Travel: NOCTILUX vs SUMMICRON

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You all assume that the aperture must remain stuck at f/0.95 all the times. While it might be unwieldy, it can “see” when the world is dark to the likes of a Summicron.

 

But why would you want to? The most important element of a photograph is light. If it's dark, whart's the point?

[Advertisement]

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

[mmradman]

But why would you want to? The most important element of a photograph is light. If it's dark, whart's the point?

Answer is simple one, it may not be necessary but it can be done.

 

As we probably all know originally fast aperture lenses were developed to counter slow film speeds when photography was required in poor light without a flash.  Also having fast lens in lens line-up was a sign of a manufacturer prowess, both Canon and Nikon (& few others) were producing f1.2 and faster lenses even before first Noctilux with f1.2 in mid 1960s.  There were faster lenses before for specialist, surveillance, applications but here we discuss lenses for commercial & amateur photography.   Over time fast normal lens photography developed into a genre.  Lets not forget any fast long lens, usually domain of SLR and lately mirrorless, will produce ample OOF blurred effect; just try a portrait (or a cat/dog/flower) with 135mm f2, 180/200mm f2/f2.8, 300mm f2.8 or 500mm f4, there are few more, few suitable for street though.

 

With modern high ISO sensors manufacturers like Leica are exploiting OOF fad and making good money selling Noctilux  f0.95 at three times the cost of Summilux M 50mm.  Latest Noctilux M 75mm cost almost four times APO Summicron M 75mm or three times forthcoming APO Summicron SL 75mm - all price multipliers are approximate for illustration.

Edited January 22, 2018 by mmradman

[geetee1972]

Answer is simple one, it may not be necessary but it can be done.

 

As we probably all know originally fast aperture lenses were developed to counter slow film speeds when photography was required in poor light without a flash.  Also having fast lens in lens line-up was a sign of a manufacturer prowess, both Canon and Nikon (& few others) were producing f1.2 and faster lenses even before first Noctilux with f1.2 in mid 1960s.  There were faster lenses before for specialist, surveillance, applications but here we discuss lenses for commercial & amateur photography.   Over time fast normal lens photography developed into a genre.  Lets not forget any fast long lens, usually domain of SLR and lately mirrorless, will produce ample OOF blurred effect; just try a portrait (or a cat/dog/flower) with 135mm f2, 180/200mm f2/f2.8, 300mm f2.8 or 500mm f4, there are few more, few suitable for street though.

 

With modern high ISO sensors manufacturers like Leica are exploiting OOF fad and making good money selling Noctilux  f0.95 at three times the cost of Summilux M 50mm.  Latest Noctilux M 75mm cost almost four times APO Summicron M 75mm or three times forthcoming APO Summicron SL 75mm - all price multipliers are approximate for illustration.

 

Ah so you mean they make the lenses simply because people will buy them (at silly prices). Well yes, 'twas ever thus. Still doesn't explain why people feel the need to photograph a scene where there's no light.

[elmars]

Low light or no light is in the days of High Iso sensors no reason für a Noctilux. One reason is, that You want to have it without real need. In the case of the Noctilux I can understand that. Or You want a very small depth of field. But there is not as much difference between 0.95 and 1,4 as between 3000 € and 10000 €.

[Paul J]

Are people still arguing that a Noctilux is just a fad?

 

Are we really wondering why people photograph in low light?

 

Here I was with this crazy idea that every one is different, liked different things for different reasons, and photography is what ever someone can make of it.

[a.noctilux]

Post #2:

 

M10 at 50 kISO + Noctilux = photographing what nake eyes can't see REALLY.

 

And at that last ISO, all my pictures are "crappy'things-that-I- did-not-see-in-real" .

 

M10 + Noctilux can also take pictures when there is plenty light at 200 ISO = that can be nice looking pictures.

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ah so you mean they make the lenses simply because people will buy them (at silly prices). Well yes, 'twas ever thus. Still doesn't explain why people feel the need to photograph a scene where there's no light.

First of all Leica is a business, they design and market products that users will buy. Making a bit of hype always help selling expensive lenses, Leicas history and reputation help a lot.

 

I probably have more lenses than I really need, lot of them Summilux M but few other exotic M and R pieces. Why you may ask, I have my own reasons that may be different than someone else’s.

 

What attracted me to respond to this thread is that somebody with lens as expensive as Noctilux is asking is it suitable for street beside slower and cheaper alternative. I would think (my reasoning may be wrong) somebody spending such kind of money would have better idea than asking on the internet, it seems people actually ask for reasons that have nothing to do with photographic technology.

[mmradman]

Are people still arguing that a Noctilux is just a fad?

 

Are we really wondering why people photograph in low light?

 

Here I was with this crazy idea that every one is different, liked different things for different reasons, and photography is what ever someone can make of it.

Agree.

[Adrian Lord]

Noctilux is the only lens in the world that inspires hatred.

[Peter H]

Noctilux is the only lens in the world that inspires hatred.

 

 

 

I don't know about hatred. Mild amusement maybe, occasionally spiced with a pinch of derision...

 

Rather like the way people stuck in heavy traffic in their chuntering Lambos inspire a bit of light-hearted mockery among the peasantry, a lens used to blur out the background when the one thing the photo needed was a bit of background detail...what are we supposed to think if not "more money than sense"?

 

Yes, it can also produce wonders. But it's a lens that deserves a great deal of respect and too often it appears to be used with too little, so it's no wonder its users sometimes are too.

[james.liam]

But why would you want to? The most important element of a photograph is light. If it's dark, whart's the point?

It will "see" in dim light the detail you (or your dog) might see with the well-adjusted naked eye (and more) but aren’t able to capture. Especially in the shadows.

[geetee1972]

It will "see" in dim light the detail you (or your dog) might see with the well-adjusted naked eye (and more) but aren’t able to capture. Especially in the shadows.

No it really won't. If it was an infra-red camera maybe but it's not.

 

 

Rather like the way people stuck in heavy traffic in their chuntering Lambos inspire a bit of light-hearted mockery among the peasantry, a lens used to blur out the background when the one thing the photo needed was a bit of background detail...what are we supposed to think if not "more money than sense"?

 

Nail. Head.

[Adrian Lord]

Noctis, are of course expensive to buy, which seems to drive a lot of the jealously dressed up as derision, but are ultimately cheap compared to £5k bodies a la M9/240/10 that depreciate faster than an Alfa Romeo, and end up worthless paperweights in a decade. 

[james.liam]

No it really won't. If it was an infra-red camera maybe but it's not.

 

Not quite.

At f/0.95, It’s ability to collect photons and create a coherent image in low light exceeds that of the human eye. Rent one for a day (and night) to test your contrary thesis.

[jdlaing]

Not quite.

At f/0.95, It’s ability to collect photons and create a coherent image in low light exceeds that of the human eye. Rent one for a day (and night) to test your contrary thesis.

Not quite. The human eye is the measure at 0.0

 

Noctilux is just under one stop slower at 0.95.

[geetee1972]

Not quite.

At f/0.95, It’s ability to collect photons and create a coherent image in low light exceeds that of the human eye. Rent one for a day (and night) to test your contrary thesis.

Fair enough, I accept that is the case.

[Paul J]

But why would you want to? The most important element of a photograph is light. If it's dark, whart's the point?

 

This is one of the most peculiar questions I have read on here for a while.

 

It's like saying the most important element of a piece of music is just the note itself, rather than the gaps in between them too. Or like saying the beat of a heart is more important than the gap in between beats.

[elmars]

Bad light is bad light. And darkness is bad light. You can take pictures in bad light, but mostly (!) You will not get good pictures. Neither with a Noctilux.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[geetee1972]

This is one of the most peculiar questions I have read on here for a while.

 

It's like saying the most important element of a piece of music is just the note itself, rather than the gaps in between them too. Or like saying the beat of a heart is more important than the gap in between beats.

Interesting analogy though I'm not sure it's an accurate one. Perhaps it's a bit like trying to compare the artistic merit and historical importance of say Beethoven or Stravinsky with Beyonce or the Beach Boys? Maybe not. I just don't understand why you would want or need to photograph something in the dark unless it's for a very specific reason (for which the Noctiliux  is not the right tool for the job).

 

What is so intersting about the dark? Perhaps you can show me some examples of interesting or important photography taken when there is little or no light (I mean historically interesting or important, not just a picture you took one time), and where an f/0.95 apeture was required?

[evikne]

Bad light is bad light. And darkness is bad light. You can take pictures in bad light, but mostly (!) You will not get good pictures. Neither with a Noctilux.

 

 

Yes, I think that even in low light some kind of light beam must hit the subject to make an appealing image.