Summilux or Noctilux

[KAD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Congratulations KAD. I am sure you will enjoy it. It will also be interesting to hear how you find the 0.95 compared to the 1.0 version.

 

Thank you! I must admit that unpacking something like this is a special thing I guess I will learn more about it during the next weeks and months, but here are some first impressions:

 

It is very heavy when compared to its size. It is big for Leica, but compared to a DSLR lens it is not that big, but feels extremely solid! Compared to the f1.0 it is heavier and longer, but I do not notice it to much. It makes the 50 Lux feel like you are not having any lens mounted

 

Sharpness is very impressing. At f0.95 it is not as sharp as the Lux, but it is a closer race than I thought. From f1.4 they seem to be ultra sharp both lenses. Compared to the f1.0 the difference is quite big. I also think the overall rendering of the bookeh on the f1.0 is also adding an impression to the ""softness" of the f1.0. The f0.95 is as Steve Huff described a 50 Lux on steroids. Bokeh is very similar (just more), and you have that sharpness.

 

Colors I have not have to much time to check yet. The corners a quite dark at f0.95 as expected, but I like the look that gives.

 

The build quality of the f1.0 and the f0.95 is to me very similar. I like the hood better on the last version, but otherwise they both seem well built. The focus throw is shorter and much better in use (for me) on the f0.95. The focus ring is a little heavy for my taste, and compared to the 50 Lux, I am not close to focus as fast.

 

That was a short summary after my first hours of testing. I think the lens is here to stay, but I also think the 50 Lux will stay, as they both cover different use.

 

Shoot is at f0.95

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!

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Thank you! I must admit that unpacking something like this is a special thing I guess I will learn more about it during the next weeks and months, but here are some first impressions:

 

It is very heavy when compared to its size. It is big for Leica, but compared to a DSLR lens it is not that big, but feels extremely solid! Compared to the f1.0 it is heavier and longer, but I do not notice it to much. It makes the 50 Lux feel like you are not having any lens mounted

 

Sharpness is very impressing. At f0.95 it is not as sharp as the Lux, but it is a closer race than I thought. From f1.4 they seem to be ultra sharp both lenses. Compared to the f1.0 the difference is quite big. I also think the overall rendering of the bookeh on the f1.0 is also adding an impression to the ""softness" of the f1.0. The f0.95 is as Steve Huff described a 50 Lux on steroids. Bokeh is very similar (just more), and you have that sharpness.

 

Colors I have not have to much time to check yet. The corners a quite dark at f0.95 as expected, but I like the look that gives.

 

The build quality of the f1.0 and the f0.95 is to me very similar. I like the hood better on the last version, but otherwise they both seem well built. The focus throw is shorter and much better in use (for me) on the f0.95. The focus ring is a little heavy for my taste, and compared to the 50 Lux, I am not close to focus as fast.

 

That was a short summary after my first hours of testing. I think the lens is here to stay, but I also think the 50 Lux will stay, as they both cover different use.

 

Shoot is at f0.95

 

Congrats. Nice kid!

 

Dont mean to be mean but all I see is a blurry picture... No DOF at all. Its like you missed the focus. I sometimes experience this also with my Hasselblad and 80mm planar. The DOF can be so narrow at close distances that anyone other than a fellow photog. who knew what lens you were using, i.e. a normal person on the street would just see a blurry photo. Sometimes its a good idea to open up to f2 or f4 just to give some focus to an image.

[KAD]

I will try not to be offended by your reply Ansel_Adams;) The picture was mostly ment to show the performance at f0.95. It might have been a "better" picture at f2 or f4. I quess prsonal taste will be a factor... I have even seen famues pictures that was not ultra sharp

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I will try not to be offended by your reply Ansel_Adams;) The picture was mostly ment to show the performance at f0.95. It might have been a "better" picture at f2 or f4. I quess prsonal taste will be a factor... I have even seen famues pictures that was not ultra sharp

 

The other thing you can try is to move further back. That also increases DOF.

 

Yes, sharpness is not everything but you can achieve blurry photos with any lens. No need to spend so much! Many of the greats created their best images with f3.5 lenses and slow film.

[jackstraw]

I think it is a spectacular image that shows off what the lens can do. Focus on the face is spot on. Bokeh is so creamy and transitions are so smooth. Colors and contrast are lovely. Congratulations on your lens.

[Paul J]

Don't worry about the nay saying, enjoy your lens KAD, I'm sure you don't need me telling you that though! There's plenty of people that share the same taste - I for one enjoy my 0.95 wide open and that is al that matters to me. Somehow many others seem to think otherwise.

[KAD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some parts of this discussion is interesting, but I want to explain with another example what I think..

 

I have a passion for hunting. When it comes to the gear (read rifles), you have many of the same discussions as with camera and lenses. We all have our arguments to make the choices we make. For me I have for most of my hunting chosen to use a old fashion rifle, a double barrel in a old caliber. It is by far not the most practical choice even though it for dangerous game it might be right. BUT... hunting with such gear with all its limitations still gives me the best EXPERIENCE, at that what is all about (for me). The hunt end when you kill the game, but the best part all happens before you pull that trigger..

 

To take pictures with Leica can only be done with Leica. Can other cameras do the same job just as good or better... most likely. But it will be another camera and another experience. Could you take a picture with a 50 Cron instead of a Noctlilux? In most cases yes! There will in many cases be other camera/lenses out there that would be a "better" or "smarter" choice than Leica, but that is not the point. I moved on from Canon to Leica, because Leica camera and use of RF inspire me, and gives me the experience when I use it that no other brand/system has given me. THAT alone do not make me a better photographer, but it makes me take more pictures, and through that learn even more.

 

So... I think I will keep carrying my heavy Nocti and my heavy rifle. I could easily have changed them both to something more practical, but I would then also trade of parts of the experience.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Enjoy your new lens KAD. Hope you get some great pics with it!

[KAD]

Since I have both the 50 Lux, Nocti f1 and Nocti f0.95 in house for one more day, I did a quick (and not very scientific) comparison of the three lenses in regards to sharpness. Picture are taken approx 1,8 meters away using LV for focus, and cable release. One picture show senter of picture, and the other is upper left corner. You can judge the pictures for yourself, but my "conclusion" was:

 

Nocti 0.95 is just as sharp as the Lux at 0.95 (in center!)! The Nocti f1 is the least sharp, but in this case show much better sharpness than the f0.95 in the edge.

 

Enjoy! Please do not question the validity of this test, as it is by no means meant for anything else than simple comparison.

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!

[Hookeye]

Thank you! Quite interesting. It confirms what we already know: The "Lux" is an amazing lens. The difference in center contrast and resolution between the 0.95 and 1.0 was more than I had expected. Even more surprising to see the 1.0 outperform in the extreme corners however. I wonder if this could have something to do with the thallium-glass and its exceptional refractive index? The glass was used in the old Noctis, but discontinued in the 0.95 because of its toxicity and risk to manufacturing employees in particular.

[KAD]

I was a bit surprised myself on how "blurry" the Nocti f0.95 was in the corner. I have seen results from other, and I most admit I am considering to have it checked by the dealer. It might be that the center sharpness has its consequence on the corners, but this seems a bit to much...

[Tonki-M]

I was a bit surprised myself on how "blurry" the Nocti f0.95 was in the corner. I have seen results from other, and I most admit I am considering to have it checked by the dealer. It might be that the center sharpness has its consequence on the corners, but this seems a bit to much...

 

why surprise? even Leica's own published MTF say pretty much the same thing! at 40lpm, towards the corner, lets just say it's a pretty steep slope. But at 0.95 it isn't meant to be shot in test charts anyway...so it really is just irrelevant.

[FrozenInTime]

I was a bit surprised myself on how "blurry" the Nocti f0.95 was in the corner. I have seen results from other, and I most admit I am considering to have it checked by the dealer. It might be that the center sharpness has its consequence on the corners, but this seems a bit to much...

 

Check the MTF charts:

I think that Noctilux is performing exactly as would be expected

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!

[Paul J]

The thing with 0.95 is even if it were a completely flat field, the depth of field is so low that what is on the edges is most likely out of focus anyway. Also the wavy field curvature contributes to what I like about this lens. Real world use is very different to MTF or test charts. The fact it is so sharp in the centre is astounding.

[KAD]

why surprise? even Leica's own published MTF say pretty much the same thing! at 40lpm, towards the corner, lets just say it's a pretty steep slope. But at 0.95 it isn't meant to be shot in test charts anyway...so it really is just irrelevant.

 

Let me refraise it a bit.. I have not studied the MTF chart, but I have seen some test pictures before. Compared to those, and the fact that is s so much better in center, but still much worse in corner than both the f1 and Lux is what is "surprising" (to me). For those who have already figured it out with studying the MTF charts, I guess it only confirm what you already know

[Hookeye]

To me, images are more informative than those WTF charts

[Clandrel]

This lens is definitely not about charts at 0.95. It's about character!

[erl]

Artist (painters) have always started with a blank canvas and a set of brushes (and odd tools) and applied paint not knowing exactly what the finished work will be like. Conversely, most modern Leica lenses are so 'clinical' that predicting your captured image is almost a given.

 

Enter the Noctilux! My experience is only with the f1 version. The variations of 'painting' that can be applied with that lens almost turns me into an artist (big ask ). The Noct is a very painterly lens that changes with the light, the aperture and the composition. There really is no other lens that works like that, in my experience.

 

It is totally possible to stuff up a picture shooting with a Noct, but show me the lens you have never stuffed up with. IMO focus is a piece of cake with the Noct. The real problem comes from users not understanding the DOF at various ranges and working within the 'sensible combinations'. It take talent and experience to get that together. Blaming the tools is a poor workman's excuse. Now if you want a difficult lens to focus, try the 75/2.0. fabulous lens, one of my favourites, but a dog to focus on the fly. The Noct will beat it everytime. Why? Because of the focus throw. Noct is long and deliberate, the 75 is short and snappy.

 

End result, both have a permanent place in my bag because I like to vary my 'paintings'.

 

Oh! To stay on topic, I would have a Summilux 50 as well in a heart beat, If I coul afford one. Thankfully, I got my Noct for a rediculously cheap price. I also have and will keep my 50Cron, simply because each 'package' delivers differently, not just in imaging.

[Paul J]

I think it's easier to screw up a picture with a Noctilux because of it's character. The DOF, the CA, the wavy field, the softness outside the centre wide open etc etc etc. There are more things that someone may be distracted by or may not like. It does have to tamed and/or used with purpose.

 

A lens that renders everything normal, will always look normal, so naturally, there are less things that someone might not like. However normal is not what I always want.

 

Enter the Noctilux! My experience is only with the f1 version. The variations of 'painting' that can be applied with that lens almost turns me into an artist (big ask ). The Noct is a very painterly lens that changes with the light, the aperture and the composition. There really is no other lens that works like that, in my experience.

 

Well said!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

Artist (painters) have always started with a blank canvas and a set of brushes (and odd tools) and applied paint not knowing exactly what the finished work will be like. Conversely, most modern Leica lenses are so 'clinical' that predicting your captured image is almost a given.

 

Enter the Noctilux! My experience is only with the f1 version. The variations of 'painting' that can be applied with that lens almost turns me into an artist (big ask ). The Noct is a very painterly lens that changes with the light, the aperture and the composition. There really is no other lens that works like that, in my experience.

 

It is totally possible to stuff up a picture shooting with a Noct, but show me the lens you have never stuffed up with. IMO focus is a piece of cake with the Noct. The real problem comes from users not understanding the DOF at various ranges and working within the 'sensible combinations'. It take latent and experience to get that together. Blaming the tools is a poor workman's excuse. Now if you want a difficult lens to focus, try the 75/2.0. fabulous lens, one of my favourites, but a dog to focus on the fly. The Noct will beat it everytime. Why? Because of the focus throw. Noct is long and deliberate, the 75 is short and snappy.

 

End result, both have a permanent place in my bag because I like to vary my 'paintings'.

 

Oh! To stay on topic, I would have a Summilux 50 as well in a heart beat, If I coul afford one. Thankfully, I got my Noct for a rediculously cheap price. I also have and will keep my 50Cron, simply because each 'package' delivers differently, not just in imaging.

 

Erl, you beat me to it. I completely agree with your description of the 1.0/50 Noctilux. With all due respect to those bagging this lens, and I'll be the first to list it's limitations, they either don't get it or it's rendering just isn't what they are looking for in their photographs (which is just fine), but they should understand that others do find a place for this unique lens - a look that cannot be reproduced with other lenses or in post-processing.

 

We should view the 1.0 and 0.95 lenses as very different. I do believe (perhaps incorrectly) that the 0.95 is a 1.4/50 Sumilux ASPH(FLE) with another stop and further reduction in DOF up it's sleeve and therefore it does not interest me as I have the Summilux, but clearly suits others who often shoot wide open.

 

The 1.0/50 Noctilux is my 'arty' 50mm lens (don't ask me to define that). It does not come close to the Summiliux for more 'accurate' rendering of an image. Although it is a very 'flawed' lens it is probably those flaws that define it's rendering. As Rockwell correctly writes (for once): 'sharpness can be overrated'.

 

The 1.0/50 is big, heavy to carry and focus, has marked vignetting and barrel distortion and focus shift and CA and is soft and of very low contrast wide open (where I rarely shoot).

 

Although hard to describe, it has a most beautiful and gentle image rendering and pastel colouring, and soft abstract OOF areas - perhaps as someone once described it's like using a pencil or charcoal or soft brush rather than a pen. But when it nails that 'arty' photograph it is just magic (at all apertures). I've also been surprised to note how often friends and family without photographic knowledge see my photographs taken with the Noctilux they specifically comment how beautiful they are and ask was there something special about the lens! It's flaws impart a very 'organic' feel to the photographs which is unlike any other 50 that I've used.

 

Perhaps those criticising the lens should read up on the 1.4/75 Summilux which is very comparable in it's rendering and colouring.

 

No, the 1.0/50 Noctilux not my first choice for general photography, and if I could have only one 50mm lens it would without doubt be the Summilux, but it is definitely the right 'brush' for the right subject.