Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everyone,

I have a basic question directed at current and former 50mm Noctilux F0.95 owners who had previously owned the earlier F1.0 model:  Do you find the 0.95 version of this lens to be better or more usable?

 

I've owned the F1.0 model for some years and tend to use it perhaps 8-10 times annually.  You all know it's a quircky beast by nature.  Flaring and blue-fringing around any bright areas in a wide-open frame can be a challenge.  So have you seen any differences in the F0.95 version along these or other lines?

 

Thank You.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue fringing is still there. It is sharper wide open than the f1 and renders a little more "normal" without as much of the swirly bokeh, soI would say for fashion etc. it might be more usable. It is bigger and heavier though, and to me the 50lux aspherical and Noctilux f1 are the much better combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue fringing is still there. It is sharper wide open than the f1 and renders a little more "normal" without as much of the swirly bokeh, soI would say for fashion etc. it might be more usable. It is bigger and heavier though, and to me the 50lux aspherical and Noctilux f1 are the much better combo.

 

Thank you, Bernd.  As I do have the 50 Lux I might just keep my wallet in my pocket and stand pat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, here are a couple of prior discussions, among many....

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/86257-noctilux-f10-vs-f095/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/218145-which-noctilux/

 

And Puts' take... http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/Leica-lens/

 

[This will likely get moved to the lens sub-forum.]

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Bernd.  As I do have the 50 Lux I might just keep my wallet in my pocket and stand pat!

You might find another reason to keep your money in the 1m as closest distance, which for me is and has always been quite a thingy for that money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it appears to be the same 3.3ft. minimum focusing range as for my F1.0.  (Versus the much more versatile 2.5 ft. of the 50 Lux.)  The little mysteries of optical designs, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't say I'm a Noctilux owner or user.

 

However when I was considering if it was worth the purchase (definition of worth would be different from one person to another) and doing quite a bit of reading on it I came across a post somewhere which asked if the user would be shooting at f/0.95 most of the time to warrant the investment. Since I didn't see myself shooting at f/0.95 even a quarter of the time I settled for the Sumilux and I'm still happy about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets face it: for most people there is zero need for the 0.95- or the f1. There is lust: but not need. And if you really feel the need for that kind of speed- there is always the far more affordable Voigtlander. I doubt it is 10x worse than the Leica lens...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets face it: for most people there is zero need for the 0.95- or the f1. There is lust: but not need. And if you really feel the need for that kind of speed- there is always the far more affordable Voigtlander. I doubt it is 10x worse than the Leica lens...

 

I think Leica & lust go together like ..... which is a good thing. Otherwise I'd be shooting a first gen A7 with the proverbial affordable assortment of good value for money lenses. Then again I wish could separate the two. It would make it much easier on the wallet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´ve been shooting long time with lux 50asph and bought myself recently a Nocti 0,95, used it in weddings & more. Now trading it for APO-Summicron 50mm.. Tough decision, I´m in love with them all.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently purchased my first Leica; two weeks ago.  I was initially leaning to the Nocti 0,95 as the one lens/do all kit to get me started.  I was able to find mint, like new, used samples of the 35Lux FLE  and the 50cron AA for a few hundred dollars more than the Nocti 0,95 new.  The deciding question I asked myself is would I rather have 2 incredible pieces of glass with enough speed or one incredible piece of glass with the fastest speed.   I went with the 35/50 combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Everyone,

I have a basic question directed at current and former 50mm Noctilux F0.95 owners who had previously owned the earlier F1.0 model: Do you find the 0.95 version of this lens to be better or more usable?

 

I've owned the F1.0 model for some years and tend to use it perhaps 8-10 times annually. You all know it's a quircky beast by nature. Flaring and blue-fringing around any bright areas in a wide-open frame can be a challenge. So have you seen any differences in the F0.95 version along these or other lines?

 

Thank You.

I changed from the f1 to the 0.95 a few months ago.

 

I love the new lens. It does everything my f1 did and more but in a slightly more controlled way.

 

The swirly bokeh is still there in certain situations just not as much as with the f1.

 

Both lenses are crazy heavy so the extra weight didn't make much difference to me especially since I walk about with my little f3.5 Elgar red scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I do have the 50 Summilux I might just keep my wallet in my pocket and stand pat!

 

Yeah, that's what I did for two years before I finally surrendered to the Noctilux's siren call. And boy, am I happy that I did!

 

Those who have a Summilux-M 50 mm Asph don't need a Noctilux. The latter is bulky, heavy, awfully expensive, obstructs a big part of the viewfinder's field, has an longer minimum focus distance, and is only one stop faster. The former is a much more reasonable lens to own and to carry. But then, life is too short to be always nothing but reasonable

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody really needs a Noctilux. They want a Noctilux. It's not very expensive for what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would estimate I use my 0.95 Nocti about 2 to 3 times as much as I used to use my 1.0 Nocti. I only put my 1.0 Nocti on when I was specifically going to do low light photography and would usually take an f1.4 or f2.0 lens with me for non-low light use. I would happily go off for the day just with my 0.95 lens as the sole lens. The only downside is the weight. OTOH I am not sure that I get quite such "painterly" images with 0.95 that I used to get with the f1.0. 

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had the Noctilux f/1 and now have the 0.95. (I also once had the Nokton, which is a fun, affordable version.) The key difference between the two Noctilux versions, in my opinion, is that the 0.95 is better made, more stable. The bokeh is just as magical, maybe more so. Much easier to focus, again in my opinion, it's also not a one-stop lens. 

 

To to me the real choice would be whether to invest ridiculous sums in a Noctilux or the APO-Summicron.  The former is poetic and provides gorgeous results. The latter, though, creates amazing bokeh wide open and is more versatile, lighter, and justifiable.  I'm lucky to have both, wouldn't dream of selling either, though if I could only have one it would be the APO.

 

While the 0.95 can be stopped down, both Noctiluxes still are essentially one-trick ponies, but what a trick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Much easier to focus, again in my opinion, it's also not a one-stop lens.

 

 

While the 0.95 can be stopped down, both Noctiluxes still are essentially one-trick ponies, but what a trick...

John, these sentences seem contradictory.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff - what I mean is that you actually can use the 0.95 as a "standard lens" - it's sharp f/8. But the reason you buy is to use it wide open.  When I had the F/1, I found it too soft to use, honestly, at anything above f/2.8.  Yes, soft at f/1, but gorgeous. Does this help clarify my bad writing? Cheers, JB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy