Noctilux 0.95 "Comparable" to Summilux?

[Agent M10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've thrown my hat in for a new Noctilux. The Leica literature says that it is "comparable" to the Summilux when stopped down. I wanted to hear just how comparable owners have found it to be (including the thought that the Summilux is an unofficial APO).

[Clandrel]

From 1.4 they are more or less identical.

So for twice the size, double the weight, triple the price, long throw, the only thing extra you get is 0.95...

 

Is it worth it?

 

C

[mardag]

According to a shootout that Loyd Chambers did between these two lenses the Noctilux came out slightly ahead stopped down(from 2.8-) but the summilux had an edge in contrast at 1.4-2.8 compared to the Noct. Overall he rated them equal.

[Jeff S]

Puts compares the two here and here. In particular he notes differences in edge performance (and vignetting), flare and fringing. Whether any of these are material in a final print is up to the viewer.

 

As Puts notes, Leica could have made a 50 1.2, which probably would have performed much the same as the 1.4, only a half stop faster, but going to .95 necessarily introduces some compromises, significant or not.

 

(I only own the Summilux, so can't offer real life experience.)

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

I'll be interested to see what you do.

 

If the lenses are effectively identical, the difference then is purely one stop, and size, cost etc. There are therefore two ways of looking at this - do you need that one stop and do you want two lenses? Owners seem to suggest that this opens up interesting opportunities.

 

If the Noct is genuinely an option as your only lens at 50, do you sell your 50 Lux? I'd be reluctant, but that then means having identical lenses, differing only in size for most uses, at a total cost of $15,000? (he covers his eyes and shakes his head - no chance of explaining that to the wife).

 

Alternatively, I've found that I have different lenses, all quite close in focal length. The 75 Cron is a useful length, and good for close work (if you don't want a macro); the 35 Cron is small, and has the classic buttery smoothness to it; the 28 Cron even smaller, and has that wider view; and the 21 Lux, the drama of being super wide, and fast.

 

If I do this, I can see myself putting the Lux in the cupboard and ultimately selling it if the Noct is feasible.

 

I should comment that the money is sitting in the bank for this, and the size doesn't concern me that much - it's smaller and no heavier really than any of the Nikkors I had, and not that much bigger than the 21 Lux.

 

I have a suspicion I'm going to pass on this lens - I've already let a new f/1 go at a great price. But then, I think I'll always wonder, and I won't lose much if anything if I buy one.

 

Interesting.

John

[MarkP]

I'll be interested to see what you do.

 

If the lenses are effectively identical, the difference then is purely one stop, and size, cost etc. There are therefore two ways of looking at this - do you need that one stop and do you want two lenses? Owners seem to suggest that this opens up interesting opportunities.

 

If the Noct is genuinely an option as your only lens at 50, do you sell your 50 Lux? I'd be reluctant, but that then means having identical lenses, differing only in size for most uses, at a total cost of $15,000? (he covers his eyes and shakes his head - no chance of explaining that to the wife).

 

Alternatively, I've found that I have different lenses, all quite close in focal length. The 75 Cron is a useful length, and good for close work (if you don't want a macro); the 35 Cron is small, and has the classic buttery smoothness to it; the 28 Cron even smaller, and has that wider view; and the 21 Lux, the drama of being super wide, and fast.

 

If I do this, I can see myself putting the Lux in the cupboard and ultimately selling it if the Noct is feasible.

 

I should comment that the money is sitting in the bank for this, and the size doesn't concern me that much - it's smaller and no heavier really than any of the Nikkors I had, and not that much bigger than the 21 Lux.

 

I have a suspicion I'm going to pass on this lens - I've already let a new f/1 go at a great price. But then, I think I'll always wonder, and I won't lose much if anything if I buy one.

 

Interesting.

John

 

Hi John,

 

Interestingly, I have a very similar range of Leica lenses to you: 21 Summilux, 28 Summicron, 35 Summilux, 50 Summilux, and 75 Summicron, all current models.

 

I also have a 1.0 Noctilux on permanent loan from a friend, and a 1.5/50 C-Sonnar (bought after being convinced by Bill who is a strong advocate for this $1000 Zeiss), and I like how each of these 50's have very different characteristics. I've no interest in getting the 1.0 Noctilux.

 

Mark

[insomnia]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The .95 shows stopped down smoother highlights in the bokeh where the Summilux ASPH tends to show edges ("stop signs"). Other than that I haven't seen differences that would really show in my pictures. From 1.2 on the Noctilux shows comparable resolution to the Summilux wide open which is absolutely fine for me.

 

I own the Summilux but I'm happy to be able to lend the NX (one in family) whenever it allures. Could never justify to buy it myself.

[Ronan]

From 1.4 they are more or less identical.

So for twice the size, double the weight, triple the price, long throw, the only thing extra you get is 0.95...

 

Is it worth it?

 

C

 

Only if you get it below MSRP (or close to it) and then resell at the ridiculous price it's going for.

[Peter H]

From my point of view, the small size of the Summilux makes it worth more to me than the Noctilux.

 

Admittedly the 0.95 is beautiful, but to me, not worth the compromises it presents because whilst 5% of the time 1.4 is not fast fast enough, 95% the Noctilux is too big and heavy. Big advantage Summilux.

 

And that's before taking the price differential into consideration.

[JWW]

I use my 35 lux most of the time but when I need a 50mm, I almost always take the Noctilux .95. Wide open, it's a fun lens to use and produces unique images and flattering portraits while stopped down it (to me) is comparable to the 50 lux ASPH. I do keep the 50 lux ASPH for those occasions that I need a smaller 50mm (like when hiking). In terms of cost comments, I only know for myself that the real cost of having the lens is the cost of buying it minus selling it and the purchases have been a positive in that sense.

[Clandrel]

I use my 35 lux most of the time but when I need a 50mm, I almost always take the Noctilux .95.

 

If I had paid $10000 for a 50mm I would also always bring the Noctilux:)

[IkarusJohn]

Hi John,

 

Interestingly, I have a very similar range of Leica lenses to you: 21 Summilux, 28 Summicron, 35 Summilux, 50 Summilux, and 75 Summicron, all current models.

 

I also have a 1.0 Noctilux on permanent loan from a friend, and a 1.5/50 C-Sonnar (bought after being convinced by Bill who is a strong advocate for this $1000 Zeiss), and I like how each of these 50's have very different characteristics. I've no interest in getting the 1.0 Noctilux.

 

Mark

 

Hi Mark,

 

No surprises there - best of the bunch!

 

Actually, it's nice to meet some one who has a similar interest in that range. I find them very useful. At some stage, I'll upgrade the 35 to the latest Lux (when it comes my way). My 28 & 75 I scored 2nd hand, but basically as new, for what now seems a discount (didn't at the time).

 

Cheers

John