Noctilux vs Summilux (asph)

[Jager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yep, definitely silver on the chrome body, Peter! I love the sort of retro look that gives. And you hit the nail on the head - I agree, the singular reason the Noct is somewhat limited as a general purpose lens is because of its long, slow focus throw. Having both the Noct and the Lux in the bag surely covers all the bases!

 

Jeff

[tom0511]

So I need to keep both ;(

The silver lens is heavier, I would go for black.

In the end both look pretty good on a silver body. (I decided for a black M8 but might get silver, if I had to do it again)

Regards,Tom

[innerimager]

So I need to keep both ;(

The silver lens is heavier, I would go for black.

In the end both look pretty good on a silver body. (I decided for a black M8 but might get silver, if I had to do it again)

Regards,Tom

Tom- I thought so too and this would be a factor, but the specs listed on B&H says both are 11.8 oz. For the same weight I will go with the silver I think....Peter

[fotografr]

Hang on to the Noctliux untill you are absolutely sure you do not WANT it in the long run! I also have a Nocti and a 50 lux asph ................. i used the nocti for months as my only lens .... now i am back to my other lenses and am using the 50 lux asph much more, in fact my Noctilux rests on the shelf for a couple of months already.

For me the Noctilux only makes sens when i want to go out to shoot the world at f1.0: shoot typical noctilux pictures.

At the moment i am not in the f1.0 mood and want to take other type of pictures ..... but i am convinced the f1.0 fever will hit again sometime in the near future.

Buying.... selling and .....buying again is a very expensive strategy i know from experience ... so i keep the Noctilux!

 

I also have both and use both. I think the OOF areas of each lens is distinct and different from the other.

[adan]

...one thing I noticed with the Summilux asph is that while it's bokeh behind the subject is very nice, the out-of-focus in the foreground is not so pleasing.

Anyone find the same ?

 

1. Yes

 

2. This is true of almost all lenses. Light rays coming from a lens form two cones, tip to tip. Where the tips meet is the focused point, and the cones spreading out in front and behind that point create the blur circles. However, the cones are not perfectly symmetrical, therefore the "drawing" of the circles in front of or behind the focused point is usually somewhat opposite.

 

The recent 50 crons and the pre-ASPH 50 lux tend to have smooth foreground blur and bright rings in the background. The 50 ASPH and the 90 cron pre-ASPH tend to be the opposite - soft-edged blurs in the rear, but harsher hard-edged blurs in the foreground.

 

This study on the luminous landscape has some examples showing this effect (Figures 6 - 9): http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

 

For me, backgrounds are USUALLY more important, which is why I traded up from a 50 cron to the ASPH. But if one shoots a lot with blurred foreground, its something to bear in mind.

[innerimager]

Thanks for this lucid explanation Andy. And, having just this minute sent my letter off to Solms for the 50 lux asph to compliment the noctilux, you've provided another reason, besides just liking it, to keep that old rigid cron! best....Peter

[arthury]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fast lenses are a fascination, aren't they? The more we talk about them, the faster our hearts pounded and sometimes, discussions deteriorate into heated exchange of words. They are a curse that the optics industry breathed upon our society.

 

With the curse in mind, I shall proceed to speak with a cautious demeanor. The basic operation of focusing a fast lens when it is opened wide is a challenging operation for humans. At f/1.0 and when aiming at a subject that's less than 8 feet away, there's no room for movements along the axis of the lens elements after you complete the focusing: i.e. no pulse or breathing. In addition, its MTF reveals a rather low resolution and contrast, even at the center. Consequently, I find the Noctilux a very challenging lens to use and I do not use it unless I really have to use it. In short, the Noctilux is a large hammer for a large job that does not require fine resolution ... no pun intended.

 

I do not own the 50mm Summilux Asph but based on the MTF, it looks a lot more appealing in terms of the resolution. I would think focusing at f/1.4 might be a little more forgiving when the subject is close.

 

For most work, Summicrons and the Elmarits are more than sufficient.

 

Having said these, owning a fast & fat lens (whether you really need it or not) is also a heart-pounding experience.

[jlm]

"However, the cones are not perfectly symmetrical..."

 

???

[tom0511]

......

 

The recent 50 crons and the pre-ASPH 50 lux tend to have smooth foreground blur and bright rings in the background. The 50 ASPH and the 90 cron pre-ASPH tend to be the opposite - soft-edged blurs in the rear, but harsher hard-edged blurs in the foreground.

 

This study on the luminous landscape has some examples showing this effect (Figures 6 - 9): bokeh

 

For me, backgrounds are USUALLY more important, which is why I traded up from a 50 cron to the ASPH. But if one shoots a lot with blurred foreground, its something to bear in mind.

 

Actually I have not looked at the foreground bokeh lately but did some comparisons with background blur comparing lenses and found the 50/1.4asph and also the Noctilux much smoother than the cron.

I understand the 50 cron is a very good lens but personally prefer the look of both , the Noctilux and the Summilux.

regards , tom

[woodyspedden]

Nobody yet has commented on a major issue.

 

Even if you conclude that you don't need both lenses and decide to sell the Noctilux wait for a little while. The price of a new Noctilux has just gone up $1500. This will ripple through to used lenses as sellers begin to reprice based on the list price increase.

 

Woody

[carstenw]

Tom- I thought so too and this would be a factor, but the specs listed on B&H says both are 11.8 oz. For the same weight I will go with the silver I think....Peter

 

The black version of the 50/1.4 Asph weighs 335g and the chrome version 466g. I don't know why the second number has gotten lost in the current PDF on Leica's site, but this is probably why B&H shows the same weight for the two versions. Holding both in your hands, the chrome version is noticeably heavier. You can't chrome aluminium, so the outer layers of the chrome version are made of brass.

[innerimager]

The black version of the 50/1.4 Asph weighs 335g and the chrome version 466g. I don't know why the second number has gotten lost in the current PDF on Leica's site, but this is probably why B&H shows the same weight for the two versions. Holding both in your hands, the chrome version is noticeably heavier. You can't chrome aluminium, so the outer layers of the chrome version are made of brass.

oh boy, now you tell me ;>) I ordered the chrome version by sending the letter off yesterday. Probably would not have if I had known, but I can always tell myself I'm getting more for my money! best....Peter

[lightpainter]

BTW: what I like about my Noctilux (Made in Canada) is that it has the detachable hood which I originally thought to be a disadvantage; although it is a 58mm filtre diameter I got a matching B+W UV filtre and it really works great

[Tony C.]

Noctilux threads pop up fairly regularly on the various forums, and, given the recent price increase, are currently getting a lot of play. Some of the questions being asked are quite reasonable, as are some of the answers. What I fail to understand is the point of those who dogmatically assert that one shouldn't consider the lens because of it's limitations.

 

It is true that:

 

a) it is a relatively heavy lens (though not so much to those used to SLRs)

 

it is a very expensive lens (especially after the price increase)

 

c) it is lens which has a very narrow DOF, so accurate focussing can be a real challenge

 

d) for many applications, other 50mm Leica lenses are sensible alternatives

 

At the same time, however, the Noctilux is a remarkably unique lens which allows hand-held shooting in low light, and, to my eye (and those of many others) paints a beautiful image.

 

So, if one can afford the price, and if one values the unique abilities of the Noctilux highly enough, then it's limitations are (or will be) rendered insignificant. It's really that simple, in my view.

 

Regards,

 

Tony C.