NoctiLUST

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nick, before buying it, re-check, how well it is aligned (the quick shot, you shared above looks quite off, focus wise).

With the Noctilux, nothing can be more frustrating, than a sample which is just a bit off, you ending up juggling focussing it …

 

Having your Noctilux properly adjusted is mandatory (and can be a bit more costly, if you have to pay for it, as with other lenses).

I do love my v4 - it has been a long time my absolute favourite lens and still now, when I pick it up, I love the look of it.

 

When using cameras, that perform better in low light, like the Mono or the M240, the Noctilux largely losses it's need (my most used 50 is now a 50/1.4 E46 instead, which is smaller, focusses closer and overall a bit more practical, while retaining some of the Noctilux f1 character).

 

The other 50mm lenses you mentioned seem different enough in handling and rendering to make a case for getting a f1 Noctilux, so after checking it carefully go for it (focus calibration, play in the barrel, uneven focus feel are the most common issues with second hand copies).

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

So the Noctilux wasn't yours? Or you use it on your view camera?

 

Jeff

 

I sold it on... Like I said before, there is nothing particularly remarkable about the Noctilux, other than its maximum wide aperture, which in my experience is not usable as images taken wide open basically look blurred/out of focus (just look at the images posted to this thread if you need examples), and as soon as you stop down you are better served by a Summicron. If you want thin DOF then stepping up to MF or LF is a much better option (and cheaper too!).

 

People aspire to things that are just beyond their financial reach. I get it. But having owned one I thought I would provide my honest feedback about it. It is not that great in my experience. Save your money and stick with a Cron.

[erlingmm]

Had the lust, bought it, sold the 50'lux to finance it. After a few months I found the Nocti too heavy, and I rarely used it on 0.95, missed the 50'lux, maybe the finest lens in the M lineup. Sold the Nocti, bought back the 50'lux. Happy. And I know a few with exactly the same cycle of experience.

[Nick De Marco]

Thanks again for all the helpful comments all.

 

Yes I did buy it yesterday, and I am very happy. Photos will follow.

 

The shop actually had 6 used Noctis for sale, including a .95. I tried them all and ended up with the one I first tried, a v4 in mint condition.

 

As for my photo having the focus off, you are right. However I am pretty sure that is down to user error rather than the lens. I did some other testing using focus peaking and the lens seems to focus accurately. It's just it shall take me some practice to hit the focus....

 

Anyway, I am now in Rome for a couple of days, and in between work I intend to go mad shooting Rome between f1-f2 for a change (I am usually here using my summicron at f8).

 

Thanks all

[Erik Gunst Lund]

Congratulations Nick! Enjoy Rome

[farnz]

Nick,

 

Congratulations and I hope you and your Noctilux get on famously.

 

One thing I might mention is that when I moved from the M9-P to the M I noticed that pictures with the Noctilux had lost their pop. At first I put it down to the difference between CCD and CMOS sensors but when I eventually did a rf check with the EVF I found the rf to be slightly off. I had Solms check it when we were in Wetzlar for the One Challenge and after getting it back the Noctilux's pop has returned so it's very important that your M's rf is accurate.

 

Pete.

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also it will need the UV-IR filter - on the M8 I found the Noctilux was very prone to ir-contamination, and the M is going to give you similar problems (the image you took hints at this).

[rirakuma]

I have to disagree about the UV/IR filters. If you're using the M8, its not a bad idea but on the M I'd advise against it. From my experience it worsens the vignetting and with my filter (an E60 UV/IR Leica) it also slightly decreases the sharpness. I use UV/IR filter on pretty much all my lenses as a protective precaution except for the Noctilux.

 

I wouldn't worry about IR contamination on the M as its negligible, even on the M8 some images are fine without an IR filter. The two pictures below are taken with the M8 and M respectively without an IR filter. The M8 file had an IR cast but it was fixable in post. There's visible IR contamination on the M picture but I don't find it distracting.

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!

[xplorer2]

Congratulations Nick on the Nocti.

 

I know exactly what you meant by NoctiLUST having wrestle back and forth on the decision to get it or not a year ago. Finally took the plunge on the .95 and still loving it. Weight wise not much an issue as my other setup is a DSLR with even heavier lenses so actually the Noct is light

 

Off course on the technical front still trying to milk the full capability of the lens which for low light work just draws in its own unique way. Mated to a Monochrom, it is one of my favorite setup

 

Noctilust images | The One Picture

 

Enjoy the lens. Its definitely one of my favorite.

[erl]

I sold it on... Like I said before, there is nothing particularly remarkable about the Noctilux, other than its maximum wide aperture, which in my experience is not usable as images taken wide open basically look blurred/out of focus (just look at the images posted to this thread if you need examples),

Your opinion that there is nothing remarkable about the Noctilux is just that. Opinion, to which you are entitled. But be prepared to be contested by the many who have extensive experience with the lens to disagree.

and as soon as you stop down you are better served by a Summicron.

Yes, assuming you have one! (which I do), but be aware that the way the Noctilux 'draws' will never be matched by a Cron or any other lens. Therein lies the difference.

If you want thin DOF then stepping up to MF or LF is a much better option (and cheaper too!).

Yeah! Good suggestion, to carry MF and LF, just in case you want small DOF, especially for 'street photography'.

 

 

People aspire to things that are just beyond their financial reach. I get it. But having owned one I thought I would provide my honest feedback about it. It is not that great in my experience. Save your money and stick with a Cron.

No, I don't think you get 'it'. I'm afraid just owning one is no qualification for comment. Your experience appears to be very limited with this lens. Experience, BTW, is not measured by time, but extensive, intensive use.

 

All that, of course, is just my opinion.

[Etruscello]

Why put any limits on your NoctiLUST? If you can come up with the money for an f1, why stop there? Raise a little more and go for the f0.95! The latter has everything the f1 has by way of character AND its wide-open IQ will look as technically capable as your Summicron 50 does at f2. It is the miracle lens -- something that is worth it. Tom

[IWC Doppel]

I do agree that the f1 Nocti is not super easy to use, but it's really not the dragon that I was expecting, a little slow to focus (long movement) but precise enough for me, I'm missing it as it's away being coded. A 'grab shot' of 'little O' at f1.0 having a groom, you can see the wonderful crayon like rendering and that beautiful softness. It's still sharp enough for portraits at f1 in my view see the crop, I'm not a huge fan of super sharp in any case. I have a 50 Summicron which is very nice, but it's a different lens to the Noctilux, horses for courses IMO. Nick you'll love it

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!

[Jeff S]

I sold it on... Like I said before, there is nothing particularly remarkable about the Noctilux, other than its maximum wide aperture, which in my experience is not usable as images taken wide open basically look blurred/out of focus (just look at the images posted to this thread if you need examples), and as soon as you stop down you are better served by a Summicron. If you want thin DOF then stepping up to MF or LF is a much better option (and cheaper too!).

 

People aspire to things that are just beyond their financial reach. I get it. But having owned one I thought I would provide my honest feedback about it. It is not that great in my experience. Save your money and stick with a Cron.

 

Great pics….and crap pics….can be taken with any camera or lens. Ansel used all kinds of cameras, and said during a 1981 film interview…"Knowing what I know now, any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras."

Different Ansel Adams.

 

Jeff

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Gentlemen, I see I have ruffled a few feathers with my experience and views on this lens. I would suggest you state your opinion and move on. No need to attack other people!

[Jeff S]

Gentlemen, I see I have ruffled a few feathers with my experience and views on this lens. I would suggest you state your opinion and move on. No need to attack other people!

 

I don't own the lens, and have no lens lust. My point is that it's not about the lens; it IS about the photographer and how he/she uses the gear.

 

You didn't like it (although it took some prompting from me before you even let us know that you owned it), and that's fine. Your opinion means as much as anyone else's, based on your experience. But that doesn't mean it can't work in someone else's hands, given their needs and preferences.

 

I would never tell another photographer (unless someone whose work I know and who invited opinion) that it's a bad product and a bad choice for them. That's where you made it about you rather than the lens.

 

Otherwise to each his own.

 

Jeff

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Jef S,

 

The OP asked about the Noctilux and in particular "Is it worth it?"

 

All I did was give my opinion. I don't think it is worth it. Get the summicron instead. etc. Others gave theirs. Yes, its worth it. Go for it.

 

End of story.

 

I think you need to learn to live with the fact we all see things differently.

 

I have now added you to my ignore list.

[Jeff S]

 

I think you need to learn to live with the fact we all see things differently.

 

 

Pot calling kettle.

 

But I guess we should all get view cameras to make everyone happy.

 

Jeff

[satijntje]

Had the lust, bought it, sold the 50'lux to finance it. After a few months I found the Nocti too heavy, and I rarely used it on 0.95, missed the 50'lux, maybe the finest lens in the M lineup. Sold the Nocti, bought back the 50'lux. Happy. And I know a few with exactly the same cycle of experience.

 

I did exactly the Same!

 

John

[erl]

Gentlemen, I see I have ruffled a few feathers with my experience and views on this lens. I would suggest you state your opinion and move on. No need to attack other people!

No ruffled feathers, and no attacks.

Just correcting some incorrect statements that were not opinion, which of course you are still entitled to.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[menos I M6]

Why put any limits on your NoctiLUST? If you can come up with the money for an f1, why stop there? Raise a little more and go for the f0.95! The latter has everything the f1 has by way of character AND its wide-open IQ will look as technically capable as your Summicron 50 does at f2. It is the miracle lens -- something that is worth it. Tom

 

Here is a point where many will disagree (myself included).

The difference between the old non aspherical Noctlilux f1 and the modern Noctilux f.95 are so big and not just reduced to the newer model simply having a "better" optical ability, that if you ask a few different people you get very different responses regarding these different lenses.

 

A v4 f1 sample is among a very few lenses, I consider my absolute favourites in regards of how they render.

I tried a few times to really like the modern .95 Noctilux and considered adding one but as much as I admire the technical effort it took Leica engineers to design and produce in serial production the newer version, I simply cannot like it.

 

(I have to add, I feel very similar about the latest pre ASPH 50 Summilux, of which I went through several copies to end up with my favourite one and the 50 Summilux ASPH, which I sold after a few years of use simply because I much prefer the way, the older technically inferior lens renders).

 

Often in life things are not as clearly cut, as rating in numbers, spec sheets or simple logic but subjective response as a human towards a feeling …

 

I love the Noctilux f1.

 

lucky man by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

portrait - JC by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

racing with hot food by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

There is just one thing I do not like about the Noctilux f1 - due to its physical limitations it has a certain amount of aperture blades with a certain aperture blade shape, that creates in my opinion in combination with its aberration very ugly background highlight shapes between f1.4 - f2.8.

I generally try to not use these apertures, when shooting in low light with potential background highlights in the image.

This is not an issue, when such highlights do not show up with an undistracted background or in flat lighting.

I suppose the modern .95 Noctilux shows this issue only in a very reduced fashion as of it's better correction (less distortion of the clear aperture shaped highlights in this range).