Any enthusiasm for the upcoming 1.25/75mm Noctilux?

[michaelwj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It will be interesting to see if the 50mm Noctilux gets an upgrade to 0.85m close focus next.

[dbledsoe]

Good Lord! I can barely afford a 1932 vintage Hektor 73/1.9 lens. How can I manage $10 to $12k for the 75/1.25. Certainly a beautiful lens but beyond my pocketbook... by a long shot. None the less, I applaud Leica for never dropping their standard of quality.

 

Don

[otto.f]

For me it’s not the price in itself. This lens is not an M lens in ergonomic terms. I love my summilux 75 but it really is the limit for an M: in weight, bulkiness and last but not least, in the capacity of the rangefinder to focus this lens correctly. 1.25 is way beyond what’s possible with an M. So it’s a hybrid EVF-on-M and SL lens. I cannot admire such a product for such a price, too many compromises.

[Al_OOF]

Given that I love this focal lenght ... which are the qualities of this new lens? Greater openness and better optical correction. Regarding the first I do not like the excessive OOF, that I sometimes find a bit unpleasant, and for the second, since the first exceeds my requirements, I would rather like to see new lenses, not under 1.4, with better optical corrections but at more human prices.

I understand that a company must show itself to be very close to the limits, but everyday photographic practice can very well be done with the most “common” lenses that Leica offers us.

[dbledsoe]

Granted the original Leica 21 Super Angulon M was pretty much a rather poor performing lens (not built by Leica) that still commands a hefty price on the used market, even though the Voigtlander 21 out performs it by far, at less than 1/3rd the cost, and half the size. The original 21 Super Angulon lens used still sells for stupid prices. Go figure... and believe me I know, I owned two 21 Super Angulon M lenses, both were junk (optically) although beautifully constructed.

 

Don

Edited December 2, 2017 by dbledsoe

[lct]

Granted the original Leica 21 Super Angulon M was pretty much a rather poor performing lens (not built by Leica) that still commands a hefty price on the used market, even though the Voigtlander 21 out performs it by far, at less than 1/3rd the cost, and half the size. The original 21 Super Angulon lens used still sells for stupid prices. Go figure... and believe me I know, I owned two 21 Super Angulon M lenses, both were junk (optically) although beautifully constructed.

 

The SA 21/3.4 has a unique rendering and is a sharp lens in the center of the frame, more so than the CV 21/4 at f/4. Corners are another story with more vignetting and softness there but it is the charm of the SA which keeps its sharpness at closer distance (40cm) also. BTW the CV 21/4 is not half the size of the SA 21/3.4 by far. I have both lenses in front of me here and the SA does not seem to me more than 0.5cm longer when it is mounted on the camera. The SA 21/3.4 remains a small lens compared to the bulkier SE 21/3.4 asph to be honest. BTW the hood of the SA 21/3.4 adds a lot of bulk to the lens but it is more efficient than the vestigial ones of both CV 21/4 and SE 21/3.4 asph. The lens i keep always with me remains the CV 21/4 though for its smaller size and short focus throw. FWIW.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry for the OT folks

[Exodies]

Just as paths are for people who don’t know where they’re going, topics are for people who don’t know what they are talking about.

[rosuna]

Given that I love this focal lenght ... which are the qualities of this new lens? 

 

 

The MTF curves are really impressive. At f2.0 this lens is better than the APO-Summicron-M 75mm. At f5.6 it is diffraction limited, or nearly so.

 

It is better than a Summicron 75mm, and more luminous. Traditionally, the Summiluxes tried to approach Summicron quality offering wider apertures. Now this has been reversed.

 

It belongs to a new generation of superlenses, like the APO-Summicron-M 50mm. 

 

But it breaks the limits of the M system in terms of weight, size and focus precision. 

 

A big lens, a heavy lens, needs a big camera. A system needs a coherent global design. This is why a CL-like camera cannot have a L mount (the giant SL lenses).

Edited December 2, 2017 by rosuna

[LocalHero1953]

............... This is why a CL-like camera cannot have a L mount (the giant SL lenses).

Er..... the CL DOES have a L mount   

[lct]

I suspect Ruben was referring to a CL-like M which should have an M mount according to him and me. Not sure if we are more than two to think alike though... 

Edited December 2, 2017 by lct

[rosuna]

Er..... the CL DOES have a L mount   

 

 

Sorry... a CL-like camera with 35mm format.

[rosuna]

I suspect Ruben was referring to a CL-like M which should have an M mount according to him and me. Not sure if we are more than two to think alike though... 

 

Right!