Rumoured Noctilux Family

[Peter Kilmister]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fine for you ... you look a much bigger build than me. Good luck if you enjoy carrying a slab of concrete around for hours. I did say YVMV.

 

A 3 mile (5km) walk with the 0.95 Noctilux made me hate the experience of lugging its weight around. Today I walked twice that distance or more, up and down hill with the APO Summicron and never felt uncomfortable for a minute. The Noctilux 0.95 also blocks the viewfinder which makes focussing very difficult.

 

In a studio you pick it up, attach it to the body, stick it all on a tripod, and shoot all day. Great for non-walkers. 

 

I prefer the countryside as my studio. That's all. YVMV.

[Paul J]

My Noctilux has been part of my daily combo for several years and I don't notice the weight anymore.

 

I shoot it wide open, probably less than 10 percent of the time. But when it's right, it's like a bombshell.

 

Exceptional colour, contrast, tonality and resolution - it's more than just the bokeh and a number the aperture wheel. They really went all out on the glass with it. I use it mostly at f2-f4. It is seriously good stopped down f8-f11 too, It's a very versatile lens.

 

As for bragging, I don't agree. No one knows or cares what it is.

 

It's my all time favourite lens.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Paul J

[jdlaing]

Also be very careful when you set the camera down on the table as it will tip forward from the lens weight.

[michaelwj]

Also be very careful when you set the camera down on the table as it will tip forward from the lens weight.

 

I always thought the lens diameter would stop it falling, and at some point the front element would be so big it will tip backwards!

[Jeffry Abt]

I have used lenses from both the Nikon and Leica systems. I’ve never thought of the Leica Noctilux as being large.

[IkarusJohn]

Aside from blockage (it is an M lens, right?), a 90 Noctilux would have an unusable depth of field wide open (at 1 metre on an M10) about 1mm.  Even a 75 Noctilux, it would be less than 2mm ...

 

I can see the point in a 35 Noctilux, though ...

[MT0227]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK...yes there are lighter choices...but I'm not sure how that can support the statement of the Noctilux being useless outside the studio.  It's just not an accurate statement and clearly over exaggerated.   Yes, YMMV, but it's just not as varied as you make it.  I've never had a focusing issues with lenses that marginally block the VF of the M.  

 

Fine for you ... you look a much bigger build than me. Good luck if you enjoy carrying a slab of concrete around for hours. I did say YVMV.

 

A 3 mile (5km) walk with the 0.95 Noctilux made me hate the experience of lugging its weight around. Today I walked twice that distance or more, up and down hill with the APO Summicron and never felt uncomfortable for a minute. The Noctilux 0.95 also blocks the viewfinder which makes focussing very difficult.

 

In a studio you pick it up, attach it to the body, stick it all on a tripod, and shoot all day. Great for non-walkers. 

 

I prefer the countryside as my studio. That's all. YVMV.

[steamboat]

I would consider a 35mm Noctilux ONLY if the focus goes down to .7meter. The 1-meter minimum focus of the 50mm Noctilux is my main complaint. 

[adan]

I seriously doubt a 90mm Noctilux in M-mount. But a "family" of the current 50mm plus 35 and 75 is possible - even likely, eventually. Especially remembering that Noctilux simply means "faster than f/1.4", not "faster than f/1.0".

 

F/1.2 lenses would qualify, as did the original 50mm Noctilux (f/1.2) or the already separately-rumored 75mm f/1.25.

[pgk]

F/1.2 lenses would qualify, as did the original 50mm Noctilux (f/1.2) or the already seperately-rumored 75mm f/1.25.

 

To quote from the past (linked to in this thread earlier):

 

"in Wetzlar last month, the head of the optical department of Leica, Mr Karbe, spoke for 45 minutes about the DOF of Leica lenses for the M rangefinder system, it's strengths and limitations. He explained that f/2 for a 90mm lens was the limit of the system".

 

Without doing the calculation I would hazard a guess that Mr Karbe's statement also precludes a 75/1.25, in fact it almost certainly suggests that the 75mm f/1.4 Summilux was on the limit of, or indeed had already exceeded, the camera's focus accuracy when used wide open (it is indeed a tricky lens to use except in well lit conditions). So I would be extremely surprised if Leica produce M lenses whose focus requirements exceed the limitations of the rangefinder accuracy. The only way around this would be to design them for live view use or use on the TL/SL but designing extremely fast manual focus lenses for use on modern AF cameras would also seem an odd decision.

 

The other solution of course is that these lenses will be so expensive that they are in essence designed for the collector and are, like the 50 Apo, 'statement' lenses whose optical characteristics are stunningly good even if not viable to use much in practice. Having owned a couple of f/1.2 lenses and an f/1lens I'm not interested in shooting any faster than f/1.4 in all honesty - f/1.4 is a 'specialist' aperture in itself which whilst usable to good effect, is all too often used inappropriately and for the wrong reasons.

[wattsy]

Without doing the calculation I would hazard a guess that Mr Karbe's statement also precludes a 75/1.25, in fact it almost certainly suggests that the 75mm f/1.4 Summilux was on the limit of, or indeed had already exceeded,

 

 

I would have guessed the same but I think you are incorrect about the 75mm, at least in theory. There is a very interesting chart in an old edition of LFI (08/2004) which plots a graph of all focal lengths against VF magnification and shows the various (theoretical) limits of the Leica RF. According to the plotted curves, F2 is indeed the limit for a 90mm using an 0.72x VF. However, for 75mm, the F1.4 was surprisingly just within the limits of the 0.58x and a hypothetical 75mm F1.2 would just squeak within the limits of a 0.72x.

 

A 90mm F1.4 is within the limits of a 0.85x RF but a 90mm F1.2 would need a 1.0x RF or equivalent.

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!

Edited November 7, 2017 by wattsy

[michaelwj]

Taking the two pieces of information together, 2/90 being the limit and the chart proving Ian above, we can see that 2/90 is the limit at 0.58x VF magnification. Extrapolating that down to 75mm gives f/1.4 as the limit.

 

With a 0.72x magnification 1.2/75 is theoretically possible, but extrapolating to 90mm gives about f/1.6 or so, beyond the "Karbe limit".

 

So while 1.25/75 is possible, it won't be easy.

[LocalHero1953]

One question photographers need to consider in composition is how to draw the viewer's eye to a particular part of a scene. In the real world we only see detail in the small central part of our vision - the rest really is blurred. So narrow depth of field is a perfectly valid tool of composition, among others. If used without thought or regard to composition then you get a bad photo.... but we have no shortage of those anyway.

[wattsy]

One question photographers need to consider in composition is how to draw the viewer's eye to a particular part of a scene. In the real world we only see detail in the small central part of our vision - the rest really is blurred. So narrow depth of field is a perfectly valid tool of composition, among others.

 

 

That may be right but isn't one of the aims of a photograph that it should go a bit beyond our everyday view of the world? There are of course bad photographs made with all manner of cameras and lenses but I think the criticism levelled at the "very narrow depth of field" approach is that it is often just inherently lazy.

Edited November 7, 2017 by wattsy

[LocalHero1953]

Oh, yes, agreed on all counts. I was just pointing out that even the archetypal Noctilux photo of just the eyelashes in focus could have a valid rationale beyond "because I can".

[UliWer]

Taking the two pieces of information together, 2/90 being the limit and the chart proving Ian above, we can see that 2/90 is the limit at 0.58x VF magnification. Extrapolating that down to 75mm gives f/1.4 as the limit.

 

With a 0.72x magnification 1.2/75 is theoretically possible, but extrapolating to 90mm gives about f/1.6 or so, beyond the "Karbe limit".

 

So while 1.25/75 is possible, it won't be easy.

 

I am not sure which circle of confusion was used for the graphs linked by wattsy in #51. Leica still uses 0.03mm - same as 90 years ago. For modern means - which allow much higher micro contrast for the lenses, much higher resolution of a sensor and pixel peeping on the monitor, 0.01mm should be the maximum.  

 

Edit: A posting worth to read from the age when rumors were less important:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/64993-depth-of-field-of-the-new-noctilux-f95/?p=680742

Edited November 7, 2017 by UliWer

[UliWer]

Oh, yes, agreed on all counts. I was just pointing out that even the archetypal Noctilux photo of just the eyelashes in focus could have a valid rationale beyond "because I can".

 

Yes - it could.

 

I hope we won't have many threads in the future headed: "Which eyelash do you prefer in focus - left or right one?"

[farnz]

... There are of course bad photographs made with all manner of cameras and lenses but I think the criticism levelled at the "very narrow depth of field" approach is that it is often just inherently lazy.

Isn't that a slight logical contradiction?  Surely there must be more effort involved in firstly carrying a probably heavy lens that offers very shallow depth of field, and then critically adjusting focus to isolate the subject than simply "F8 and be there" and fire away isn't there?  By the way I'm not suggesting that either is a lazy approach.

 

Pete.

[wattsy]

Isn't that a slight logical contradiction?  Surely there must be more effort involved in firstly carrying a probably heavy lens that offers very shallow depth of field, and then critically adjusting focus to isolate the subject than simply "F8 and be there" and fire away isn't there?

 

 

I didn't mean lazy as in lacking physical effort, just lazy thinking. I dare say there is someone out there who can take a great photograph of a fire hydrant or Ferrari badge at F0.95. I haven't seen one yet though, have you? 

Edited November 7, 2017 by wattsy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

I am not sure which circle of confusion was used .......

 

..... or indeed, should be used. It al depends .....

 

Pixel peeping and circles of confusion is about pinpointing the 'sharpest' plane within a photograph, and its easier to see 'missed focus' than when pixel peeping. Like it or not, people scrutinise their photographs more critically than ever before whether pixel peeping or getting as close to the printed image as possible. Extremely fast lenses lend themselves to technical assessment to a high degree so poor performance or difficult to achieve focus accuracy are likely to be hot topics amongst many who aspire to such lenses. If Leica do produce such lenses they must expect the inevitable barrage of comments both good and bad, but I doubt that they will build any lens which they know cannot be adequately focussed on an M by somebody with reasonable eyesight.