The Noctilux f1 is still magical

[atournas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Noctilux f1 (E60) is the lens I use mostly with the M9 and, now that the Noctilux f0.95 has been out for some time, I wondered how much the previous version still held its reputation to other photographers' eyes. So I browsed the Internet and the impression I got was that forums posted mostly negative comments, while blogs offered mainly positive reviews.

 

The interesting thing with the negative remarks was that they focused around the lens's sharpness, especially in comparison with the Summilux and the Summicron. Pity, because dedicated Noctilux photographers have never related Noctilux appeal to its sharpness or analogous lab-based characteristics. It has always been the photographs produced by that lens that held the description "magic".

 

And that's how I value the Noctilux f1 myself. It's not the perfect lens, in fact far from it; it's not the easiest lens either. People who buy the lens for its "perfection" make a costly mistake--both in money and results. Just like the other misconception, that the lens is only for available darkness. Below is a 100% crop of my very first shot with the Noctilux on the M9, hand-held at 1/2000 and I estimate a f/5.6. I remember my spontaneous reaction when I saw the tiff file: "So, that's what I'm going to get from now on!"

 

The lens reminds me the British actress Kate Beckinsale, especially in her early 2000's films like "Serendipity". No one said then that she was the most beautiful woman in the world, but she was described as "otherworldly". Well, just like the lens.

 

Paul

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!

Edited June 14, 2014 by atournas

[frankwaller]

Agree - it's a 'total commitment lens' delivering the dream in much the same way as a roly; I've found few premium products (once acquired) succeed in surpassing their own legacy of consumer expectation (and hype), the nlux/f1 v4, does. Good copies will always be sought after by the cognoscenti. Psssh... omv appears to have softened of late, making it something of a bargain for those that know :-D

Edited July 6, 2014 by frankwaller

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I agree its a nice lens but realistically that photo could have been taken with almost any lens.

[frankwaller]

I agree its a nice lens but realistically that photo could have been taken with almost any lens.

 

(commenting as a novice) Objectively perhaps, subjectively no; and therein lies the magic... enjoy frank

[BerndReini]

If you want another kind of magic, start shooting wide open in daylight with an ND filter. The swirly bokeh this lens can deliver is otherworldly.

[nelly]

I think the magic is most evident when used wide open.

[DigitalHeMan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe I'm missing something with the compression of the image due to the forum limits, but could you explain to me what you find so magical about this shot?

 

I'm glad that you are happy with the results that you are getting, and I don't want to appear impolite, but really, what does this photo show that you wouldn't have got with any other (Leica) 50mm stopped down?

 

I have seen the results from the lens at f/1, and, whilst they are not going to break any records for sharpness, they have some special qualities about them, but I'm not seeing it here.....

[jbl]

I agree that it's a lens that holds its own even today. Wide open, it's not a sharp lens, but that wasn't the point to me. To me, the hand feel is better on the f/1 than on the f/0.95, but the focus throw is just a bit longer on the close end which bothers me some, but it's a gorgeous lens. Reminds me, I haven't used it in a few weeks .

[BerndReini]

I don't disagree that you may be able to achieve this with other 50mm lenses, but what I personally perceive in the OP's picture is a very classical rendering, "round" and "three-dimensional" could be used to describe it. Even though everything in frame seems acceptably sharp, I think this is due to the rendering of the areas behind and in front of the plane of focus. I see that same quality from the 35mm summicron pre-aspherical when stopped down to 5.6 or 8. Very nice indeed.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I think there is lot of rhetoric about the Noctilux, and it is undoubtedly a unique lens when shot wide open.. but when you stop it down it is very hard to tell apart from any other Leica 50 as was illustrated in the following recent thread here on the forum:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/337980-50-do-you-prefer.html

[swamiji]

I think there is lot of rhetoric about the Noctilux, and it is undoubtedly a unique lens when shot wide open.. but when you stop it down it is very hard to tell apart from any other Leica 50 as was illustrated in the following recent thread here on the forum:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/337980-50-do-you-prefer.html

 

 

This other thread contains a photo from the f/.95 Noctilux, not a f/1. They are quite different. The f/95 is more Summilux ASPH like stopped down.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

This other thread contains a photo from the f/.95 Noctilux, not a f/1. They are quite different. The f/95 is more Summilux ASPH like stopped down.

 

I am sure you would get similar results with the f1 or f1.2 lens. I have owned the f1.2 version and could not tell the difference stopped down either.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Ansel_Adams

[swamiji]

I own the f/1, and have been comparing the two, and no you don't. They are very different.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I own the f/1, and have been comparing the two, and no you don't. They are very different.

 

Not sure what you base this on. Every comparison I have ever seen has them looking very similar at f1.4 and up... you would not be able to tell them apart in a blind test.

[swamiji]

Not sure what you base this on. Every comparison I have ever seen has them looking very similar at f1.4 and up... you would not be able to tell them apart in a blind test.

 

 

Well in a blind test, I would need to see...

 

I can tell the difference between a Karbe lens and a Mandler lens.

 

The mistake people make is web photo's are the worst way to compare lenses.

[BerndReini]

I have taken this post as an inspiration to use my f1. It is absolutely magical. Wide open and stopped down. Definitely different from the Karbe design.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Well in a blind test, I would need to see...

 

I can tell the difference between a Karbe lens and a Mandler lens.

 

The mistake people make is web photo's are the worst way to compare lenses.

 

And yet the vast majority of digital images are viewed on a computer or phone! I think you are in denial about your Noctilux. Stop it down and its no better or worse than any of the other 50s.

[swamiji]

Experience may look like denial to someone without it.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Experience may look like denial to someone without it.

 

Heres from someone with plenty of experience assessing lenses:

 

"At f/2 and smaller, the current LEICA 50mm f/2 SUMMICRON-M has clearly superior performance. Unless you need f/1.4 or f/1, leave this old NOCTILUX-M to armchair enthusiasts."

 

LEICA 50mm f/1 NOCTILUX (1976-2008)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Here, in a blind test can you tell the following 3 images apart (taken with the 3 Noctis, f1.2, f1, and f0.95:

 

A)

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/50_0.95-9071331.jpg

 

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/50_1-9071325.jpg

 

C)

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/50_1.2-9071328.jpg

 

And these are shot wide open. Stopped down the differences become even more impossible to ascertain.