Noctilux vs 75mm Summilux

[egrossman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been following the "why do you love the Noctilux" thread with great interest.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/125371-noctilux-why-do-you-love-why.html

 

Although a number of people say the reason they love the lens is the extra stop it affords over the 50mm Summilux, it seems to me that a lot of people are buying this lens because of the separation of the foreground subject and the background that can't be achieved at the same focal length at 1.4.

 

I recently acquired a 75mm Summilux (now discontinued) which seems to sell for between $2500-4500 depending on where it was made, version and condition. Which is between 25% to 50% of the cost of the new Noctilux. I offer this lens for comparison simply because if portraiture and extreme separation of subject from the background is the goal, it's arguably a better lens for that purpose. The DOF at 5 ft for the 75mm lens is only 0.11ft at 1.4 vs 0.18ft at 0.95.

 

Not an apples to apples comparison but I thought interesting nonetheless.

[Lindolfi]

An often encountered argument that DOF becomes smaller when the focal length increases, but that is not the case if you frame the same rectangle in the plane of focus: with the longer lens you have to step back to frame the same in the plane of focus and consequently the DOF increases. It turns out that not focal length but only aperture and the size of your frame in object space determines the DOF.

 

(You can try it with the DOF calculator I wrote in my signature.)

 

In short: a 50 mm lens at f/ 0.95 has a more narrow DOF than a 75 mm lens at f/1.4 when you want to photograph the same object, filling the frame.

 

A 50 mm lens at f/1.4 has the same DOF as a 75 mm lens at f/1.4 when photographing the same object filling the frame.

 

However, with the 75 mm the out of focus background is enlarged and although it contains the same amount of detail as that made with the 50mm lens, it appears less sharp, because it is bigger.

 

Concluding: a 75/1.4 is an excellent lens for background separation, but not the same as a 50/0.95 lens

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lindolfi

[Advertisement]

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

[Lindolfi]

Just a direct comparison between a 75mm at f/1.4 and a 50mm at f/1.4. The taking camera was at 1.2 meter from the front of the lens of the right hand camera for the 50 mm exposure and at 1.8 meter for the 75 mm exposure. The distance between the two camera's in the image was 1.0 meter. As you can see the bokeh disks in the out of focus image of the background camera have the same diameter in both images, because the DOF is the same.

 

[ 50 mm at f/1.4 ]

 

[ 75 mm at f/1.4 ]

 

So when I would have taken an image with a 50mm at an aperture larger than f/1.4, the background separation would have been bigger (since at f/1.4 it is the same).

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lindolfi

[egrossman]

Thank you Lindolfi. This is very informative.

[lars_bergquist]

Lindolfi is right of course. D.o.f. is solely a function of aperture and rate of reproduction ("magnification").

 

Shooting a subject at the same 'size in finder', i.e. rate of reproduction, with two lenses of different focal length makes it impossible however to shoot from the same camera standpoint. You have to stand farther away with the longer lens. This changes the perspective. – Again, as with d.o.f., it is not the focal length in itself that changes things. It is in this case the changed geometrical relationship between the camera and the subject – and the different parts of the subject, of course.

 

So it all boils down to what focal length you are comfortable with, that is, what kind of relationsgip with your subject that you are comfortable with! Me, I don't need more 'separation' than what the 50mm Summilux gives me. You don't have to hit people over the head with a baseball bat to make them notice things. And attempts to blot out the background so you don't have to worry about it do not work either. Not even with a Nocti. In a photograph, the background is always there. If you must have more control over your picture space than photography can give you, then you should take up painting or drawing instead.

 

The old man from the Age of F:8

[epand56]

So when I would have taken an image with a 50mm at an aperture larger than f/1.4, the background separation would have been bigger (since at f/1.4 it is the same).

 

This is ok to me and very informative since I did not exactly know this. What I do not understand, instead, looking at the two Lindolfi's pictures, is what you still have to separate from the background since the dof in the pictures looks thin like a sheet of paper to me.

Would be interesting to see the same picture taken with a 50/0.95 and see if, how and where this Holy Grail of the Leica lenses differs from the 1.4

[Lindolfi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good point epand56. The 50 mm was taken with a Nokton 50/1.1 at f/1.4 and I also took one at f/1.1. I'll be happy to post it, when I'm back. You can also look at the series posted by Hapeman, which includes the f/0.95: click

 

What you see is that the bokeh disks further increase, which is what you expect. When you look inside a fast lens from the front and you click from f/1.1 to f/1.4 you see the diameter of the aperture decrease substantially. The same decrease happens with the bokeh disks. In the Hapeman series you can see a clear difference between f/0.95 and f/1.4, but for many situations an f/1.4 gives already a strong separation with the background. In that sense you are right.

 

As stated before, the enlargement of the lens from f/1.4 to f/0.95 takes quite some extra glass, while the lens aberrations increase disproportionally, which is hard to handle. The spherical Noctilux 1.0 and Noktons 1.1 show this in terms of image smear and field curvature, especially problematic in the corners. The Noctilux 0.95 is quite a bit better, which is impressive. Whether you actually need f/0.95 depends on what you are looking for. Artistic expression? Technological pinnacle? Status object? A personal decision. All subjective, but one thing is objective: an f/0.95 blurs the background more in the same situation than f/1.4.

[Metin Colak]

Hello folks.. I just would like to know whether I could get more impressive DOF with the Noctilux f1 than Summilux 75mm f1.4. I already have Lux75, and plan to buy the Noctilux f1.. But I can't decide.. I checked these lenses depth of field indexes; Lux75 produces thinner/narrower band of depth of field, at their minimum focusing distances. I just would like to know whether I get more impressive DOF with the Noctilux f1 at its mimimum distance at 1m or not... I couldn't find any compreative reviews, or, photographs on the net.. If you have both lens your comparative photographs will be greatly appreciated. Cheers..

[mmradman]

Hello folks.. I just would like to know whether I could get more impressive DOF with the Noctilux f1 than Summilux 75mm f1.4. I already have Lux75, and plan to buy the Noctilux f1.. But I can't decide.. I checked these lenses depth of field indexes; Lux75 produces thinner/narrower band of depth of field, at their minimum focusing distances. I just would like to know whether I get more impressive DOF with the Noctilux f1 at its mimimum distance at 1m or not... I couldn't find any compreative reviews, or, photographs on the net.. If you have both lens your comparative photographs will be greatly appreciated. Cheers..

Summilux 75mm can focus closer than Noctilux f1, that is closer than 1 meter, combine that with explanation in post #3 and you can draw your own conclusions.

[pico]

Hello folks.. I just would like to know whether I could get more impressive DOF with the Noctilux f1 than Summilux 75mm f1.4.

 

What do you mean by more impressive DOF? Greater DOF? And at what magnification/focus distance? At the same aperture? Image viewed at what distance? Those are the factors that must be specified.

 

Generally, the shorter focal length is capable of more DOF.

Edited April 19, 2018 by pico

[eujin]

For what it's worth, I went through the 75 Lux vs Noctilux F1 decision recently. For me, the two lenses are not very similar in overall look. And if you try them on a camera like the SL, you can even see this difference in the EVF. Not sure what qualifies as "impressive DOF", but the bokeh of the 75 Lux is less swirly looking to me. I preferred the look of the 75 Lux. For reference, I also prefer the look of the 0.95 Noct. YMMV. 

[IkarusJohn]

I’d forgotten about this thread. Coming back to it, I’m surprised just how different the images in Lindolfi’s comaprison shots in post #3 are. It’s a shame he didn’t use a 50 Summilux ASPH instead of the Nokton, but you can see how the 50 is sharper, even in the best plane of focus. This is not surprising, bearing in mind that the 75 Summilux is a bit soft wide open.

 

While Lindolfi and the much missed Lars comment that the out of focus blur circle on the lenses are the same, the out of focus treatment is not at all. The Summilux gives a far greater sense of blur.

 

I’m still in hospital, unfortunately, but I will try this comparison when I get out - perhaps 75 Summilux, Noctilux 0.95 or 50 Summilux ASPH and 28 Summilux ASPH - if I can replicate the framing. The purpose is not to verify that depth of field is a factor of aperture and reproduction, but to see relative sharpness and out of focus treatment.

 

Many recent images posted show odd out of focus treatment, which suggests to me that some lenses excell where others struggle.

Edited April 20, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[pico]

Show us two images for comparison of 'bokeh | oof', each of the same focal length, same aperture, one which is generally acceptable, and another which is not.

 

"|" means 'or'

Edited April 20, 2018 by pico

[IkarusJohn]

Show us two images for comparison of 'bokeh | oof', each of the same focal length, same aperture, one which is generally acceptable, and another which is not.

 

"|" means 'or'

I have no idea how you would assess “acceptable” bokeh. I have no trouble seeing difference in bokeh, but acceptability is surely in the eye of the beholder. Do you have some empirical standards? or were you just making a point by putting words into my mouth, Pico?

[IkarusJohn]

duplicate post

Edited April 21, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[Metin Colak]

Dear friends,

I need to see rendering style and perspective effect of Summilux 75 and Noctilux f1 on the same subject/object from 1m away. I would like to compare side by side of both photographs..

 

You help will be greatly appreciated.

 

[evikne]

On 4/11/2019 at 11:41 AM, Metin Colak said:

Dear friends,

I need to see rendering style and perspective effect of Summilux 75 and Noctilux f1 on the same subject/object from 1m away. I would like to compare side by side of both photographs..

 

You help will be greatly appreciated.

I remembered your post when we were out in the woods today and I carried both these lenses. I took these two photos in a hurry and had to promise my model an ice cream for the job. 😉

Both photos are unedited and uncropped (and slightly out of focus), taken from approximately 1 meter distance. Maybe I can take some better photos later, under a bit more controlled circumstances.

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!

[Metin Colak]

3 hours ago, evikne said:

I remembered your post when we were out in the woods today and I carried both these lenses. I took these two photos in a hurry and had to promise my model an ice cream for the job. 😉

Both photos are unedited and uncropped (and slightly out of focus), taken from approximately 1 meter distance. Maybe I can take some better photos later, under a bit more controlled circumstances.

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!

Dear Evikne,

Many thanks for the reply, I really appreciate it.. Colour and out of focus rendering seem identical (special blue, orange, cyan, green and colour fringes in the out of focus zone. A special swirly bokeh/shapes are more pronounced in the Noctilux photograph though). However, the angle of view  (47 vs 32) creates different meaning/impression... I have 75 Lux and am still considering Noctilux f1. I use different Leica lenses so far by the way, only 3+2 of them makes me really excited with the results: 35 Lux pre-asph, 75 Lux, and 90 Cron pre-asph, (somehow Tele-Elmarit 135, and Summicron-R 50 v1, v2) . These lenses take 'different photographs', more than real ones, especially in close distances.. They create their own 'reality' in their rendering..

Your 'real moments' and 'spark.adobe' pages contain really superb images by the way. You have a very special/creative sense of photography. 

Thank you very much once again.

Best regards,

Metin Colak.

https://500px.com/metintext  

 

[evikne]

You're welcome! And thank you very much, although these pics were not much to brag about. I found a small, shady spot on the forest path where it was possible to shoot wide open, but the lighting conditions were far from perfect. I kept the same WB values in LR on both pictures to better reveal any color differences. And normally I would have added a small amount of Clarity to the Noctilux picture, but this time I left all values at 0.

I assumed you preferred to see both lenses wide open, even though there are several ways to do this comparison: Should we keep the same aperture on both, or max aperture? Same distance, or same framing? All these combinations would of course have given different results.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Metin Colak]

16 minutes ago, evikne said:

You're welcome! And thank you very much, although these pics were not much to brag about. I found a small, shady spot on the forest path where it was possible to shoot wide open, but the lighting conditions were far from perfect. I kept the same WB values in LR on both pictures to better reveal any color differences. And normally I would have added a small amount of Clarity to the Noctilux picture, but this time I left all values at 0.

I assumed you preferred to see both lenses wide open, even though there are several ways to do this comparison: Should we keep the same aperture on both, or max aperture? Same distance, or same framing? All these combinations would of course have given different results.

Dear Evikne,

Thank you very much for the reply, and clarifications. Yes, I would like to see their results at their max aperture (f1 vs f1.4) in the same distance, on the same object/subject without any alteration(change) in the post. Daylight/daytime is the best time to understand their results, I think. Your more examples will be really greatly appreciated.

Thank you so much for taking your time.

Best regards,

Metin Colak. 

 

https://500px.com/metintext