The Noctilux f1 is still magical

[atournas]

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.....

 

Simon, sorry it took me so long to comment on your post. The image I uploaded was just to back what you are saying, namely, that the Noctilux, off the f/1, can deliver the same way other 50mm's do.

 

Paul

[Paul J]

LOL. Well, if you can only see a difference at A3 printed, then I would suggest that the difference is very hard to discern and inconsequential for most uses.

 

The differences are obvious even in small jpgs.

 

I own the 0.95 and will buy the f1 because of it's different rendering. I'm not so interested in the f1.2, I'm not a fan of the flatter tones and colour or the mushier rendering. I know there are a few people here that happily own all three.

 

The point is that the Noctilux does perform like a Summilux and Summicron when stopped down but also has the added magic when opened up. It's a very adaptable and versatile lens and it's rendering is totally unique. I have found the colour to be exceptional and bettered only by the APO-Summicron. Relative to other fast lenses from other brands there is very little competition in IQ. For me, no doubt, it is the best lens ever made.

[Advertisement]

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

[ns_ng]

Simon, sorry it took me so long to comment on your post. The image I uploaded was just to back what you are saying, namely, that the Noctilux, off the f/1, can deliver the same way other 50mm's do.

 

Paul

 

 

If you have the chance, find a copy of May/June 2006 LFI. There is a thorough comparison of four 50mm lenses, f1 Noctilux, 50'Lux-Asph, 50'Cron and 50 Elmar. The reviewer commented that at f5.6 the Noctilux came very close to the performance of the 50'Cron.

 

I used to have the f1 Noctilux, but it never suited my genre of photography and in the end I sold it with a hefty profit. It is a lens in search of the 'right' light and subject at f1.0

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

 

The point is that the Noctilux does perform like a Summilux and Summicron when stopped down but also has the added magic when opened up..

 

Thanks. This is my point entirely.

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

@TheGodParticle,

 

In your post #38, images #1 and #4 are my favorites - just outstanding!

 

 

 

This thread has jump started my interest is shooting with my f/1 Noctilux which has been in hibernation of late. It has also renewed my commitment to really learning this lens, and has carved in stone my commitment to never let this masterpiece in glass slip away.

 

 

Thank you for the kind compliment Carlos!

 

Of all my Leica lenses, the Noctilux f1 is by far my most loved and used lens

 

It will go with me to my afterlife and wow fellow inmates of heaven/hell/whatever else may be there

[brusby]

Love 'em. The first photo I took with mine.

 

2 by brusbybrusby, on Flickr

[swamiji]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

LOL. Well, if you can only see a difference at A3 printed, then I would suggest that the difference is very hard to discern and inconsequential for most uses.

 

 

I am glad you got a laugh at miss understanding what I said. A3 is my standard for judging at all apertures, even f/16. Obviously opened up the differences are more apparent, however when you throw away most of your data, impose sRGB, over sharpen, you can strip all the lens qualities, the same way you can strip any sensor qualities. So web jpegs in my view are unable to retain the full extent of a lens quality. However, saying that, there are certain lenses that maintain there uniqueness even when over processed, the Noctilux f/1 is one of them. Another is the 50mm f/1.5 Summarit.

Edited July 13, 2014 by swamiji

[CheshireCat]

it's pretty uniform actually, you just have to get the distance right

 

Great shots, but I think they still show the special non-uniform rendering of the f/1 lens.

The 0.95 lens renders much smoother, predictable backgrounds that I find less interesting.

 

The f/1 lens has its own special character. Just open it up and it will find a way to surprise you.

Unpredictability is what makes me love this lens so much.

Edited July 13, 2014 by CheshireCat

[CheshireCat]

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

 

This is probably the worst example you could make.

Foliage background, different framing, exposure and white balance not normalized, let alone that you can tell that the focus is off even at web resolution.

 

In normal conditions, most people can appreciate the difference between the f/1 and the f/0.95, although subjective preference will vary.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

This is probably the worst example you could make.

Foliage background, different framing, exposure and white balance not normalized, let alone that you can tell that the focus is off even at web resolution.

 

In normal conditions, most people can appreciate the difference between the f/1 and the f/0.95, although subjective preference will vary.

 

At least take time to read the thread and the context in which I was posting...

 

The point I was making is that if you were presented with images from the different lenses shot at the same aperture you would not be able to tell which is which (even if you did print at A3), and you would not be able to tell Noctilux from an Elmar or a Summicron, etc. In fact most people would not be able to distinguish a Leica image from a Canon.

 

For example in the following thread people couldn't tell a Noctilux from an Elmar:

 

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

Edited July 13, 2014 by Ansel_Adams

[Paul J]

At least take time to read the thread and the context in which I was posting...

 

The point I was making is that if you were presented with images from the different lenses shot at the same aperture you would not be able to tell which is which (even if you did print at A3), and you would not be able to tell Noctilux from an Elmar or a Summicron, etc. In fact most people would not be able to distinguish a Leica image from a Canon.

 

For example in the following thread people couldn't tell a Noctilux from an Elmar:

 

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

 

Saying all lenses are the same is like saying all cars are the same because when they are driven at 30mph they travel at 30mph.

 

When you know what to look for the differences are obvious.

[CheshireCat]

At least take time to read the thread and the context in which I was posting...

 

The point I was making is that if you were presented with images from the different lenses shot at the same aperture you would not be able to tell which is which (even if you did print at A3), and you would not be able to tell Noctilux from an Elmar or a Summicron, etc. In fact most people would not be able to distinguish a Leica image from a Canon.

 

I could certainly tell which lens was which.

The fact most people can't does not imply they don't appreciate the difference in rendering, especially if the test is done properly - unlike the one you cited.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I could certainly tell which lens was which.

.

 

Well, I didn't see you guessing correctly in that thread... In fact I don't think anyone was able to identify the Noctilux

[CheshireCat]

For example in the following thread people couldn't tell a Noctilux from an Elmar:

 

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

 

This is because the lens character (i.e. signature aberrations) almost disappears at small apertures.

Not all people in this forum are lens experts, so they could not spot the wide open Elmar by means of the cat's eye bokeh. But they could appreciate the difference in rendering, which is all that matters.

 

Again, one buys a Noctilux to shoot it wide open. The fact it works great also stopped down means we don't need to carry another 50 in the bag.

[Paul J]

Well, I didn't see you guessing correctly in that thread... In fact I don't think anyone was able to identify the Noctilux

 

You are often stating on this forum that there is no difference between lenses, and no point in buying a Noctilux over a Summicron. You base this on the assumption that because you can't see the difference, that others can't either?

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

You are often stating on this forum that there is no difference between lenses, and no point in buying a Noctilux over a Summicron. You base this on the assumption that because you can't see the difference, that others can't either?

 

I was responding to the OP in this thread who posted an image that supposedly illustrated the Noctilux's magical qualities.... an image that could have been taken with any lens. Seems there a few here who refuse to accept the obvious.

[CheshireCat]

Well, I didn't see you guessing correctly in that thread... In fact I don't think anyone was able to identify the Noctilux

 

Correction: You didn't see me guessing at all in that thread.

In fact, I have noticed that thread just now that you cited it as another - misleading - example to make your point.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Correction: You didn't see me guessing at all in that thread.

In fact, I have noticed that thread just now that you cited it as another - misleading - example to make your point.

 

Here is one for you then. The following image was taken with a Noctilux.

 

Which version Nocti was used?

 

CarmencitaScan_008 by - Antonio Russell -, on Flickr

[Paul J]

I was responding to the OP in this thread who posted an image that supposedly illustrated the Noctilux's magical qualities.... an image that could have been taken with any lens. Seems there a few here who refuse to accept the obvious.

 

The only thing obvious here is you are yet to realise you have much to learn and you assume everyone else is stupid. I'm not sure, or care, which is the bigger issue.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[farnz]

Here is one for you then. The following image was taken with a Noctilux.

 

Which version Nocti was used?

Antonio,

 

I'll take it in good faith that it is a Noctilux and that you're not trying to make chumps of us all by later saying that it was taken with, say, a McDonald's 50 mm lens. On my assumption that no processing beyond re-sizing has been done (since you haven't mentioned it) and that it's not a crop from a larger shot I'll stick my neck out and venture this:

- it's taken wide open or very near to it judging by the ears being out of focus

- there appears to be some motion blur in the subject although at this size it's difficult to be sure

- it lacks the pastel tones and the characteristic vignetting of the f/1 Noctilux

- it lacks the clinical sharpness of the f/0.95 Noctilux

 

If any of my assumptions is incorrect I withdraw my guess but I think it's the f/1.2 Noctilux.

 

Pete.