Noctilux 1.0: Soft at close distances?

[Guest Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 0.95 pushes lens technology to extremes to get high performance at this aperture, but using it as a close up lens wide open is not what it was designed for......

 

Correct, and the f/1.0 is of course worse in that respect.

[Double Negative]

I wouldn't call the f/0.95 soft wide open. Low contrast maybe. Though sure, by f/1.2 IQ all around improves and by f/1.4 it's nearly on par with the Summilux.

[Guest Ornello]

I wouldn't call the f/0.95 soft wide open. Low contrast maybe. Though sure, by f/1.2 IQ all around improves and by f/1.4 it's nearly on par with the Summilux.

 

But the OP has the older f/1.0. Has everyone forgotten?

[atournas]

I guess it is important for a lens user to "read the literature" about the lens before use. Puts, in the article on Noctilux f/1.0 in his blog, is quite clear about softness at close distances. From my experience with the lens (I currently have it on an M9), it is better to avoid distances less than 2m; the necessity for razor-sharp accuracy in focusing intensifies the problem.

 

Paul

[Double Negative]

But the OP has the older f/1.0. Has everyone forgotten?

 

Until he gets his new f/0.95 today.

 

I was merely responding to the suggestion that the f/0.95 is soft.

[glenerrolrd]

You can test this easily and eliminate the whole discussion of your focus accuracy and calibration . Take a newspaper and lay it on a table with print running away from you . Shooting at a 45 degree angle focus on the first letter of a sentence . Make sure you have plenty of light and can shoot at ISO 160 and with a shutter speed of over 1/125 . Take 6 captures refocusing each time. A key to focusing is to look at the letters directly before and after the target ...they should be in focus and the distribution of focus should be close to 50/50 ...or slightly back . Be sure to view on a monitor not on your camera .

 

You will miss a few times but one letter in the sentence will be sharpest . Assuming you can hold the camera steady thats the potential of your lens in close focus . If they are all back or all forward then you should work on testing the calibration .

 

Right after the M8 came out I sent my Noct 58mm for 6 bit and calibration . One year later ..four trips to Solms and $700 to rebuild it ..it focused appropriately . This was after both M8 were adjusted in Solms and NJ .

 

Before the lens was rebuilt I tested it against no less than 6 other new 50 Noct ..4 in Solms . My lens was not as sharp close as the newer versions until it was rebuilt in Solms . But none of the lenses would be considered sharp at minimum focus distance compared to current standards ...50 summilux asph or the new Noct 0.95.

[LVSBB6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's soft only at infinity I find.

[ymc226]

I performed the close up ( 1 meter) tests wide open on both the 1.0 and 0.95 Noctiluxes tonight. I also included the 75 and 90 Cron ASPH.

 

How can I load the images to this thread for comments? They are in the TIF format.

[ymc226]

Here are the test shots done at a little more than 1 meter, using a tripod. I think lenses are in spec as the middle line is what I focused on. Both the 0.95 and 1.0 Noctiluxes are "soft" wide open. The chart was at 45 degrees to the camera with the right side of the photo angled farther back.

 

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!

 

Noctiulx 0.95

 

 

Noctilux 1.0

 

 

Summicron 75

 

 

Summicron 90

[Lindolfi]

That's very interesting, ymc226. In order of decreasing contrast it's the summicron 75, summicron 90, noctilux 0.95, noctilux 1.0.

 

Now the whites of the summicron images are darker than those of the noctiluxes. Consequently, also the blacks are darker. If you correct the images of the summicrons by picking up the exposures when loading the RAW files, the differences in contrast between the images are easier to judge. (It is better to check the histograms on camera when shooting). Obviously even when the whites are in the same locations of the histogram, there still is a difference in contrast.

 

One thing else should be noted: you have taken the shots at the same location of the camera (which is also revealed by the perspective deformation of the test object). That means you had to cut out a smaller portion of the 50mm images than from the 75 and certaintly smaller than for the 90. Bringing them back to equal sizes for us, makes the comparison unfair for the 50 mm lenses. You are looking at finer detail at the softness: the black lines have covered fewer pixels in the 50 mm images than in the summicron images.

[thighslapper]

Here are the test shots done at a little more than 1 meter, using a tripod. I think lenses are in spec as the middle line is what I focused on. Both the 0.95 and 1.0 Noctiluxes are "soft" wide open. The chart was at 45 degrees to the camera with the right side of the photo angled farther back.

 

........ and if you repeat at 1.4 and 2.8 you will see a big difference.....

 

you would have to be half blind not to notice the lack of 'crispness' of the images wide open at 1m with these lenses. The shallow DOF tends to mask the effect as so much of the rest of the image is OOF.... and this is also why the issue is not really a problem in real-world use as the overall distinctive 'look' is what gives the images their unique character....

[ymc226]

That's very interesting, ymc226. In order of decreasing contrast it's the summicron 75, summicron 90, noctilux 0.95, noctilux 1.0.

 

Now the whites of the summicron images are darker than those of the noctiluxes. Consequently, also the blacks are darker. If you correct the images of the summicrons by picking up the exposures when loading the RAW files, the differences in contrast between the images are easier to judge. (It is better to check the histograms on camera when shooting). Obviously even when the whites are in the same locations of the histogram, there still is a difference in contrast.

 

One thing else should be noted: you have taken the shots at the same location of the camera (which is also revealed by the perspective deformation of the test object). That means you had to cut out a smaller portion of the 50mm images than from the 75 and certaintly smaller than for the 90. Bringing them back to equal sizes for us, makes the comparison unfair for the 50 mm lenses. You are looking at finer detail at the softness: the black lines have covered fewer pixels in the 50 mm images than in the summicron images.

 

Thanks for your comments and I agree with both of them. It is unfair to compare the 50mm lenses with the rest as I did magnify them to a greater extent.

 

My main concern was more of focus calibration of the whole camera and lens system. Reading and or participating on forums such as this, one thing I've found is my paranoia level has increased. Issues that I would have taken for granted like focus accuracy, sensors without dead pixels, properly working memory cards are now things I look for. All in all, the amount of learning and advice I've received more than makes up for my self inflicted increase in anxiety level.

[Jager]

Hello ymc. I'm the fellow whose website article you referenced. Sounds like, through the good answers here as well as your own test, you've already clarified that yes, indeed, the Noct-shot-wide-open is rather soft at very close distances. A situation that can and often is exacerbated because of the razor thin depth-of-field.

 

I would just emphasize that that inherent softness - an optical quality - is very different from focus shift (an optical quality, but a different one from inherent softness); or front/back focus (a mechanical calibration issue).

 

Older Nocts, the vast majority of which were built in the pre-digital era, frequently exhibit some degree of calibration error. Certainly my copy did. I would presume that Leica's factory calibration and QC processes have largely eliminated that issue with the newer 0.95 Noct.

 

After posting that story on my website that you referred to, I continued to shoot my Noct extensively. It did not come off my camera for five months. Partly that was because I was in love with the imagery it produced. Partly it was because I wanted to become intimately familiar with its properties and its magic. Among the things I discovered is that seeing the world at f1 isn't nearly as limiting as I would have thought.

 

I think the anxiety you describe is part and parcel of the high-end digital realm we revel in these days. I'd only suggest to not go too far down that road, if you can. Just go take pictures.

 

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the new 0.95 Noct.