50mm Summilux vs Noctilux {merged}

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 0.95 is a very capable beast. It's the only 50mm that I own and I'm not in any hurry to own another. It's my standard personal and work lens and is used every day.

[Advertisement]

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

[algrove]

Now that I have had the M 240 on order (and fully paid), I am in the market for a 50mm lens. The current cameras are M7, and M8.

 

I figure 50mm will round up the kit (35mm, and 90mm APO f/2).

 

I am torn between the 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/0.95. Any insights beyond one stop, and cost differences will be appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

The 50/1.4 is like a Red Bull can on your camera and the Noctilux is like a Coke can in diameter and for big fingers is not that easy to dismount. If you have the finds for a Noctilux you could think about the APO 50 as perhaps you will not really need f1.4 all that much

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Again Tanks,

 

Well, here it is 20 Posts & nothing yet resolved. How about approaching this problem from a different angle?

 

Given:

 

You already have a 35mm, a 47mm (Equivalent), a 90mm & a 120mm (Equivalent) lens.

 

All F2.

 

All as high quality image makers as any of the 50mm lenses you are considering.

 

What can you do with any of the 50mm lenses you are considering that is both of interest to you & so different from what you can do now?

 

Just as a person can have 2 camera bodies & 3 lenses they can also have & use equally well 3 camera bodies & 2 lenses. Especially when there is no redundency in bodies with the 3 bodies you will have.

 

Sometimes less is more.

 

Meaning: Sometimes your mind is much more useful.

 

Don't forget that extra body cap.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[rramesh]

Hi Tanks,

 

When I first started with a Leica, I always felt that I could do with one more lens as each lens offered something new and different in its own way.

 

Soon I came to the realization that:

 

• I don't have unlimited funds.
  
• I can only use one lens at a time. This meant that with several lenses I will use each only some part of the time. In my case I use 50mm 40% of the time, 28mm 40% of the time, 90mm <10% of the time and 21mm <10% of the time.
  
• I can realistically carry only 2 lenses (one on camera and one spare) on a walkabout without being a juggler.
  
• In most cases you use the lens you have on so as not to miss the moment.
  

Then there is the regret factor. Are there any photos I really could not take with my current lens options. Yes, there were a few. Most often it was because I did not have the lens with me even though I owned it. In a few instances I felt I would have been better using an f/0.95 50mm or an 18mm or a 135mm etc. In most cases upon reflection I felt it was wishful thinking and I could not justify the investment without selling some other lens.

[MarkP]

Hi Tanks,

 

When I first started with a Leica, I always felt that I could do with one more lens as each lens offered something new and different in its own way.

 

Soon I came to the realization that:

 

• I don't have unlimited funds.
  
• I can only use one lens at a time. This meant that with several lenses I will use each only some part of the time. In my case I use 50mm 40% of the time, 28mm 40% of the time, 90mm <10% of the time and 21mm <10% of the time.
  
• I can realistically carry only 2 lenses (one on camera and one spare) on a walkabout without being a juggler.
  
• In most cases you use the lens you have on so as not to miss the moment.
  

Then there is the regret factor. Are there any photos I really could not take with my current lens options. Yes, there were a few. Most often it was because I did not have the lens with me even though I owned it. In a few instances I felt I would have been better using an f/0.95 50mm or an 18mm or a 135mm etc. In most cases upon reflection I felt it was wishful thinking and I could not justify the investment without selling some other lens.

 

So true,and I also almost always take a 28 and 50.

...but it's never stopped me buying that 'one more lens'

[efreed2754]

After acquiring more lenses since getting the M9/P, now 10, believe supply creates demand!

 

The point is if have lenses with me, somehow find a way to use them. Yes there are times don't use a lens much, even my beloved 35 Summicron.

 

It was an epiphany getting my 50 Lux not having a prime 50 for the last 15 years. Now finding many shots with the 50.

 

Perhaps some combination of where I am/the situation, my point of view and avoiding the regret factor mentioned above.

 

Point being the Noctilux will create unique opportunities. Not in market as 50 Lux is enough for me. No wrong choice. Just balance of weight, cost and artistic inclinations--what economists call allocation of scarce resources!

[jaques]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IMHO: get the summilux. forget the noctilux. Ultra shallow depth of field is an over-rated gimmick most times. F1.4 is far more usable and plenty shallow and the lens size/usability factor is very important.

[MarkP]

I too would have my 1.4/50 Summilux FLE over the 0.95/50 Noctilux.

 

I also have the 1.0/50 E60 Noctilux. A very different lens which oozes character (pardon the subjective gushing:)) I rarely shoot it wider than 1.4 as although I often want to limit depth of field, I too am not a great fan of the '2mm DOF School'.

[banshy]

If you are eyeing the noctilux, you should get one. In the end you will buy one anyway and this will be more expensive than buying one in the first place

[DES]

Personally I don't know what all the fuss is about the Nocti being heavy. Yes is is heavier than normal 50mm lenses but wheather I use mine or not is nothing to do with its weight. Still better than a DSLR plus lens any day.

The only issue for me is its speed of focus( or more accurately mine) and initially it's price. Can't wait to use it on a full frame leica.

[erl]

Personally I don't know what all the fuss is about the Nocti being heavy. Yes is is heavier than normal 50mm lenses but wheather I use mine or not is nothing to do with its weight. Still better than a DSLR plus lens any day.

The only issue for me is its speed of focus( or more accurately mine) and initially it's price. Can't wait to use it on a full frame leica.

Des, you are exactly right, IMO. If you worry about weight, don't use any Leica because their P&S 'equivalent' is always much lighter!

 

"Suffer for your craft and carry it" I say.

 

Don't know what you put your Noct on at present. Must be an M8 I'm guessing. When you put it on a FF, film or digital, you will see the full character of that lens and learn to love it.

 

Focussing as you say is slower. I consciously say to myself "slow down and get it right". Rushing and mucking it is not worthwhile. It's discipline that works.

[Guest borge]

People keep mentioning the Summilux 1.4/50 FLE here... Is this some new lens? I mean, the current 1.4/50 is ASPH branded.

[Jeff S]

People keep mentioning the Summilux 1.4/50 FLE here... Is this some new lens? I mean, the current 1.4/50 is ASPH branded.

 

It's the same lens, officially called the Summilux ASPH, but it is an aspherical lens with floating elements.

 

Jeff

[01af]

People just LOVE to make up new names for existing lenses.

[sheikhrafiq79]

which one is better for image, 50/0.95 or 50/1.4 asph.

[steveclem]

You'd have to define your wants and needs before anyone can answer. The 0.95 is more expensive if that's any help.

[01af]

You don't search a forum before you post, do you?

[sheikhrafiq79]

for bokeh and creamy look.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

Do a quick search in the Forum, there are innumerable threads on this topic.

One is currently running a few lines below this one.

 

I have the 1.4/50 and a 1.0/50 E60 Noctilux (which I rarely use at f1.0) which render very differently.

 

 

I don't have the 0.95/50 Noctilux and don't plan on getting one.

I stand to be corrected but I'm unaware of any real or significant difference between the f1.4/50 FLE and 0.95/50 at or below f1.4.

 

The 1.4/50 has plenty of 'cream and bokeh' (the 1.0/50 even more), so unless you're into the f.095-1.0 zero-DOF (which I'm not) there is probably no advantage to the 0.95 Noctilux and the money saved is significant.

 

However, the Forum is a robust democracy and I'm sure others will strongly disagree.

[thedigitalbean]

I own both. The 50 f/0.95 because of its larger aperture has more background blur and shallower depth of field for the same focus distance. However, the 1.4 ASPH has more pleasing bokeh IMO. Both are great lenses, but given the bigger size of Noct. and higher price, its hard to recommend it to people except as a specialty tool.