Noctilux f/1 soft?

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Paul... I like shooting portraits from 1-meter and wide open, the reason I got this lens. I just didn’t expect the plane of focus to be this soft, which is why I thought something may be wrong with my copy.

 

I wonder if the 75 Lux exhibits the same softness - I debated between the two lenses but prefer the 50 focal length.

 

I have the Summilux 75mm and Noctilux 1.0 , the 75mm is even more difficult to use for portrait at f/1.4 as it goes to 75cm less dof.

 

Summilux-M 75mm at f/1.4 is as 'soft' as Noctilux at f/1 but at longer range (from 1.5m) can give very nice looking portraits.

Edited June 26, 2018 by a.noctilux

[ELAN]

I have the Summilux 75mm and Noctilux 1.0 , the 75mm is even more difficult to use for portrait at f/1.4 as it goes to 75cm less dof.

I realize dof is tiny in both lenses, just expected what’s in focus to be sharper.

[Advertisement]

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

[mikeamosau]

Looks a lot like the results I was getting when I first got this lens. It took some practice and time to realize, for me, how to use this lens and get the results I was after. One thing that has helped immensely was the addition of a 1.25 magnifier for the viewfinder. My hit rate is very high now. That being said, are you getting any shots in focus or do they all look like this? What about with Live View? Be good to narrow down if it is use, the lens, the camera etc etc. For me, the problem was me, not the lens! I just needed more practice with the lens! I can see whats in focus in my photos, its sharp. Not sharp like my 35 or 50mm lux, but I wasn't going for that when I bought it.

Mike

[pgk]

I wonder if the 75 Lux exhibits the same softness - I debated between the two lenses but prefer the 50 focal length.

 

Well my 75 Summilux is surprisingly good wide open - better than my Noctilux ever was. There may be some scope for getting your Noctilux checked again - my 75 Summilux was fully overhauled, 6-bit coded and calibrated by Leica themselves and I am delighted with its performance which is better than I'd anticipated it would be wide open. I expect that both lenses are going to need very precise adjustment to give their best but that said I'm far from certain that the Noctilux will perform as well as the 75mm Summilux myself, from my own experience anyway.

[lct]

The 50/1 has never been sharp at f/1 but that's what makes its charm doesn't it. Same for the 75/1.4.

[Herr Barnack]

@ELAN,

 

I have a copy of the f/1 Noctilux #11822 (same as your lens) with a serial # of 398xxxx.  It seems to me that the softness you are seeing in your images is the result of several factors, as follows -

 

Shooting with the M10:

This sensor has incredible resolution, which will reveal things about a lens' fingerprint that a film M will not, such as softness.

 

Shooting at f/1:

Depth of focus is very shallow, contrast is medium, spherical aberration (light halo or "the Leica glow") will be apparent.

 

Shooting at 1 meter:

Shooting this close will reduce the already paper thin DoF at f/1 even more drastically, making nailing the focus quite elusive.

 

Shooting handheld:

At f/1 and 1 meter, this introduces camera movement into the already shifting sands of the above combined variables.

 

Shutter speed:

At f/1, the higher the shutter speed, the better.  I like to shoot at 1/250 or faster when shooting wide open with the Noctilux.  The shots you made at 1/1000 did have adequate shutter speed, but you did have other variables working against you in terms of sharpness.

 

I would suggest printing off a test chart and photographing it at f/1 at different distances such as 1, 2 and 3 meters to check for correct focus of your lens.  If you have to send it off to be calibrated, these shots may be helpful.  There are many test charts available online; this is the one I like:  http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/ISO_12233-reschart.pdf

 

You may need to stop down to f/1.4 or f/1.7 to get sharp focus at 1 meter when hand holding your shots.  At this distance, DoF at f/1 is extremely shallow.  The good thing is that you will still have a nicely blurred background due to the close focusing distance.  It's not that f/1 is not a usable aperture; it's just that at 1 meter, the deck is stacked against you in terms of getting tack sharp details at the point of focus, particularly if you are shooting hand held.

 

If you want to shoot at f/1 at 1 meter to make portraits, you may need to use a tripod to get sharp focus; that's just the nature of this beast we call the Noctilux, particularly the #11822 that version we both have.

 

I read in a review some time ago that the sweet spot for the Noctilux f/1 is in the 2-6 meter range.  This has proven true in my experience.  While 2 meters is not the optimum distance for portraits, it will give you more sharpness at your focus point when shooting at f/1.  At 6 meters, the background is in soft focus rather than the totally melted background you get at closer shooting distances; again, that is just the nature of the beast. 

 

Comparing the Noctilux to the 50 Summilux ASPH is akin to comparing apples and oranges; they are two totally different critters.  The #11822 Noctilux won't match the sharpness of the 50 Summilux even stopped down to f5.6 or f/8, let alone at f/1.4  #11822 is a radically different design.  That's not to say it cannot give a good accounting of itself, though.  The f/1 Noctilux will even make a capable all around 50mm lens, weight notwithstanding.

 

Someone suggested talking to Don at DAG and sending him some images for evaluation; I think that would be a good first step before sending him your M10 and Noctilux.

 

To wrap up, the images you posted do look a little soft for a f/1 Noctilux, but not terribly so.  If you tighten up your shooting technique by utilizing some of the above information, you may find that your sharpness will improve at f/1.  Don't expect it to be comparable to the 50mm Summilux ASPH at f/1.4, though.

 

Things do start to get a little weird at f/1, which you have to take in to account with the #11822 Noctilux.

 

Hope this will help...

Edited June 26, 2018 by Herr Barnack

[ELAN]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@Herr Barnack, @Mike Amosau

Thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated.

I have no doubt I will nail focus, that’s not my issue. If you look at the first posted photo, I think the focus is “nailed” somewhere on the face, yet there is nowhere I consider sharp. Perhaps there was camera shake at 1/180 but normally I get perfectly sharp images at this shutter speed, and this photo is but one of 20 in-focus photos from this session that all look about the same. I’m trying to determine whether this is normal for the #11822. If that’s the best the lens will deliver at f/1 at 1-meter then fine, I will live with that. But if other #11822 copies exhibit better sharpness then I would like to know that, and I will have the lens calibrated until it performs to spec.

 

Here's another sample from the session.

M10, Noctilux @ f/1, ISO 100, 1/180 sec, at 1-meter, OOC, LR 6.13

 

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 June 26, 2018 by ELAN

[pico]

For the heck of it, here is a close-up using a Canon ƒ0.95 50mm wide open with an extension tube.

Extreme for a fast lens.

Edited June 26, 2018 by pico

[pgk]

Here's another sample from the session.

I would say that the lighting is of low contrast, the shutter speed is 'on the edge' and the central section of the image has little fine detail which is of substantial contrast. Again if you look carefully you can see some small hairs quite well defined but the contrast is too low to make them really stand out. Focus to me looks like it might be slightly in front of the eyes. I'd try again in different lighting conditions with subject matter containing lots of fine detail - a crumpled newspaper in brighter light perhaps - which will indicate if there is any detail which is imaged really distinctly whether in the plane you focussed on or otherwise.

[ELAN]

Thanks Paul.  I'll get a newspaper in the morning and take some shots at 1/4000 in full sunlight .  Stay tuned...

[pico]

ELAN, I hope it is okay to post another version of your photo.

With a tiny bit of post-processing, I got this.

Just knocking on global pixels makes a world of difference.

The results would be better working from DNG rather than JPEG.

 

Focus is right-on. Viva Noctilux ƒ1. Good for you!

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 June 26, 2018 by pico

[Herr Barnack]

@ELAN,

Based on Pico's result (#31 above), I am starting to think your soft focus issues may be due to post-processing technique and not shooting technique. 

 

In Pico's rendering of your image, we can see individual skin pores; details in the Iris of both eyes are visible. Individual hair strands are popping with almost 3D crispness.  Those details lead me to believe that there is nothing out of whack with the lens itself.

 

Pico observes that "results would be better working from DNG rather than JPEG."  Shooting in RAW will give you a lot more options in post-processing; if you are shooting in JPEG, I would urge you to shoot in RAW for that reason.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Herr Barnack

[pico]

If I can rember how to record Photoshop steps I will share what I did for ELAN's image as an action and droplet. At the moment, I favor a night's sleep.  Gee, I used to do this every day before I retired... zzzzz...six years ago...zzzz

Edited June 27, 2018 by pico

[adan]

Let's get real.

 

The Nocti f/1 design is 42 years old. It is 1970's optics - and at the time it was the best lens of its type for the purpose intended: low-light photojournalism on low-resolution, high ISO film. Large apertures are not only intended for soft bokeh and pretty portraits. (Nobody outside Japan had even heard of bokeh in 1976!) Sometimes they are useful just getting any picture at all in dim light. The Nocti is also notable for preventing flare circles/spots in contrasty "street-lights at night" lighting. And had more contrast and clarity (if not sharpness), wide-open, than Leica's other low-light champ of the era, the 35 f/1.4 pre-ASPH.

 

Look at the MTF chart, and it gets 30% contrast at 40 lpmm - pretty much the same as the bottom of a soft-drink bottle (and about 50% lower than the f/0.95). Unlike its predecesor and successor, it was not made with ASPH elements - with hand-grinding still the only way to make them back then, too many had to be thrown away after grinding in the earlier f/1.2 version.

 

But at the time, that surpassed anything anyone else was producing. Canon got out their first 85 f/1.2 a year later - but with a narrower field of view and not quite as fast; an easier piece of optical design. Canon did finally get around to a 50mm f/1.0 - in 1989. Flared like crazy compared to the Nocti f/1. Nikon has never made a 50 f/1, although they did make a "really bad, but better than anyone else's" 50mm f/1.1 Nikkor-N for their rangefinders about 1956.

 

However, all that history and theory aside, the results posted here look about as good as most resolution I've gotten from the f/1.0 over various trials, and better than some.

 

The good news is that the blur is a "gaussian blur" and thus very responsive to digital sharpening (same math, in reverse), as picos' revision shows (although I think he perhaps overcooked it a wee bit).

[JTLeica]

Thanks Paul... I like shooting portraits from 1-meter and wide open, the reason I got this lens. I just didn’t expect the plane of focus to be this soft, which is why I thought something may be wrong with my copy.

 

I wonder if the 75 Lux exhibits the same softness - I debated between the two lenses but prefer the 50 focal length.

 

IMO - The first image that you shot looks great! Spot on in fact... but the second look like the focus point is on the cheek and you cannot really see it that well. So basically you missed focus (easy at 1m with that lens)... Maybe, just maybe your copy is a tad softer that you would like, but there isnt anyting wrong with it as such...

 

The 75 Lux is far sharper even wide open. Its not like the Apo, more like a 70/30 mixture of the 50 Lux Pre ASPH and ASPH.

[JTLeica]

 

Here's another sample from the session.

M10, Noctilux @ f/1, ISO 100, 1/180 sec, at 1-meter, OOC, LR 6.13

...

 

The irony of this thread is that its making me want to buy one, not put me off 

 

The image you posted there is stunning - great shot in my opinion. If you look at the sharpest point, its the middle finger, yes? The eyes are ever so slightly softer (behind the plane of focus) so I really dont think there is anything wrong at all.

 

Are you just using the range finger to focus? Try Visoflex or back screen.

 

The Noct is hard to focus, take practice (not just saying this for fun)... When you are fully used to focussing, and exactly how to correct as certain distances I think you'll be happy... 

[ELAN]

@pico, @herr barnack, thank you!

 

The images were all shot DNG and are unprocessed OOC (out of camera). I know post processing improves the images but for analysis purposes I think OOC is better. In addition, the forum rules of 500k and conversion/re-saving to JPG unfortunately degrades the image, but we work with what we have.

 

I’m happy that consensus is emerging that my lens may be fine. I recall seeing Noctilux f/1 images on this forum and elsewhere that were much sharper, perhaps due to post processing. I will make a few more images today at 1/1000 sec to eliminate the possibility of camera shake, and at higher contrast. Hopefully we’ll conclude that the lens is fine and I can get on with enjoying this lens...

 

@adam, always a pleasure to read your insights. Thanks.

 

@JT, yes using the OVF to focus - I know my M10’s RF is spot on, and in the tests I did slight focus bracketing and chose what I think was the best focus.

Edited June 27, 2018 by ELAN

[Steve McGarrett]

Let's get real.

 

The Nocti f/1 design is 42 years old. It is 1970's optics - and at the time it was the best lens of its type for the purpose intended: low-light photojournalism on low-resolution, high ISO film. Large apertures are not only intended for soft bokeh and pretty portraits. (Nobody outside Japan had even heard of bokeh in 1976!) Sometimes they are useful just getting any picture at all in dim light. The Nocti is also notable for preventing flare circles/spots in contrasty "street-lights at night" lighting. And had more contrast and clarity (if not sharpness), wide-open, than Leica's other low-light champ of the era, the 35 f/1.4 pre-ASPH.

 

Look at the MTF chart, and it gets 30% contrast at 40 lpmm - pretty much the same as the bottom of a soft-drink bottle (and about 50% lower than the f/0.95). Unlike its predecesor and successor, it was not made with ASPH elements - with hand-grinding still the only way to make them back then, too many had to be thrown away after grinding in the earlier f/1.2 version.

 

To me it looks like it gets over 50% contrast at 40 lp/mm, the f/0.95 one is no better in this regard - at least in the very center. Edges, of course, are another matter...

 

And by the way, I'd say no, even 30% contrast at 40 lp/mm, while "soft", is not the same as the bottom of a bottle...

[pico]

The good news is that the blur is a "gaussian blur" and thus very responsive to digital sharpening (same math, in reverse), as picos' revision shows (although I think he perhaps overcooked it a wee bit).

 

It is overcooked. The post-processing was done without finesse.

 

It seems intuitively correct that the original blur was Gaussian, but I don't understand how a lens can do that. My ignorance. The sharpening was, in fact done by applying a high-pass filter which is the opposite of a low-pass fllter used to create Gaussian blur.

 

Photoshop recipe: copy to new layer, select new layer, filter-other High Pass using 1.4 pixels, change layer mode to Overlay, merge layer. Repeat two more times for total of three filtrations (or fewer for lighter cook). Save.

 

Or experiment with Smart Sharpen: [x] remove gaussian - 1.4 pixels, push slider until happy

Edited June 27, 2018 by pico

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tsleica]

Noct 1.0 really is the perfect smoothing out lens..women luv it..esp older..and you will too ..on selfies when you reach advanced age...lol..

Also makes one hell of a food lens..I bought mine for a song years ago..from a pro food photog..he had 2 of em..I got the one w/spec of dust inside..

Probably will be the last lens I would ever sell..