 seems like it would be too similar in viewpoint but I do think that the added speed and confidence of the single viewfinder window would improve my framing in low light. A 35 lux may be the ideal solution because I could just keep my 50 summicron, I do like it. That will be another lens I will rent to test how I like it.

 

It's unlikely that I will go digital. I've always been a minimalist and I don't really like computers or technology. I grew up in a very technologically advanced household (you wouldn't believe me if I told you) and I put no faith in computerized things, plus I like developing my film and creating prints in the darkroom.

 

Subject distance is also a huge concern. I have a great tendency to get close and I always seem to want to get closer. Micro expressions aren't visible at 15 feet away and I know from my sociological studies that humans feel psychological pressure to acknowledge others at eight feet. I think even the 35 lux M3 goggled version is very attractive in the close focus regard since it focuses at .65 meters (26 inches) and has low light capabilities.

 

Sharpness is an over-rated quality in my opinion, while I do employ it in certain areas of the print I just don't think it's everything, I don't mind vignetted corners or any of the other "flaws" that some of these lenses have.

 

Again, I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful insights posted here.

 

Thank you,

 

click

[Xmas]

Hi

 

I'm old and have poor eyesight but my M3 frame and rfdr spot snap out of coal bunkers & black cats.

 

The CV f1.1 5cm or the CV 1.2 3.5cm are alternative options, but all these super speed lenses are big and heavy, and dont have useful depth of field.

 

Try HP5 in one of the speed increasing developers.

 

I use a f/1.4 pre asph or CV f/1.5 (for LTM), depth of field is not easy, even with these.

 

Noel

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

 

If you want to play with such shallow DOF try a CV Nokton f1.1. You will discover in that a great lens and a fraction of the price that will do all you need, but I don't think you need it.

 

Steve

Shallow DOF? Try the Summilux 75.