New review of the 75/1.25 Noctilux

[onasj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It’s an odd review in several respects— almost as if a script analyzed their photos and wrote the review without the benefit of any photography experience. For example, there is no mention of the fact that it’s quite astounding that at f/1.25 the edge sharpness of this lens is virtually indistinguishable than the edge sharpness at any other aperture in their test shot. But despite lacking any real analysis, the review is still informative, in part because of the sharpness test and sample shots.

 

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/leica_noctilux_m_75mm_f1_25_asph_review/sharpness_1/

[Advertisement]

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

[01af]

It's not just odd—it's silly and totally pointless. The test subject (the backs of books in a shelf) is ineligible for assessing lens performance. Also, the notion that depth-of-field, at full aperture, was narrower than with a 50 mm Noctilux is just wrong. So, just ignore this nonsense.

 

Who needs a confirmation of this lens' quality anyway? Is really anyone afraid the new 75 mm Noctilux might be anywhere short of excellent? As far as I'm concerned, I am rather interested in things like, what's it like to carry this beast around for a whole day of shooting, and how much of the viewfinder's frame is getting obstructed ...

[onasj]

At minimum focusing distance the 75/1.25 has a depth of field of 8 mm (from 0.846 m to 0.854 m, according to Leica).

 

At minimum focusing distance the 50/0.95 has a depth of field of 20 mm (from 0.990 m to 1.010 m, according to Leica).

 

So the review is not wrong about the depth of field being shallower for the 75 noctilux than the 50 noctilux.

 

My impressions of their sample shots and those of the other two reviews posted to date is that 1) edge performance is truly outstanding; 2) aberrations are very well controlled; 3) bokeh can be quite beautiful from this lens.

 

I have no doubt that the cited drawbacks are substantial as well, namely cost, size, weight, and difficulty of placing a depth of field that is as shallow as 8 mm on top of the target with a rangefinder or even an SL.

[01af]

At minimum focusing distance the 75/1.25 has a depth of field of 8 mm (from 0.846 m to 0.854 m, according to Leica).

 

At minimum focusing distance the 50/0.95 has a depth of field of 20 mm (from 0.990 m to 1.010 m, according to Leica).

 

So the review is not wrong about the depth of field being shallower for the 75 Noctilux than the 50 Noctilux.

That statement is as silly as the whole review because at the respective minimum distances, you'll get different magnifications.

 

When shooting something with the 50 mm Noctilux at 1 m and f/0.95 then with the 75 Noctilux you'd have to shoot the same subject at 1.5 m and f/1.25 which will give you a depth-of-field of 30 mm (from 1.485 m to 1.515 m, according to Leica). That's 1.5× the DOF of the 50 mm Noctilux.

 

When focusing the 75 mm to shorter distances then magnification will increase and DOF will decrease—which is (a) natural, (b) trivial, and (c) irrelevant with regard to this comparison. Apples and oranges.

[onasj]

That statement is as silly as the whole review because at the respective minimum distances, you'll get different magnifications.

When shooting something with the 50 mm Noctilux at 1 m and f/0.95 then with the 75 Noctilux you'd have to shoot the same subject at 1.5 m and f/1.25 which will give you a depth-of-field of 30 mm (from 1.485 m to 1.515 m, according to Leica). That's 1.5× the DOF of the 50 mm Noctilux.

When focusing the 75 mm to shorter distances then magnification will increase and DOF will decrease—which is (a) natural, (b) trivial, and (c) irrelevant with regard to this comparison. Apples and oranges.

You are conflating two separate issues: desired subject size, and depth of field. They are not necessarily linked, since it turns out that photographers don’t always shoot the same-sized subject at the same magnification. I was simply noting that the 75 noct is indeed capable of a thinner depth of focus than the 50 noct.

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

Either way you're not wrong about the assessment that the linked article is, indeed, quite odd. For example:

 

 

"Although the 75mm lens has a slightly narrower aperture than the 50mm lens, it is claimed to result in an even shallower depth of field because of the longer focal length."

 

Cant he find out by himself ? DoF calculators are aplenty, just a google away.

 

 

"Specially targeted towards portrait photographers, it also has a close focusing distance of 0.85m, with a macro reproduction ratio of 1:8:8, also making it useful for macro and close-up photography work."

 

Wait, what ? I am not familar with this way to write the maximum magnification of a lens ?!? He uses the same notation again later.

 

According to a quick google, the max. mag. of the Noctilux 75mm f1.25 is actually 1:8.8. Thats not a macro lens by even a long shot. Most regular lenses for SLRs have higher magnification ratios. Its not untypical for a rangefinder lens, though.

 

 

"As well as using the lens with M series cameras, it’s also possible to use the lens with Leica’s SL camera, with an appropriate adapter."

 

Also with any other mirrorless camera, again with the requirement of an appropriate adapter.

 

 

"The lens iris features 11 blades, which are designed to produce super smooth and creamy bokeh."

 

A round iris only causes well rounded bokeh balls, but has relatively little influence on the actual quality of the bokeh. Most importantly the most bokeh is always present when the lens is wide open and thats when all lenses have a perfectly round aperture.

 

I'm disappointed that theres 11 blades; thats too many, so there probably wont be too great sunstars. Ideal are 7 or 9 blades, which create 14 or 18 ray sunstars. With 11 blades however the 22 rays will likely start to be poorly defined.

 

 

"Other aspects of the lens design include nine elements in six groups, made from high-quality glasses to keep problems such as aberrations to a minimum."

 

Everybody uses special optical glas for lenses.

 

 

"On the base of the lens is a tripod mount, meaning you can mount the lens itself directly to a tripod, rather than the camera."

 

Yes ... "can" as in "really should".