Noctilux on a film Leica

[Beresford]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Gosh! What interesting replies. Thank you so much to you all. I will keep a look out for examples of portraits taken with either Noctilux.

 

Amongst the many joys of Leica is the continuing usefulness of older lenses. I will look closely at the f1.00 50mm; though I suspect it will have to take second place to the purchase of an M-A I am hoping to make in 2016.

[Advertisement]

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

[80_20]

...  I will look closely at the f1.00 50mm; though I suspect it will have to take second place to the purchase of an M-A I am hoping to make in 2016.

 

... or Noctilux and M-A in a bundle:

 

 

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!

[Beresford]

Dear 80_20, That's not fair. You should should mark pictures like that as NSFW (Not Safe For Wallet)

 

I see you have the shutter speed at 1/250. Have you been photographing black cats in the dark?

 

It's a lovely picture, and I hope the combination gives you joy.

[A miller]

I only own the 0.95 version so I can't speak about the f1.

- Film is a little bit more forgiving and with the 0.95 version you hit correct focus 9 times in 10 (to me is very important).

- Rendering is less "perfect" in film than in digital (detail is not so perfectly drawn as you see in digital based cameras), the "silver-halyde sensor" with 0.95 creates a more physical and structured picture with a smoother transition form focus area to out of focus.

- I find myself shooting better pictures with this lens and film (In general I prefer film and my opinion is not 100% objective).

- I find newer lenses a bit too clinical with digital but I find them generous in details with film. With film and full open Nocti0.95 is a very usable lens; focused areas are "clearly" in focus :-)

 

Hat off, great lens!

Not to try to diminish the force of your opinion based on your relevant experience (which is quite valuable), the special rendering of the Mandler f1 noctilux can be seen quite clearly even stopped down to f4 and in some cases even f5.6. 

So the idea that you need to shoot only wide open to get your monies worth (which is implicit in your remark about the f1having a serious relative disadvantage of not being able to focus well wide open) is not a forceful point.

Portraits with the notcilux with reasonably distant background subject will come creamy and swirly at f2, 2.8, f4 and under the right circumstances even 5.6

A properly adjusted f1 should be focusable at f1 quite well, assuming a subject that is standing still.

And at f2.8 or f4, focusing isn't an issue at all and the rendering of the older Mandler lenses are simply sublime, on film or even a Monochrom.

So think of the notcilux not as a lens that you must shoot wide open to get your monies-worth but as a lens that will provide you with a unique non-clinic, film friendly rendition at a wide range of apertures.

The images that I have seen from the .95 are nice, but once stopped down to a modest degree tend to become like the other modern clinical ASPH lenses (which are nice, but you can pay half for a 50mm summilux and get the same look); whereas, the F1 will provide the unique "Mandler style" rendition with creamy transitions between in focus and out of focus planes as well as tones at a much wider range of apertures.  And it will provide a less contrasty look (which is good for capturing more shadow detail as well as smooth skin in portraits). 

If I was in the market for a noctilux for my film Ms, I would most certainly without a doubt go for an f1.

[80_20]

Dear 80_20, That's not fair. You should should mark pictures like that as NSFW (Not Safe For Wallet)

 

I see you have the shutter speed at 1/250. Have you been photographing black cats in the dark?

 

It's a lovely picture, and I hope the combination gives you joy.

 

Dear "Beresford"

 

As far as shutter speed setting, I have to admit that I have used the M-A with an 2.8/28 ASPH the last (often cloudy) days in Venice (compare respective samples @ leica-fotopark.com) and just fitted the 0.95/50 for the "NSFW" picture.

 

After 6 months I consider myself still in the learning-phase of the Noctilux and mainly use it on the M9-P for instant "focus-feedback". I rarely use it on film yet, but the new year should bring some exclusive rolls of "0.95-TriX".

 

Regards

 

Klaus

[Mornnb]

Do you think Karbe's design was specifically oriented to a digital sensor, or just his design philosophy applied regardless of the sensing medium? I think the later.

 

Leica designs their sensors your behave more like film. With the tolerance of Ray angles as well as the thin sensor glass stack. Hence this question is rather moot because by designing for Leica's sensor you should also get something that works well for film. 

[Hayek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My understanding is that design for digital implies minimizing or eliminating focus shift, more of an apparent issue with sensors (essentially 2-D media), as opposed to emulsions that by nature, have minute depth.

[M9reno]

Anyway, using a heavy Noctilux on digital, where all it takes is a Summilux and moving ISO up one stop, seems a bit pointless to me.

[Mornnb]

Anyway, using a heavy Noctilux on digital, where all it takes is a Summilux and moving ISO up one stop, seems a bit pointless to me.

 

 

It's about the shallow DOF, and rendering 'look'.

[Herr Barnack]

I'm still trying to figure out how any Noctilux - be it f/1.2, f/1.0 or f/0.95 - being used to shoot with a film M could be a bad thing...

[MarkP]

Not to try to diminish the force of your opinion based on your relevant experience (which is quite valuable), the special rendering of the Mandler f1 noctilux can be seen quite clearly even stopped down to f4 and in some cases even f5.6. 

So the idea that you need to shoot only wide open to get your monies worth (which is implicit in your remark about the f1having a serious relative disadvantage of not being able to focus well wide open) is not a forceful point.

Portraits with the notcilux with reasonably distant background subject will come creamy and swirly at f2, 2.8, f4 and under the right circumstances even 5.6

A properly adjusted f1 should be focusable at f1 quite well, assuming a subject that is standing still.

And at f2.8 or f4, focusing isn't an issue at all and the rendering of the older Mandler lenses are simply sublime, on film or even a Monochrom.

So think of the notcilux not as a lens that you must shoot wide open to get your monies-worth but as a lens that will provide you with a unique non-clinic, film friendly rendition at a wide range of apertures.

The images that I have seen from the .95 are nice, but once stopped down to a modest degree tend to become like the other modern clinical ASPH lenses (which are nice, but you can pay half for a 50mm summilux and get the same look); whereas, the F1 will provide the unique "Mandler style" rendition with creamy transitions between in focus and out of focus planes as well as tones at a much wider range of apertures.  And it will provide a less contrasty look (which is good for capturing more shadow detail as well as smooth skin in portraits). 

If I was in the market for a noctilux for my film Ms, I would most certainly without a doubt go for an f1.

 

 

Having the 1.0/50 Noctilux i agree with this and have no interest in the 0.95 lens.

[hepcat]

Anyway, using a heavy Noctilux on digital, where all it takes is a Summilux and moving ISO up one stop, seems a bit pointless to me.

 

 

It's about the shallow DOF, and rendering 'look'.

<Rant ON>

 

Despite all of the fuss about "shallow DOF and rendering 'look'" and "bokeh" that is bandied about in places like this and other forums, the reason for having a large-aperture lens is "get an image."   It gives the ability to shoot in low-light where the extra stop or two (or three) makes the difference between getting the image or not getting the image.   The finer points as discussed by "lens connoisseurs" really don't amount to much in making images.

 

The early large aperture lenses were designed to "get the shot" and "the shot," even though it may have had very shallow DOF or less than perfect resolution at the edges or some barrel distortion, was what was important.  Having those "flaws" in a developed, printable negative was still better than having "perfect" resolution on a woefully unexposed and un-print-able frame.   And frankly, when published in a newspaper in a 72 lpi half-tone or even a glossy magazine at 150lpi half-tone you couldn't see those "imperfections" in resolution anyway.  And even today, where most photos are published online at 1200dpi or less, and if they're printed at all, they're printed at 8x10 or less...   those "imperfections" in resolution remain moot for 98% or more of the people who use these lenses.   

 

 "Bokeh" and using selective depth-of-field are more recent constructs, as are the amateur critical analyses we see in places like this forum.    While there ARE differences in the "rendering" or "drawing" of the Noctilux line and the more recent large-aperture Cosina "Nokton" line;  the differences are minute, and with the exception of "lens connoisseurs,"  the "lens review press,"  who need something to write about, and the advertising of the manufacturers who need to sell more (new and improved!) lenses,  there are very few folks who can look at an image and tell you which lens it was taken with.  An image either "does it" for you or it doesn't.

 

The discussions about "drawing" and "rendering" differences between large-aperture lenses like this remind me of endless (and pointless) discussions about audio amps and fine wines that take place on other venues.  They're all very interesting, but don't have much to do with the average home theater consumer or a $10 bottle of table wine.    Discussions about the finer points of lenses don't amount to much in an image if the image sucks.  An image is much more important than how it was made or the gear with which it was made...  and if it's not, and you're depending on how the lens "draws" or the "bokeh" as to whether the image works,  then it's not much of an image, is it?

 

The bottom line remains that a large aperture lens is a low-light tool.  You can always stop a large aperture lens down in bright conditions, but you can't open up a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2 any further (regardless of your maximum ISO available) which ALWAYS gives the large-aperture lens shooter a leg up on his competition.   There are trade-offs...  the point of focus may not be perfect...  the DOF may be more shallow than you'd like... and the lens itself is a bit larger and heavier...  but when you have to bring the image back, that extra stop or two may be just what you need to do it.

 

I owned and used the Canon L 50mm f/1 on EOS bodies in the '90s.  THAT was a big, heavy lens weighing some two and a half pounds by itself.   The Noctiluxes and Noktons on an M body, by that measure, are positively dainty.   And interestingly, I don't ever recall anyone discussing the "bokeh" or "rendering" of the Canon 50mm f/1 in those days.  It was just a huge lens and a tool that got me the shots no one else could get...  and that's really what the Noctiluxes and Noktons are about too. 

 

<Rant OFF>

[indergaard]

Quite a nice combo

 

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!

[A miller]

<Rant ON>

 

Despite all of the fuss about "shallow DOF and rendering 'look'" and "bokeh" that is bandied about in places like this and other forums, the reason for having a large-aperture lens is "get an image."   It gives the ability to shoot in low-light where the extra stop or two (or three) makes the difference between getting the image or not getting the image.   The finer points as discussed by "lens connoisseurs" really don't amount to much in making images.

 

The early large aperture lenses were designed to "get the shot" and "the shot," even though it may have had very shallow DOF or less than perfect resolution at the edges or some barrel distortion, was what was important.  Having those "flaws" in a developed, printable negative was still better than having "perfect" resolution on a woefully unexposed and un-print-able frame.   And frankly, when published in a newspaper in a 72 lpi half-tone or even a glossy magazine at 150lpi half-tone you couldn't see those "imperfections" in resolution anyway.  And even today, where most photos are published online at 1200dpi or less, and if they're printed at all, they're printed at 8x10 or less...   those "imperfections" in resolution remain moot for 98% or more of the people who use these lenses.   

 

 "Bokeh" and using selective depth-of-field are more recent constructs, as are the amateur critical analyses we see in places like this forum.    While there ARE differences in the "rendering" or "drawing" of the Noctilux line and the more recent large-aperture Cosina "Nokton" line;  the differences are minute, and with the exception of "lens connoisseurs,"  the "lens review press,"  who need something to write about, and the advertising of the manufacturers who need to sell more (new and improved!) lenses,  there are very few folks who can look at an image and tell you which lens it was taken with.  An image either "does it" for you or it doesn't.

 

The discussions about "drawing" and "rendering" differences between large-aperture lenses like this remind me of endless (and pointless) discussions about audio amps and fine wines that take place on other venues.  They're all very interesting, but don't have much to do with the average home theater consumer or a $10 bottle of table wine.    Discussions about the finer points of lenses don't amount to much in an image if the image sucks.  An image is much more important than how it was made or the gear with which it was made...  and if it's not, and you're depending on how the lens "draws" or the "bokeh" as to whether the image works,  then it's not much of an image, is it?

 

The bottom line remains that a large aperture lens is a low-light tool.  You can always stop a large aperture lens down in bright conditions, but you can't open up a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2 any further (regardless of your maximum ISO available) which ALWAYS gives the large-aperture lens shooter a leg up on his competition.   There are trade-offs...  the point of focus may not be perfect...  the DOF may be more shallow than you'd like... and the lens itself is a bit larger and heavier...  but when you have to bring the image back, that extra stop or two may be just what you need to do it.

 

I owned and used the Canon L 50mm f/1 on EOS bodies in the '90s.  THAT was a big, heavy lens weighing some two and a half pounds by itself.   The Noctiluxes and Noktons on an M body, by that measure, are positively dainty.   And interestingly, I don't ever recall anyone discussing the "bokeh" or "rendering" of the Canon 50mm f/1 in those days.  It was just a huge lens and a tool that got me the shots no one else could get...  and that's really what the Noctiluxes and Noktons are about too. 

 

<Rant OFF>

Couldn't disagree more.  People don't pay double for a mere single stop more of light.  Higher ISO film is much cheaper!  And increasing ISO in a modern digital camera is free!

The Mandler (and pre-Mandler) vs modern lens debate is very valid in my mind. 

I would buy the 75mm summilux over the APO summicron even if the summilux was f2 and not 1.4.

Apples and oranges...

If you don't have the eye to appreciate it you are sadly missing an important aspect of photography (although it probably helps the GAS   )

[fsprow]

I have had two Noctilux (slow learner) but found them to be too heavy, hard to focus rapidly and I have found the bokeh to be in  equal proportions annoying and interesting. I very much like the 50mm Summilux with my M3, M4 and M240.

 

Also, for portraits I find the 75 or 90mm to provide better facial perspective.

[hepcat]

Couldn't disagree more.  People don't pay double for a mere single stop more of light.  Higher ISO film is much cheaper!  And increasing ISO in a modern digital camera is free!

The Mandler (and pre-Mandler) vs modern lens debate is very valid in my mind. 

I would buy the 75mm summilux over the APO summicron even if the summilux was f2 and not 1.4.

Apples and oranges...

If you don't have the eye to appreciate it you are sadly missing an important aspect of photography (although it probably helps the GAS   )

 

 

Au contraire... depending on how you shoot, what you shoot, and how your images are used (to make a living, for example) people DO pay for extra stops of light.  Two stops in the case of the f/2 to f/1 actually.   I would even argue that people don't pay double for merely a little more selective focus and "bokeh."  Honestly, to a working photographer the very idea sounds... well... a little silly.   Ok, I'll qualify that... it sounds silly to ME.   

 

I think you missed my point entirely.  There ARE differences in the lenses and the way they pass light through.  When bench tested in a lab, those differences are sufficient to be measured.  Perhaps even in side-by-side display of identical scenes, some difference can be discerned; but under daily use in the field the differences are so slight as to be rendered moot to anyone except those enamored of lens test result discussions.

 

Does a fine wine still display a pleasurable bouquet when served in a tumbler at a sidewalk cafe on a six lane thoroughfare through skyscrapers with cars and trucks belching exhaust? The smell of the wine doesn't change based on where it's served or what it's served in...  it's just a lot more difficult to appreciate it, if you can smell it at all. 

 

The problem is the old adage "measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, and cut with an axe."   You're displaying hi-resolution images made with $10,000 lenses on $8,000 sensors on an iPhone, iPad, or laptop display, often at 1200px and 72dpi.  It was the same with 60# and 150# half tone screens in print.   It has been my experience that unless the photographer discloses what they used,  for the bulk of images viewed, the viewer can't tell for certain what kind of camera or lens was used just by looking at the print... or image on a computer screen.

 

At any given ISO, if you're shooting an f/2 lens and I'm shooting an f/1, I have the ability to capture two full more stops of light... or go two shutter speeds higher, or reduce the ISO (and associated noise) by two stops; any or all of which will improve the "image qualty."   Two useful stops of light-gathering power are always worth having.

 

And I would again assert that if you're depending on shallow DOF or bokeh to make your image, it was probably a poor image anyway.  Those things, if used skillfully, can strengthen a good image; but a poor image with fabulous bokeh and clever shallow DOF is just a poor image with a lot of areas out of focus.

 

I've said this stuff before in other threads.  I don't intend to be flippant or criticize anyone else for buying or enjoying these large-aperture lenses.  More power to you.  Personally,  I wouldn't buy a Noctilux because the cost/benefit ratio for it to generate income isn't there for me especially since I do have the Nokton f/1.1 which is, of course, about a tenth of the outlay and does the job for me nicely.   I have to say, though, that sometimes I feel like the little boy who stands in the crowd and points out that the Emperor has no clothes.   Some of these discussions seem like folks are arguing over the number of angels on that pin head.    The real value in these lenses are their light gathering ability, and the rest is gravy. 

[NB23]

Couldn't disagree more. People don't pay double for a mere single stop more of light. Higher ISO film is much cheaper! And increasing ISO in a modern digital camera is free!

The Mandler (and pre-Mandler) vs modern lens debate is very valid in my mind.

I would buy the 75mm summilux over the APO summicron even if the summilux was f2 and not 1.4.

Apples and oranges...

If you don't have the eye to appreciate it you are sadly missing an important aspect of photography (although it probably helps the GAS )

The difference between you and the guy you amswered is that he has much more experience ans he comes from the era of film while your view is a more newbie one with a digital view on it all.

 

You may disagree with him but he has the correct take.

[A miller]

The difference between you and the guy you amswered is that he has much more experience ans he comes from the era of film while your view is a more newbie one with a digital view on it all.

 

You may disagree with him but he has the correct take.

I don't own any digital camera.  Only film.  And I do pretty good.  Most of my cameras are older than your grandmother.  So watch out and sober up next time you post to me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[NB23]

I don't own any digital camera. Only film. And I do pretty good. Most of my cameras are older than your grandmother. So watch out and sober up next time you post to me.

If all this is true your answer about fast glass is very untypical.

The talk about the "look" of each lens is very modern and typical of digital newbies. Fast glass was created as a necessity to get the shot, not because of a certain look.

[Berlinman]

It is much more easy. There are thousands of ways to make good photos. With Leica, without Leica, color - b&w, analog-digital, with new and old lenses and with fast and slow lenses....

What You pick up to work with is Your decision. It is the same like with wine: someone likes 10$-wine others 100$-wine.

In the 80th I used fast glass in the dark. Today I use it more and more for the different rendering, but only if I need it for the picture. But this is my way. If You have another way, hey fine.