50 APO or 0.95 Noctilux?

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't always use the lens at minimum focusing distance to get the super thin DoF. One thing I like with the Noctilux is that I can photograph from a slightly longer distance and still have a good portion of background blur. This way it almost works like a tele lens, but at the same time I have the advantages of a wider angle, which almost gives a medium format look. So despite the weight and size, I still find the Noctilux very versatile. 

[Advertisement]

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

[JTLeica]

8 minutes ago, Andrea Bianchi said:

If you really need that bokeh I would consider a Summilux.. impressive lens, small and compact. Yet not cheap.

Yes I agree. Best of both. And frankly no creative photograph needs more sharpness than the lux Asph gives you. The APO like the noctilux is really just Leica showing off their skill and engineering ability. 

[Jeff S]

46 minutes ago, evikne said:

I don't always use the lens at minimum focusing distance to get the super thin DoF. One thing I like with the Noctilux is that I can photograph from a slightly longer distance and still have a good portion of background blur. This way it almost works like a tele lens, but at the same time I have the advantages of a wider angle, which almost gives a medium format look. So despite the weight and size, I still find the Noctilux very versatile. 

This was the approach Josh used (linked video) to explain his fondness for the lens.

Good that there are different tastes and preferences, and different choices to accommodate them.

Jeff

[fotografr]

49 minutes ago, Andrea Bianchi said:

If you really need that bokeh I would consider a Summilux.. impressive lens, small and compact. Yet not cheap.

Certainly a consideration. The pre-asph version II with the 46mm filter size produces very Noctilux like images wide open and can be obtained for $2000 in near mint condition.

[evikne]

1 minute ago, Jeff S said:

This was the approach Josh used (linked video) to explain his fondness for the lens.

Good that there are different tastes and preferences, and different choices to accommodate them.

Jeff

OK. I haven't seen the video (yet), but it's nice that others have come up with the same approach.

[fotografr]

11 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

This was the approach Josh used (linked video) to explain his fondness for the lens.

Good that there are different tastes and preferences, and different choices to accommodate them.

Jeff

Being primarily a 50mm shooter,  in an ideal world I'd probably own about eight different 50s. Of course, then I'd have to go through a big mental process trying to decide which one to take out.

An interesting point that's been raised by a couple of people in this thread is that perhaps the 50 APO is actually too perfect. Is it possible for a lens to be so technically close to perfection that it loses character? That's a whole different question but might explain why I feel the 50 APO is the best lens I've ever owned in terms of sharpness edge to edge and excellent contrast, yet am still not completely in love with it.

Edited August 3, 2020 by fotografr

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, fotografr said:

Being primarily a 50mm shooter,  in an ideal world I'd probably own about eight different 50s. Of course, then I'd have to go through a big mental process trying to decide which one to take out.

Two of my four current M lenses are 50’s, and there are times when, in an ideal world,  I’d rather have just one.  Less is more for me... as long as the less suits my primary needs.  I wouldn’t have a third camera either if it weren’t for the unique Monochrom experience.

Jeff

[wizard]

vor 21 Minuten schrieb fotografr:

That's a whole different question but might explain why I feel the 50 APO is the best lens I've ever owned in terms of sharpness edge to edge and excellent contrast, yet am still not completely in love with it.

How do you feel about your Summilux 50 asph then? It is not quite as technically perfect as the 50 APO, but does that result in more character? In other words, is there anything in the Summilux 50 asph's rendition which you favor over your 50 APO? I own neither the Noct 0.95 nor the 50 APO, but do own the Summilux 50 asph as well as a late copy of its predecessor, the Summilux 50 E46, and have decided to keep both for their difference in character.

Andy

[evikne]

30 minutes ago, fotografr said:

An interesting point that's been raised by a couple of people in this thread is that perhaps the 50 APO is actually too perfect. Is it possible for a lens to be so technically close to perfection that it loses character?

I know many owners of the 50 APO love it just because it doesn't add or substract anything to the picture. Like the 50mm focal length itself, its neutrality leaves everything to the photographer's vision and creativity. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by evikne

[fotografr]

8 minutes ago, wizard said:

How do you feel about your Summilux 50 asph then? It is not quite as technically perfect as the 50 APO, but does that result in more character? In other words, is there anything in the Summilux 50 asph's rendition which you favor over your 50 APO? I own neither the Noct 0.95 nor the 50 APO, but do own the Summilux 50 asph as well as a late copy of its predecessor, the Summilux 50 E46, and have decided to keep both for their difference in character.

Andy

My preference is for the pre-asph Summilux over the asph version. It's not quite as sharp but has a much more desirable oof rendering in my opinion. I suppose what it comes down to is whether one places more importance on the kind of perfection only attainable with the  50 APO or just a satisfactory sharpness but with an appealing softness in the out of focus part of the image.

On the other hand, we could just shoot everything at f/8.0 and then any 50mm will be just fine. 😉

[fotografr]

21 minutes ago, evikne said:

I know many owners of the 50 APO love it just because it doesn't add or substract anything to the picture. Like the 50mm focal length itself, its neutrality leaves everything to the photographer's vision and creativity. 

That really does make sense, but I'm my case my artistic vision (assuming I have any) quite often involves the way my out of focus areas are rendered. It's why I so rarely shoot stopped down.

[darylgo]

A good compromise is also the 50/f1 Noctilux, smaller size and weight, yet the look that many photographers like to render.  I find it easier to use, there is no issue with razor thin depth of field or focus accuracy at f1 simply because the lens doesn't have any sharp zone wide open, it has no central sharpness and only gets softer out to the edges.  Of course I am exaggerating, but it is generally true, an easier lens to use.  Stop it down to get 1980's rendering of sharpness from a spherical lens design and iirc correctly a modified Gauss.   

Edited August 3, 2020 by darylgo

[FrozenInTime]

36 minutes ago, darylgo said:

A good compromise is also the 50/f1 Noctilux... Stop it down to get 1980's rendering of sharpness from a spherical lens design and iirc correctly a modified Gauss.   

Compared to the 50/0.95, the 50/1 does suffer from extreme focus shift when stopping down from f/1 ... f/2.8 at the 1m end.

It has been some years since I sold mine, but if I recall, it may need f/4 before the desired distance is within the zone of sharpness again.

[farnz]

8 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

Compared to the 50/0.95, the 50/1 does suffer from extreme focus shift when stopping down from f/1 ... f/2.8 at the 1m end.

I've never found mine to suffer from focus shift (v4 with the squarish built-in hood) over the 10 years I've had and used it.  It's the lens you'd need to wrest from my cold, dead hands.  

The 50/1.4 Summilux asph used to be my 'cold, dead hands' lens but my taste gradually changed and I found it became too clinical as I started to appreciate some character.  The 50/1.4 Summilux pre-asph also offers the type of character I enjoy so I understand why it appeals to Brent.

Pete.

[darylgo]

5 minutes ago, farnz said:

 

5 minutes ago, farnz said:

but my taste gradually changed and I found it became too clinical

Pete.

An acquired taste, Leica has that effect on us and as I age my wife's preference for the softer lenses.  😀

[JTLeica]

5 hours ago, farnz said:

 

The 50/1.4 Summilux asph used to be my 'cold, dead hands' lens but my taste gradually changed and I found it became too clinical as I started to appreciate some character.  The 50/1.4 Summilux pre-asph also offers the type of character I enjoy so I understand why it appeals to Brent.

Pete.

This is nice to hear.

I think that is something a lot of people overlook. While modern lenses like the APSH or APO or Summarits offer great sharpness, resolution and contrast, with well controlled flare and CA, they do lack character, and it is the character that I personally love.

I have lenses for sharp landscapes, but when I want to really enjoy my photography, its the Older lenses that come out, Rigid Summicron, Old 90mm Summicron, or the Contax Zeiss lenses I have.

It just becomes more fun to me.

[a.noctilux]

I'm fortunate enough not to please clients, so I've got rid of " boring perfect lenses" over time, now I tend to use more and more non-asph.

lenses ( some almost 90 years old ).

Then for me neither Apo-Summicron-M asph. or Noctilux 0.95 asph. but my preference Summarit-M 2.5/50 as day to day lens for it's compactness and good enough IQ.

When I need more light gathering or thin dof, I do have some F/1, 1.2, 1.4 waiting.