Noctilux f/0.95 or Summilux 50 ASPH or both?

[indergaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Buy the Noctilux and sell it within a year of using it, like most people do when they grow tired of the excessive weight, size, and 1m focus distance, as well as getting tired of the ultra-shallow DoF pictures that this lens excels at making. Realise then that the 50 Lux is fantastic, and buy it back.

 

Since you have the 50 APO the Noctilux sounds like a good combo. But I'm sure that you'll end up using your APO 90% of the time after the initial romance with the Noctilux has worn off, and then suddenly the Noctilux will feel kinda like a huge and pointless waste of money sitting on the shelf.

 

Me personally, after using the APO briefly and studying the results from it, and after owning the Noctilux 0.95 ASPH for a year and exclusivly using it with the M240, decided to re-purchase a Summilux 50 ASPH again (which I previously owned) and forget about the Nocti and APO alltogether. And I couldn't be happier with my decision.

 

I wrote a user-review of the Noctilux 0.95 ASPH on my blog after using it for a year exclusivly: http://indergaard.net/2014/09/19/leica-noctilux-m-50mm-f0-95-asph-review/

Edited April 28, 2015 by indergaard

[DigitalHeMan]

Very balanced review, thanks.

[Advertisement]

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

[jrp]

Very balanced review, thanks.

Agreed.  They key is identifying where the Noctilux' rendering will be preferable to the Summulux.  I don't really have a feel for that, yet.

[fussgangerfoto]

 

One thing which does surprise me, and I'd be grateful to have the views of others with this lens and/or more technical knowledge of EXIF data, is that the EXIF often records f/0.95 incorrectly. I can understand f/1.0 for lack of a decimal place, but more often than not f/0.95 is shown as f/1.2, f/1.4 or even less. 

 

I don't have the wonderful 0.95, but instead, its predecessor, the f/1, not 6-bit coded. When manually selecting the lens on my digital M's (Monochrom and M240), it at least gets the lens right. The aperture is a guess from the brains of the camera and is always wrong - especially with a ND filter in place. I only ever shoot the Noct at f/1, otherwise, I'd mount the more sensible 'cron or 'lux. I see silly apertures of f/11 come through in the EXIF. 

 

Curiously my M7 never gets the EXIF wrong 

[Jan1985]

Buy the Noctilux and sell it within a year of using it, like most people do when they grow tired of the excessive weight, size, and 1m focus distance, as well as getting tired of the ultra-shallow DoF pictures that this lens excels at making. Realise then that the 50 Lux is fantastic, and buy it back.

 

Since you have the 50 APO the Noctilux sounds like a good combo. But I'm sure that you'll end up using your APO 90% of the time after the initial romance with the Noctilux has worn off, and then suddenly the Noctilux will feel kinda like a huge and pointless waste of money sitting on the shelf.

 

Me personally, after using the APO briefly and studying the results from it, and after owning the Noctilux 0.95 ASPH for a year and exclusivly using it with the M240, decided to re-purchase a Summilux 50 ASPH again (which I previously owned) and forget about the Nocti and APO alltogether. And I couldn't be happier with my decision.

 

I wrote a user-review of the Noctilux 0.95 ASPH on my blog after using it for a year exclusivly: http://indergaard.net/2014/09/19/leica-noctilux-m-50mm-f0-95-asph-review/

 

Thank you for this very good real world review. I think it points out the benefits and the cons for this glass. i am the second group of people who buy this lens for the dreamy and unique look @ 0.95. Coming from the Zeiss Otus or Canon 200mm f2 the Noctilux is a little toy for me.

 

But i understand your argumentation for portability and compactness of the M-System.

 

Wish you good luck with your setup.

[platypus]

.................Buy it now while you have the chance and let the other inferior 50's go

Thank goodness the brilliance of any one particular lens does not reduce all others to a state of inferiority.....and that (for most of us anyway) all our lenses have life after novelty.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank goodness the brilliance of any one particular lens does not reduce all others to a state of inferiority.....and that (for most of us anyway) all our lenses have life after novelty.

hahahahahahahah

[BerndReini]

If you want a two 50mm lens combo, I recommend the 50 Apo and the old Noctilux f1. One will be the ultimate in sharpness, the other will give you dreamy bokeh wide open and wonderful Mandler rendering stopped down.

 

I remember though that you just recently purchase the 50 Apo. May I suggest using just one 50mm lens for a full year before distracting yourself with yet another lens. Buying new gear is usually a distraction from real photography and it will ultimately not result in anything worthwhile. The Noctilux isn't going anywhere.

[Jennifer]

If you want a two 50mm lens combo, I recommend the 50 Apo and the old Noctilux f1. One will be the ultimate in sharpness, the other will give you dreamy bokeh wide open and wonderful Mandler rendering stopped down.

 

I remember though that you just recently purchase the 50 Apo. May I suggest using just one 50mm lens for a full year before distracting yourself with yet another lens. Buying new gear is usually a distraction from real photography and it will ultimately not result in anything worthwhile. The Noctilux isn't going anywhere.

 

You probably missed it, but I actually bought the Noctilux f/0.95 mid thread, but the jury remains out as to whether I keep it long term or not. For certain, I can't ever see it being my go to 50, that will remain the APO. The APO is just so, so good... and small.... and light. I was showing one of my younger son a keen and very good amateur photographer himself (not that I'd tell him as head is already too swollen) some of my results from both the Nocti and the APO and on several occasions he exclaimed "wow" on seeing photos taken through the APO. The Nocti does, however, appeal to him as for some unfathomable reason he seems to strongly favour photography in near complete darkness over all other genre.

[Mornnb]

Buy the Noctilux and sell it within a year of using it, like most people do when they grow tired of the excessive weight, size, and 1m focus distance, as well as getting tired of the ultra-shallow DoF pictures that this lens excels at making. Realise then that the 50 Lux is fantastic, and buy it back.

 

Since you have the 50 APO the Noctilux sounds like a good combo. But I'm sure that you'll end up using your APO 90% of the time after the initial romance with the Noctilux has worn off, and then suddenly the Noctilux will feel kinda like a huge and pointless waste of money sitting on the shelf.

 

Me personally, after using the APO briefly and studying the results from it, and after owning the Noctilux 0.95 ASPH for a year and exclusivly using it with the M240, decided to re-purchase a Summilux 50 ASPH again (which I previously owned) and forget about the Nocti and APO alltogether. And I couldn't be happier with my decision.

 

I wrote a user-review of the Noctilux 0.95 ASPH on my blog after using it for a year exclusivly: http://indergaard.net/2014/09/19/leica-noctilux-m-50mm-f0-95-asph-review/

That's essentially my attitude. Indeed I prefer the rendering of the Summilux to the Noctilux at f1.4. It's size is much more comfortable and I consider f0.95 a 'specialist' need. Indeed a lot of the time I'm shooting at f2.8, to ensure separation without having only one eye in focus.

[MarkP]

Indeed a lot of the time I'm shooting at f2.8, to ensure separation without having only one eye in focus.

 

Exactly!

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Noctilux f/0.95 or Summilux 50 ASPH or both?

 

This is something I've been wrestling with for quite some time.

 

I've just eliminated the angst by buying the Zeiss Sonnar

Edited April 29, 2015 by KeithL

[DLS]

 for some unfathomable reason he seems to strongly favour photography in near complete darkness...

Your son GETS it!  Discussions about the Noctilux on the forum seem to repeatedly get mired in ego, cost, size, weight, and bokeh, and too often completely miss what I think is the point of this wonderful lens: to enable the photographer to think of the night as just another opportunity to take natural light shots. Comes the dusk, it's on my M.

[shootinglulu]

A pro Leica user told me that she had tried the Noct 0.95 and found it to be a rather fur coat and no knickers kind of lens. She much prefered the 50 Lux asph.

[indergaard]

Your son GETS it!  Discussions about the Noctilux on the forum seem to repeatedly get mired in ego, cost, size, weight, and bokeh, and too often completely miss what I think is the point of this wonderful lens: to enable the photographer to think of the night as just another opportunity to take natural light shots. Comes the dusk, it's on my M.

 

That's true, if you're shooting film mostly. With the iso performance of modern cameras f/0.95 isn't really needed for low-light photography. a f/1.4 lens is plenty, and if you really want to go low-light - get a Monochrom or a Sony A7S with a M adapter, and shoot low light at ISO 57600 at f/4.0 with great success.

 

Also another thing to consider, is low-light/night-time photography usually involve a lot of very bright highlights (any light bulb of any sort for example) and harsh contrasts. Which is ironically when the Noctilux also displays it's worst quality with digital cameras: purple fringing and chromatic abberations all over the place. Quite often uncorrectable, unless you really put a lot of time into it. The quick-fix is usually to convert to black and white.

 

Shoot Ilford Delta 3200 @ 1600, Fujifilm Natura 1600 or Portra 400/800 @ 1600 - all at f/0.95, in dark and mundane environments, and I totally agree with you, however.

Edited April 29, 2015 by indergaard

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

That's true, if you're shooting film mostly. With the iso performance of modern cameras f/0.95 isn't really needed for low-light photography. a f/1.4 lens is plenty, and if you really want to go low-light - get a Monochrom or a Sony A7S with a M adapter, and shoot low light at ISO 57600 at f/4.0 with great success.

 

Also another thing to consider, is low-light/night-time photography usually involve a lot of very bright highlights (any light bulb of any sort for example) and harsh contrasts. Which is ironically when the Noctilux also displays it's worst quality with digital cameras: purple fringing and chromatic abberations all over the place. Quite often uncorrectable, unless you really put a lot of time into it. The quick-fix is usually to convert to black and white.

 

Shoot Ilford Delta 3200 @ 1600, Fujifilm Natura 1600 or Portra 400/800 @ 1600 - all at f/0.95, in dark and mundane environments, and I totally agree with you, however.

you are correct about the high ISO capabilities of some modern digital cameras...... Unfortunately Leica are not in that category , this is why the 0.95 on a Leica can mean getting the shot or not

[indergaard]

you are correct about the high ISO capabilities of some modern digital cameras...... Unfortunately Leica are not in that category , this is why the 0.95 on a Leica can mean getting the shot or not

You are utterly wrong. The M Monochrom produces very good results with proper exposure techniques at even 10000 ISO.

With the M240 + Nocti combo I never had to go below ISO 1600 with a proper exposure. What I mean by proper exposure I mean by capturing the scene as it actually looks, not pushing the exposure so that the scene looks brighter in the photograph than it actually looks in real life. Very very rarely did I have to use ISO 3200. Then again, this was mostly static pictures. If I needed to capture and freeze movement the Monochrom would have solved that problem completely, even at f/1.4!

 

f/0.95 nowadays is more because of the shallow DoF and aesthetics, not as a requirement for low-light photography. Even with my MP with Delta 3200 @ 1600 I never seem to miss having more light than what my 35 or 50 Lux provides at f/1.4.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

You are utterly wrong. The M Monochrom produces very good results with proper exposure techniques at even 10000 ISO.

 

No your the wrong one.........go ahead show me usable pictures taken with ISO above 6400 on either the MM or M, even at 3200 they require MAJOR post processing and look like they have gone through major PP

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

On my Monochrom I never shoot above ISO1600 and 800 on the M240 and still you could NOT print any of these pictures straight out of camera without some sort of heavy noise reduction.

I am on my works computer so I don't have any PP software on it but when I get home I will show you some examples

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[indergaard]

On my Monochrom I never shoot above ISO1600 and 800 on the M240 and still you could NOT print any of these pictures straight out of camera without some sort of heavy noise reduction.

I am on my works computer so I don't have any PP software on it but when I get home I will show you some examples

 

I don't really need any examples. I have tens of thousands of images from both cameras that I've owned and used myself.

 

A couple of examples. Not post-processed much, and no NR applied, and also no sharpening - since that's not necessary on the Monochrom in the first place in my opinion. These files look quite clean to me, considering the ISO values. The grain/noise at ISO 10000 is finer than the grain from all ISO 400 films I've tried.

 

ISO 10000

 

 

ISO 6400

 

Edited April 29, 2015 by indergaard