Noctilux f/1 soft?

[ELAN]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I spent the day making test portraits on the Noctilux at f/1 and 1-meter.  Each test was focus-bracketed and multiple tests showed that my lens is back focusing about 5 millimeters on my M10.

As a side-note, the accuracy of the M rangefinder always amazes me - how a decades-old mechanical design can be so accurate, to the millimeter, on a device that bumps on my back (and into things) most hours of the day.  My hat’s off to Leica’s forefathers!

Back on-topic, today’s tests continue to show softness at the plane of focus - I couldn’t get what I consider a single sharp frame.  Whether this softness is within spec for the #11822, that’s my question.  Thanks to all who helped me seek an answer.

In LR, setting the Sharpening amount to 80 makes the plane of focus seems much sharper (along with some noise).  I normally never go above 40-50, but maybe for this lens I should.  Setting Clarity to 15-20 also sharpens things, but it also has a dramatic impact on the overall image.

Here’s one of the sharpest frames I got today.  As you can see the model has lost interest…

M10, Noctilux @ f/1, ISO 100, 1/1000 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!

 

 

[ELAN]

Here’s a crop of photo Don requested to confirm back focusing.  Note that the millimeter markers are barely resolved.

M10, Noctilux @ f/1, ISO 100, 1/750 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!

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

It seems intuitively correct that the original blur was Gaussian, but I don't understand how a lens can do that.

 

Lens - spherical aberration most probably (light from the edges and other parts of the lens progressively don't focus in the same place as the center) - you get a "standard distribution" of light around the center of detail in roughly a 3D bell-curve "blur," instead of a sharp spike of detail.

 

Gaussian Blur - also randomly redistributes the brightness of each single pixel around the center of the original detail, into a similar 3D bell curve distribution or blur.

 

Both follow Gaussian distributions - the standard distribution of "things" around an average - batting averages, darts thrown at the center of a dartboard, and so on.

 

They probably don't always match exactly, but close enough for a high-pass transformation or other "sharpening" math to tighten them back towards the original detail point in about the same way.

 

Mathematician C.F. Gauss produced the theory and math describing such events, thus his name on Adobe's blur filter.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weierstrass_transform

Edited June 27, 2018 by adan

[JTLeica]

ELAN - Take a step back a little...

 

You are currently blowing your image up to 100% on your computer to check for critical sharpness.... I have a 50 Noct .95 and even that is not tack sharp wide open in the centre (or anywhere).

 

I promise you, you will not get tack sharp images with this lens at F1, even in the centre and bang on the plane of focus... Its an older design with an F1 aperture and nowhere with you find comments saying 'sharp lens etc'. But what you need to do is take in the overall look of that image without zooming in, its absolutely stunning. Its a dream look that very few lenses will ever give you.

 

What it will allow you to do however is sharpen up the parts of the image that matter, if that is what you want to do. I wouldnt though as I love that dreamy look.

 

What you I think should do, is work out if you like the look this lens gives you or not... If not, try the .95 as you will be happy with that I feel. Its sharper wide open by quite a margin, but not tack sharp.

[pico]

ELAN, your dissatisfaction suggests to me that my standards must be low.

The ruler shot is just fine to me - after correcting color balance and my little Photoshop action.

 

I would be pretty happy!

Best,

Pico

[ELAN]

Pico, perhaps my standards are too high... I've been shooting with the 50 APO for the last three months...

 

JT, I tried the f/0.95 a few times but never bonded with it.  I think the f/1 will eventually grow on me once we get to know each other. I do like its look, that's why I got it.  If it doesn't work out there's always my favorite 50 Summilux asph...

Edited June 27, 2018 by ELAN

[tsleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At least..its not a Thambar...lol..

[pgk]

Note that the millimeter markers are barely resolved.

Well they are, but contrast is low so lighting is less than ideal to show up the edge contrast and hence whether fine detail is being resolved or not. Some individual hair strands are visible so I would say that detail is resolved but not wondrously.

[pico]

My view

 

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!

[Herr Barnack]

Pico, perhaps my standards are too high... I've been shooting with the 50 APO for the last three months...

 

JT, I tried the f/0.95 a few times but never bonded with it.  I think the f/1 will eventually grow on me once we get to know each other. I do like its look, that's why I got it.  If it doesn't work out there's always my favorite 50 Summilux asph...

 

You really can't use the 50 APO as a yardstick to measure f/1 Noctilux in terms of sharpness; that's going to set you up for being dissatisfied with your Noctilux from the get go. 

 

The Noctilux 50 is a different breed.  These lenses are unique and are in a category of their own in terms of performance, image quality and rendering.  Within that category, each Noctilux version is unique whether it is the f/1.2 ASPH, the f/1.0 or the f/0.95 ASPH.  These lenses are misunderstood by the majority of M camera users and by the vast majority of photographers in general.  They are very different from any other 50mm lens made by Leica or by any lens maker.

 

In his posts (#34 in particular), adan does a really excellent job of explaining the performance of the Noctilux in comparing it to the fast 50mm lens efforts fielded by Canon and Nikon.  It is clear that the f/1.2 ASPH and f/1.0 Noctiluxes outperform the Canon and Nikon offerings by a wide margin.  The f/0.95 ASPH is light years ahead of the Canon and Nikon lenses.

 

With regard to romantic relationships, someone once wrote "love is when you stop comparing."  I would have to say that applies to the Noctilux, too.  Accept it for what it is.  Don't compare it to another 50mm lens because it is unique.  In the uniqueness of its rendering lies its strengths. 

 

Lastly, learn to fine tune your post processing technique to maximize the capabilities and unique rendering of the Noctilux.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Herr Barnack

[ELAN]

You really can't use the 50 APO as a yardstick to measure f/1 Noctilux in terms of sharpness

I know that. I was kidding.

 

Now that I know there’s nothing wrong with my Noctilux I will take time to know it. I already discovered that at f/1.2 the image is somewhat sharper, and that the LR sharpening tool has a greater impact on images from this Noctilux than from my other lenses.

[JTLeica]

I know that. I was kidding.

 

Now that I know there’s nothing wrong with my Noctilux I will take time to know it. I already discovered that at f/1.2 the image is somewhat sharper, and that the LR sharpening tool has a greater impact on images from this Noctilux than from my other lenses.

 

I would love you to post a full size image here on a link to dropbox with one and I am sure I could make you realise how sharp it can look with some selective sharpening and masks in photoshop... The detail is there, just low contrast and softer.

[ELAN]

Thanks JT. I have post processed the images in LR and they do look good. What threw me off was the OOC results which are so much softer than the modern Leica lenses I’m used to. Surprisingly it took very little tweaking in LR (beyond Sharpening to 50-70) to get them to my liking. Perhaps the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

[a.noctilux]

Elan, I think that now you better "understand" the Noctilux "philosophy".

 

If you want "sharp" you would use your Apo-Summicron-M or Summilux asph..

 

In that case, at f/1.4 or f/2 your Noctilux can be surprisingly "sharp" (much sharper than f/1).

 

I hope that your new frienship lasts .

 

Learn how to obtain "what is unique rendering/global character" with Noctilux may take a while.

 

Even now after decades of using my Noctilux 1.0, I'm surprised by the results with M10.

This is the less flare prone of my 50mm staff (really a gem from Leitz and Doctor Mandler).

 

After that you would give the Summilux-M 75mm a try .

[evikne]

After that you would give the Summilux-M 75mm a try .

 

I have got the Noctilux f/1 and 75mm Summilux and love them both! Now I've just sold my 35mm Summilux FLE and will replace it with a pre-ASPH version 4. 

 

I've been hooked on the Mandler look! 

Edited June 28, 2018 by evikne

[ELAN]

After that you would give the Summilux-M 75mm a try .

 

For years I debated between the 75 Lux and the Noctilux f/1.  I finally decided on the Noctilux because I prefer the 50 focal length and the size of the Noctilux.  My guess is that a 75 Lux is next...

[JTLeica]

For years I debated between the 75 Lux and the Noctilux f/1.  I finally decided on the Noctilux because I prefer the 50 focal length and the size of the Noctilux.  My guess is that a 75 Lux is next...

 

I think the 50 is the right choice. my 75 although its lovely, is an awkward focal length. Havnt really bonded with it yet.

[jankap]

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.

 

You forgot the Canon 0.95/50mm of the 1960er. The first one, that collected more light than the human eye. Marketing!!

Please Google for the Canon Dreamlens. "Many" seem to be converted to LM (M with digital Visoflex). 

Jan

Edited June 28, 2018 by jankap

[adan]

Since the 75 Summilux has now come up a few times, here's a sample of how it performs wide-open. Picture shot on a "slant" like the previous tape-measure pictures, to guarantee something was in best focus. A subject with more built-in contrast and "clarity" (black on silver rather than subtle eye-colors side-by-side).

 

A somewhat different pattern of aberrations - the SA manifests as a soft image overlaid on a sharper image in, for example, the background knob top left and far edge of the lens front plate (the "Leica Glow"), and there is more longitudinal chromatic aberration (focus in red and blue is between the "T" and "B", in green it is on the B exactly, thus the black "200" picks up a magenta tint from the blurrier R/B images, and the OOF areas also show a lot of magenta/green fringing). Different DoF with a 75mm lens that focuses to 0.75m, which may make the focused point "pop out" more, whether it is actually sharper or not. The center MTF of both lenses is about the same (30% at 40 lpmm wide-open) - but remember that MTF is calculated or tested at infinity focus, not close-up.

 

As with the Nocti, whatever blur there is responds fairly well to a touch of digital sharpening (none used in this example, though.)

 

Walter Mandler (who also designed the 50mm f/1.0) considered the 75 'lux his "best" lens design - although that probably means performance overall throughout the focus and aperture range, not specifically at f/1.4 and close-up. It's one of Peter Karbe's least-favorite Leica lenses - which just goes to show you can't please everybody.

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jankap]

The Canon 0.95 is of 1961.

The Nocti 1.2 is of 1966, clear an answer to Canon.

 

Here the rear part of the Canon. Please notice the connection to the rangefinder mechanism in the camera.

Jan

 

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 28, 2018 by jankap