Review: Leica Noctilux 50mm f1.2

[Gobert]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

48 minutes ago, insideline said:

I purchased the 50 1.2 re-issue copy from MDG1371 plus another copy, and exactly like Marke experienced I was very disappointed with performance of this new lens as wide open it did not render with nearly the magic of my Dads original 1968 f1.2 copy, yet it did posses much more contrast and sharpness from f2 onwards, but same for me that for the price it was quite disappointing and the irony is this particular copy is now with its 5th owner (who has a reputation of buying and selling just for a profit). Even though the original owner did not like the lens, nor did I, but a quick total of four disappointed owners on what has been quite a highly anticipated lens? It is a shame as it is very very nicely made and the size is almost perfect but I'd take a black chrome 50 1.4 summilux over it every time let alone my E58 f1 Noctilux which I found to be much more magical wide open. 

Thanks for this honest reply. It will surely tribute to my considerations.

[Wonzo]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb insideline:

I purchased the 50 1.2 re-issue copy from MDG1371 plus another copy, and exactly like Marke experienced I was very disappointed with performance of this new lens as wide open it did not render with nearly the magic of my Dads original 1968 f1.2 copy, yet it did posses much more contrast and sharpness from f2 onwards, but same for me that for the price it was quite disappointing and the irony is this particular copy is now with its 5th owner (who has a reputation of buying and selling just for a profit). Even though the original owner did not like the lens, nor did I, but a quick total of four disappointed owners on what has been quite a highly anticipated lens? It is a shame as it is very very nicely made and the size is almost perfect but I'd take a black chrome 50 1.4 summilux over it every time let alone my E58 f1 Noctilux which I found to be much more magical wide open. 

Remembering your very positive initial comments on the new lens, I am very astonished about these remarks now. What is it, that changed your opinion so drastically ? Could you please show a few comparison images, which show the difference? More than anything else I would be very curious to see comparisons between the old and the new lens shot at f/1,2. Thank you very much !

[insideline]

2 hours ago, Wonzo said:

Remembering your very positive initial comments on the new lens, I am very astonished about these remarks now. What is it, that changed your opinion so drastically ? Could you please show a few comparison images, which show the difference? More than anything else I would be very curious to see comparisons between the old and the new lens shot at f/1,2. Thank you very much !

Hi Wonzo,

I'm just home from a surgery so it will take a bit of help to round up some comparative shots between my Dad's original 1968 f1.2 copy and the remake. You are correct that initially I was smitten and a lot of that had to do with extremely nice build quality and function but then after I had some time to shoot it beside the original '68 1.2 and my E58 f1 the lens began to feel less and less special to the point I completely agree with Marke's assessment MDG1371. The original 1.2 shot wide open is more painterly. smoother and artistic whereas the remake just can't match that look. Possibly if I didn't own the original copy as well as the E58 f1 I may think differently but then I'm not even sure of that as to me anyways its just not special or unique enough, it is however one of the finest made modern Leica lenses, feels wonderful to use and obviously the size is great.

To each on this lens though as I having shot with my Dad's original since over 50 years and my E58 for over 46 years I am certain I am biased in what I like to a point. I'll try to get some comparison photo's together to share.

Thank you.

Edited September 27, 2021 by insideline
sp

[Wonzo]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb insideline:

Hi Wonzo,

I'm just home from a surgery so it will take a bit of help to round up some comparative shots between my Dad's original 1968 f1.2 copy and the remake. You are correct that initially I was smitten and a lot of that had to do with extremely nice build quality and function but then after I had some time to shoot it beside the original '68 1.2 and my E58 f1 the lens began to feel less and less special to the point I completely agree with Marke's assessment MDG1371. The original 1.2 shot wide open is more painterly. smoother and artistic whereas the remake just can't match that look. Possibly if I didn't own the original copy as well as the E58 f1 I may think differently but then I'm not even sure of that as to me anyways its just not special or unique enough, it is however one of the finest made modern Leica lenses, feels wonderful to use and obviously the size is great.

To each on this lens though as I having shot with my Dad's original since over 50 years and my E58 for over 46 years I am certain I am biased in what I like to a point. I'll try to get some comparison photo's together to share.

Thank you.

Thank you, Insideline ! First of all my best wishes for recovering from the surgery ! Take your time !

[sweat100]

Would like to ask users when the lens is mounted on the M9, can M9 recognise the 6 bit coding on the lens? I am unable to get the M9 to recognise this lens, however the lens can be recognised on the M10. 

 

[adan]

1 hour ago, sweat100 said:

Would like to ask users when the lens is mounted on the M9, can M9 recognise the 6 bit coding on the lens? I am unable to get the M9 to recognise this lens, however the lens can be recognised on the M10.

The actual physical lens detector should be able to detect the coding pattern on the 50 Noctilux f/1.2.

However, the M9 firmware, having been written long before the f/1.2 existed, may not know what the coding means - "no such animal" as a 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux.

As far as I can tell, Leica is no longer supporting the M9 with new firmware to add and recognize the newest lenses - the last firmware upgrade available is from Nov. 2017.

https://en.leica-camera.com/Corposite/Service-Support/Support/Downloads?category=93710&subcategory=93713&type=108942&language=93871

For that matter, even my 2017 M-10s probably wouldn't recognize the Noctilux - unless I download the most recent (1/2021) firmware revision for the M10.

Edited October 3, 2021 by adan

[sweat100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, adan said:

The actual physical lens detector should be able to detect the coding pattern on the 50 Noctilux f/1.2.

However, the M9 firmware, having been written long before the f/1.2 existed, may not know what the coding means - "no such animal" as a 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux.

As far as I can tell, Leica is no longer supporting the M9 with new firmware to add and recognize the newest lenses - the last firmware upgrade available is from Nov. 2017.

https://en.leica-camera.com/Corposite/Service-Support/Support/Downloads?category=93710&subcategory=93713&type=108942&language=93871

For that matter, even my 2017 M-10s probably wouldn't recognize the Noctilux - unless I download the most recent (1/2021) firmware revision for the M10.

The interesting thing is that there is a manual selection lens profile for the original 50/1.2. Now perhaps it’s good to understand if there is a corresponding 6 bit coding to the manual list of lens selection under the M9 manual lenses listing? If the firmware doesn’t have it, then it probably explains why the M9 in unable to recognize the lens. 
 

Any users with the reissue Noctilux f1.2 noticed this?

[Ecaton]

On 9/28/2021 at 12:29 AM, insideline said:

Hi Wonzo,

I'm just home from a surgery so it will take a bit of help to round up some comparative shots between my Dad's original 1968 f1.2 copy and the remake. You are correct that initially I was smitten and a lot of that had to do with extremely nice build quality and function but then after I had some time to shoot it beside the original '68 1.2 and my E58 f1 the lens began to feel less and less special to the point I completely agree with Marke's assessment MDG1371. The original 1.2 shot wide open is more painterly. smoother and artistic whereas the remake just can't match that look. Possibly if I didn't own the original copy as well as the E58 f1 I may think differently but then I'm not even sure of that as to me anyways its just not special or unique enough, it is however one of the finest made modern Leica lenses, feels wonderful to use and obviously the size is great.

To each on this lens though as I having shot with my Dad's original since over 50 years and my E58 for over 46 years I am certain I am biased in what I like to a point. I'll try to get some comparison photo's together to share.

Thank you.

"...the old one ore painterly, smoother...." . And what role might film vs high resolution sensor play...?

[SoarFM]

On 9/27/2021 at 6:29 PM, insideline said:

Hi Wonzo,

I'm just home from a surgery so it will take a bit of help to round up some comparative shots between my Dad's original 1968 f1.2 copy and the remake. You are correct that initially I was smitten and a lot of that had to do with extremely nice build quality and function but then after I had some time to shoot it beside the original '68 1.2 and my E58 f1 the lens began to feel less and less special to the point I completely agree with Marke's assessment MDG1371. The original 1.2 shot wide open is more painterly. smoother and artistic whereas the remake just can't match that look. Possibly if I didn't own the original copy as well as the E58 f1 I may think differently but then I'm not even sure of that as to me anyways its just not special or unique enough, it is however one of the finest made modern Leica lenses, feels wonderful to use and obviously the size is great.

To each on this lens though as I having shot with my Dad's original since over 50 years and my E58 for over 46 years I am certain I am biased in what I like to a point. I'll try to get some comparison photo's together to share.

Thank you.

 

Lens geeks and designers tend to not use the word sharpness to describe a lens.I’m neither of those, nonetheless for the purpose of my post, when I use the term sharp, I’m referring to the combination of high resolution and high contrast that leaves us with the impression of “sharpness.”

Well, I have a 50 1.2 reissue and I can understand some of the frustration that some find in this modern era with a lens of this design. At f 1.2, the lens is not sharp. And that’s OK, but depending on the subject this can be a disappointment. The more contrasty the subject in the center of the frame, the better. At 1.2 the subject must be dead center, because anything off center has little hope of appearing sharp, no matter how contrasty. Wide open,  focusing and reframing doesnt work well.In the era of modern lenses we expect a fast lens to be “sharp” wide open. I understand the .95 Noctilux does that with a razor thin depth of field and beautiful OOF areas. That is not how this lens behaves. 

The 50 1.2 Noctilux is not an easy lens to use at f1.2! Being “not sharp” at f 1.2 is not the same as being out of focus. I’ve experimented with this on a tripod and shot wide open and reduced aperture and at f2 and smaller this lens gets rapidly sharper whereby f4 and f5.6 it is looking like ‘crons and Summiluxes. 

I have exposures that I far prefer wide open than stopped down, and other times that just doesn’t work and is highly dependent on subject matter.

Cost and size. A little bigger that a 50 summilux black chrome (looks very similar) and 50% again more expensive. A lot smaller than a .95 Noctilux which is 60% more expensive than the 1.2. A complaint of the .95 Noctilux is the size. You wont have that complaint with 1.2 Noctilux and the 1.2 Noctilux can serve as an all purpose 50 when stopped down a little. Wide open or close to it, the 1.2 Noctilux is definitely a character lens.

Recently, Voigtlander started shipping the 50 1.5 Heliar, I have seen some sample photos and my thought is that lens exhibits the same softness wide open as the 1.2 Noctilux. I’m always interested in character lenses but when I saw the samples, my thought was—my Noctilux does that already (at 7x the cost!). I’m not sure the Voigtlander cleans up and sharpens up as nicely when stopped down, but did I mention the Noctilux costs 7 times as much!

All that being said, I plan to keep and use my 50 1.2 Noctilux.

 

 

 

 

[sweat100]

Saw a YouTube video, https://youtu.be/d4LqHd1okqY that the 1966 and the 2021 Noctilux 1.2 has some differences in the lens elements. Not an optical engineer here, does anyone know what cause the change and what are the visible difference on the output?

 

 

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!

[farnz]

1 hour ago, sweat100 said:

anyone know what cause the change and what are the visible difference on the output?

The optical formula of both looks almost identical so the minuscule changes are likely to be driven by current/modern manufacturing processes that can achieve mechanical tolerances that weren't achievable in 1966.  The same is likely to be the case for tweaking the optical formula using 3D design tools that weren't available in 1966.

As for the pictorial differences, I haven't seen enough pictures from both to make a (subjective) assessment.

Pete.

[wlaidlaw]

I would assume that on the original Noctilux, Leica made all the glass blanks, mostly in the Canada plant. Supposedly one of the special glasses required for the 50 Noctilux (not sure which version) needed to be continuously stirred under a low pressure helium environment, while in a platinum crucible, for around 6 months to eliminate all the gas bubbles. I bet the stirring man had a sore arm after that. I think the majority of the glass blanks that Leica uses currently, come from Schott Glass, a subsidiary of the Zeiss Foundation. I don't know if Leica also use Hoya blanks, one of the other big speciality glass lens blank makers. 

Wilson

[adan]

First, I wouldn't trust that 3rd-party diagram.

Leica's own diagram for the 2021 lens does not show the interface in the first cemented group as being flat. It is still curved, just like the 1966 version.

And a mistake or simplification that basic in the 3rd-party diagram makes the whole thing questionable.

As to the beveled/unbeveled/cut-out edges of the 3rd/4th elements: those have nothing to do with the optical light path and imaging - they are cut for mounting the glass in the metal barrel.

The different thicknesses and curvatures of the 4th/5th elements (if we trust the drawing) may just the result of the different glass that had to be used, 55 years after the original was made. Or some other minor recalculation - without Peter Karbe's ray-tracing computer, it would be hard to know.

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 October 13, 2021 by adan

[Gobert]

1 hour ago, wlaidlaw said:

I would assume that on the original Noctilux, Leica made all the glass blanks, mostly in the Canada plant. Supposedly one of the special glasses required for the 50 Noctilux (not sure which version) needed to be continuously stirred under a low pressure helium environment, while in a platinum crucible, for around 6 months to eliminate all the gas bubbles. I bet the stirring man had a sore arm after that. I think the majority of the glass blanks that Leica uses currently, come from Schott Glass, a subsidiary of the Zeiss Foundation. I don't know if Leica also use Hoya blanks, one of the other big speciality glass lens blank makers. 

Wilson

Really, under helium? Impressive story.

[Capuccino-Muffin]

3 minutes ago, Gobert said:

Really, under helium? Impressive story.

Sounds like a beautiful romantic story to me.

Let’s face it, it was probably good old regular glass. Which is totally fine.

[wlaidlaw]

39 minutes ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

Sounds like a beautiful romantic story to me.

Let’s face it, it was probably good old regular glass. Which is totally fine.

Maybe read some back issues of LFI before making such comments. The history of the special Leica glasses for the Noctilux is quite well known and has been written about a number of times. 

Wilson

[Capuccino-Muffin]

5 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

Maybe read some back issues of LFI before making such comments. The history of the special Leica glasses for the Noctilux is quite well known and has been written about a number of times. 

Wilson

I also remember reading somewhere that the glass For the noctilux f1 was plain jane. Now was it a only a question of soherical vs aspherical, I don’t know.

But in your case, all you are doing is adding to the beautiful romantic myth. It would be preferable If you could point to a real article, something solid. For noW it really sounds Like heresay...

[Ecar]

1 hour ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

For noW it really sounds Like heresay...

You mean "heresy" or "hearsay"? Both would work in the Leica cult...😉

[Capuccino-Muffin]

1 minute ago, Ecar said:

You mean "heresy" or "hearsay"? Both would work in the Leica cult...😉

Well yeah, both

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2015/08/leica-lenses-what-sets-them-apart-from.html