PBeter Posted June 15, 2015 Share #1 Posted June 15, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm wondering is a 35mm noctilux possible or why is it impossible ? grtz Peter http://www.peterbastings.nl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Hi PBeter, Take a look here Is it possible a 35mm noctilux 1.0. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IWC Doppel Posted June 16, 2015 Share #2 Posted June 16, 2015 I have no doubt it's possible and have hankered after one for years, for me the question is economically viable - demand, cost etc. plus will the performance compromise be acceptable to Leica - size, performance, weight, practicality etc I personally think it would be a real statement if they could make one that held its own against the 50 Noctilux. F1 35mm, I'd be saving up ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 16, 2015 Share #3 Posted June 16, 2015 I'm wondering is a 35mm noctilux possible or why is it impossible ? Possible - yes. Impossible - perhaps (at a reasonable (!) price for acceptably performance). But Leica have shown f/1.4 lenses are possible down to 21mm, (albeit at a high price) so why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted June 16, 2015 Share #4 Posted June 16, 2015 The shallow depth of field of a Noctilux is rather wasted on a wide angle don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 16, 2015 Share #5 Posted June 16, 2015 The shallow depth of field of a Noctilux is rather wasted on a wide angle don't you think? That depends if you want a Noctilux for ultra thin DOF or for its benefits in low light situations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanGeist Posted June 16, 2015 Share #6 Posted June 16, 2015 Possible - yes. Impossible - perhaps (at a reasonable (!) price for acceptably performance). But Leica have shown f/1.4 lenses are possible down to 21mm, (albeit at a high price) so why not? Cosina Voigtländer have shown that a high quality 35mm f/1.2 is possible. So I believe a 35mm f/1 from Leica should be no problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 16, 2015 Share #7 Posted June 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The shallow depth of field of a Noctilux is rather wasted on a wide angle don't you think? Why ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted June 18, 2015 Share #8 Posted June 18, 2015 The shallow depth of field of a Noctilux is rather wasted on a wide angle don't you think? IMHO, not at all: This image is from the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton v.2 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/md76/17328370506/in/pool-1827751@N25/ I would sure as heck like to see what a 35mm Noctilux would produce at F/1.0 or f/0.95. The downside would be price - a 35 Noctilux would equal or exceed the price of the 50 Noctilux. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 18, 2015 Share #9 Posted June 18, 2015 And it would be as big as a house. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted June 18, 2015 Share #10 Posted June 18, 2015 And it would be as big as a house. The challenge would be to make it with high IQ and small enough so that a) you don't get too much VF blockage, and the RF mechanism isn't blocked. It could easily be small enough, but what compromises in IQ are we willing to accept? For example, the 35 pre-asph lux is very small - but close focus is 1m and it has a lot of aberrations at f/1.4. To make it small enough to be useful it might close focus to 1.5m, or only be decent from f/2 for instance. Then, how much will you pay for such a (highly) compromised lens? Cheers, Michael Edit: somehow a 'b' followed by ')' is a face in sunglasses... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 18, 2015 Share #11 Posted June 18, 2015 The challenge would be ... to make it small enough to be useful it might close focus to 1.5m, or only be decent from f/2 for instance. (edited) That would make it larger than the current 35 Summilux, longer minimum focus and slower. Highly unlikely, I would have thought. Similar comments were made about how the 28 Summilux wasn't really feasible. Making purely random comparisons, if you compare the sizes of the 35 & 50 Summilux, is there any reason a 35 Noctilux would be bigger and less effective than its 50mm brother? Whether or not anyone would want such a lens, is another issue. I do recall a lot of discussion a few years ago about fast wides being pointless (Lars Berquist lead the charge, if I recall correctly). Big and heavy? certainly. Bigger and heavier than the 50 Noct? I'm not sure why ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted June 18, 2015 Share #12 Posted June 18, 2015 That would make it larger than the current 35 Summilux, longer minimum focus and slower. Highly unlikely, I would have thought. Similar comments were made about how the 28 Summilux wasn't really feasible. Making purely random comparisons, if you compare the sizes of the 35 & 50 Summilux, is there any reason a 35 Noctilux would be bigger and less effective than its 50mm brother? Whether or not anyone would want such a lens, is another issue. I do recall a lot of discussion a few years ago about fast wides being pointless (Lars Berquist lead the charge, if I recall correctly). Big and heavy? certainly. Bigger and heavier than the 50 Noct? I'm not sure why ... Purely from a physical point of view, it should be smaller: The focal length is closer to the flange distance of the mount, and the physical aperture size would be smaller (35/0.95 = 36.8 mm vs 50/0.95 = 52.6 mm). For instance, the 50 Summicrons are bigger than the 35s. But we're not going to buy it if it doesn't perform well, and the shorter the focal length, the harder it is to correct - especially if we want to avoid steep angles on the sensor. The corrections can be done by either adding more elements or making the elements more exotic. One gives a larger lens, the other a more complicated (expensive) lens - for insistence compare the ZM 1.4/35 or better the CV 1.2/35 to the 35 FLE. I think there is a limit to how big you can go (considering finder blockage), which may explain why the CV is f/1.2 rather than f/1.1 or f/1.0. At some point, it has to get exotic (expensive). 35's are always more expensive (30 - 40%) that their 50 mm counterparts for these reasons. B&H prices: Summicrons ($2800 vs $2000) Summiluxs ($4500 vs $3500). The Noctilux is $9700, add 30% and you get a 0.95/35 for about $13000. Come to think of it, it'd probably be sold out for years at that cost... I think the 28 Summilux is a product of better lens manufacturing techniques which are needed to make it both well corrected and small, I don't believe it was possible 15 years ago. Maybe a 35 Noctilux is on the horizon? But will it come before or after the 35AA? Cheers, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 18, 2015 Share #13 Posted June 18, 2015 That depends if you want a Noctilux for ultra thin DOF or for its benefits in low light situations. How many low light situations can benefit from ultra shallow DOF and still represent the scene? As a theatre photographer it is one thing dreaming of very fast lenses, and another finding that all you get is a wafer thin plane of focus and any picture is pretty much pointless. And a 35mm lens will have a greater DOF at f/1 than a 50mm Noctilux anyway, so you may just as well take a step backwards for a wider view and use a 50mm Summilux and get the same effect as a 35mm Noctilux. No, a 35mm Noctilux is for lens collectors and those who find blurry backgrounds an easier option than photographing something interesting. How many shallow DOF photographs of mail boxes and picket fences does the world need, then ask if it's responsible and ethical for Leica to make a 35mm Noctilux? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 18, 2015 Share #14 Posted June 18, 2015 How many low light situations can benefit from ultra shallow DOF and still represent the scene? ....then ask if it's responsible and ethical for Leica to make a 35mm Noctilux? Steve I've certainly shot landscapes at f/1.4 and had them published, and they've stood up well to viewing, but they are far from being the norm. So to answer your first question; a very few. Responsible & ethical - depends on what else comes out of the learning process of producing such a lens. Its an imponderable question. Pushing boundaries can result in spin-offs which might change the way other designs are undertaken in future - who knows? A 35/1 wouldn't be high on my list of requirements (in fact its a very short list at present), but I wouldn't discount its possibility (if Leica think there are enough potential, well-heeled buyers to make it worth while). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 18, 2015 Share #15 Posted June 18, 2015 Responsible and ethical ?! I'm not sure how to asses that what has any of Leica equipment got to do with that ? Assuming we are not talking material choices or manufacturing conditions. I'm not sure I feel the least bit responsible popping a 35AA on my old M9-P, I'm not sure I want to either I do however try to have some degree of ethics choosing where to point it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodluvan Posted June 18, 2015 Share #16 Posted June 18, 2015 Purely from a physical point of view, it should be smaller: The focal length is closer to the flange distance of the mount, and the physical aperture size would be smaller (35/0.95 = 36.8 mm vs 50/0.95 = 52.6 mm). For instance, the 50 Summicrons are bigger than the 35s. Big and heavy? certainly. Bigger and heavier than the 50 Noct? I'm not sure why ... the shorter the focal length, the harder it is to correct - especially if we want to avoid steep angles on the sensor. The corrections can be done by either adding more elements or making the elements more exotic. One gives a larger lens, the other a more complicated (expensive) lens - for insistence compare the ZM 1.4/35 or better the CV 1.2/35 to the 35 FLE. like michael said; either bigger and heavier or much more expensive than the 50noct as wider lenses are more difficult to correct Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 18, 2015 Share #17 Posted June 18, 2015 Wouldn't interest me, I'd have to say. Can't explain it, but I've never really bonded with the 35mm focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 18, 2015 Share #18 Posted June 18, 2015 Responsible and ethical ?! I'm not sure how to asses that what has any of Leica equipment got to do with that ? If Leica made such a thing as a 35mm Noctilux they would be indirectly responsible for countless 'creamy bokeh' threads and inane pictures of nothing much. If you think people need that sort of thing inflicted on them then I'm sure you will be first on the waiting list and first to post. But it was a tongue in cheek comment and obviously in retrospect I should have aimed lower. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 18, 2015 Share #19 Posted June 18, 2015 If Leica made such a thing as a 35mm Noctilux they would be indirectly responsible for countless 'creamy bokeh' threads..... It might go further and they'd end up being 'cheesy' . Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 18, 2015 Share #20 Posted June 18, 2015 If you think people need that sort of thing inflicted on them then I'm sure you will be first on the waiting list and first to post. Steve, No I don't think people need that sort of thing inflicted on them tbh, but what's so wrong with a narrow depth of focus ? I'm sure most within the bounds of available light twist the aperture ring to reflect DOF don't they and sometimes narrow is preferred ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.