Review: Leica Noctilux 50mm f1.2

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, adan said:

(}

Aside (and apologies to Andy): does anyone else think this looks like someone wearing a hood?

Pete.

[jonoslack]

15 hours ago, adan said:

Jono, Jono, Jono! You know better than that!

A floating element is for correcting close-up performance (at any aperture) - it compensates for the differing mathematics of parallel (near effective infinity) and diverging (close-up) light rays. It has nothing to do with correcting focus shift.

 

Thank you for the correction Andy! Apparently I didn't. I had simply inferred it from the fact that the FLE had less focus shift than its Asph predecessor but I ought to know better than to conflate the two.

Still, that does make it more worthwhile checking for focus shift on the new Noctilux - When I have a minute I'll give it a go!

Best

Jono

[FDS]

Regarding post no. 125:

A bit of a Rorschach test?  Rather than a 'hoodie', I see some resemblance to a moustache and and open mouth if viewed from the left side and also the top curvature of a head and a stylised wing-like 'monobrow' if viewed from the right side.  

In 'normal' times, my wife would say that I really must get out more.  

 

 

 

[jonoslack]

On 1/31/2021 at 8:34 AM, elmars said:

One question, Jono: What ist with focus shift? Did You test it? Nearly all older lens constructions, especially the fast ones, suffer from it.

Hi there

Right I’ve done a little focus shit testing at about 2 metres, about 4 metres and about 30 metres. 

Focusing at f1.7 and then stopping down. There may be a little tendency for the point of perfect focus to shift forwards a little, but the original point of focus stays properly sharp at all apertures. Which is, of course, what really matters. It would be interesting to compare it to the original Noctilux 

All the best

Jono

 

[pedaes]

15 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

shit

Nice little Freudian😀

[PhotoEd]

12 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Hi there

Right I’ve done a little focus shit testing at about 2 metres, about 4 metres and about 30 metres. 

Focusing at f1.7 and then stopping down. There may be a little tendency for the point of perfect focus to shift forwards a little, but the original point of focus stays properly sharp at all apertures. Which is, of course, what really matters. It would be interesting to compare it to the original Noctilux 

All the best

Jono

 

Thanks for testing!

I was reading into the lens a bit more and it looks like the new Noctilux is more different to the original than we may think. In the 'Leica M-lenses' book from Leica-Guru Erwin Puts I found some info about the original lens. The MTF curves look quite different compared to the new edition. Normaly I don't care much about these, because it's all about the looks of the pictures a lens produces. But still, I found it remarkable. The first one with the red lines is the present edition.  

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!

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, PhotoEd said:

The MTF curves look quite

I think, stress think, Leica graphs are calculated and Erwin used a variety of source, including Zeiss test facilities. I am sure glass types and coatings will be different too.

Edited February 2, 2021 by pedaes

[pedaes]

55 minutes ago, pedaes said:

I think, stress think, Leica graphs are calculated and Erwin used a variety of source, including Zeiss test facilities. I am sure glass types and coatings will be different too.

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by pedaes

[NigelG]

Perhaps my understanding of MTF curves is lacking (likely!) but I’m intrigued to see the values for the new lens descend below 0% in the posted charts?

[PhotoEd]

2 hours ago, NigelG said:

Perhaps my understanding of MTF curves is lacking (likely!) but I’m intrigued to see the values for the new lens descend below 0% in the posted charts?

Yes, shows some funny curves, doesn't it? And the messured aperture starts with 1.3 instead of 1.2. Perhaps that proves to be a typo. 

[wattsy]

I think the complicated looking MTF chart for F1.3 essentially translates to "this lens is a bit shit" – at least when judged technically. It's the kind of result that would normally be laughed or sneered at were it not a £6.5k Leica lens.

Edited February 2, 2021 by wattsy

[jonoslack]

3 hours ago, pedaes said:

Nice little Freudian😀

Haha - not Freudian, but quite funny!

[FrozenInTime]

34 minutes ago, wattsy said:

I think the complicated looking MTF chart for F1.3 essentially translates to "this lens is a bit shit" – at least when judged technically. It's the kind of result that would normally be laughed or sneered at were it not a £6.5k Leica lens.

yep, 99% of us would be better served buying the Voigtlander 50/1.2 

[jonoslack]

34 minutes ago, wattsy said:

I think the complicated looking MTF chart for F1.3 essentially translates to "this lens is a bit shit" – at least when judged technically. It's the kind of result that would normally be laughed or sneered at were it not a £6.5k Leica lens.

Well, I think it might be laughed or sneered at anyway, but isn't it all about the look and feel with a lens like this? I like it! These are both shot at f1.2

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!

[jonoslack]

Just now, FrozenInTime said:

yep, 99% of us would be better served buying the Voigtlander 50/1.2 

Of course - if you want a well designed modern lens at a great price . . . . 

But I really don't think that's why you would be buying the 50 f1.2 -

[mmradman]

36 minutes ago, wattsy said:

I think the complicated looking MTF chart for F1.3 essentially translates to "this lens is a bit shit" – at least when judged technically. It's the kind of result that would normally be laughed or sneered at were it not a £6.5k Leica lens.

The obvious “Emperors New Clothes” everybody seem to admire.

Any self respecting fast Chinese lens being sold at £300 would die of shame with such “bottom of the coke bottle” quality.

[PhotoEd]

11 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Well, I think it might be laughed or sneered at anyway, but isn't it all about the look and feel with a lens like this? I like it! These are both shot at f1.2

Absolutely! I don't care about laboratory test results. What counts for me are the pictures you bring home and the emotions they pull. I most probably will combine it with a late Elmar-M 50 for when a faster focus speed is needed. 

11 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

 

 

[Ecar]

54 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Of course - if you want a well designed modern lens at a great price . . . . 

But I really don't think that's why you would be buying the 50 f1.2 -

Fully agree,

I commend Leica for staying true to the original, flaws and all. After all it's a replica, re-issue - whatever you want to call it - of a lens designed over 50 years ago. 

I also commend them for keeping the price somewhat reasonable (in Leica terms, of course), especially given the price that the original has reached in the collectors' market.

There are many sharper, better-corrected fast modern 50mm lenses out there, Leica or not. Most are cheaper.

I don't think anyone would buy this lens on the basis of MTF charts. As for "IQ", it's all in the eye of the beholder...

 

 

[wattsy]

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

but isn't it all about the look and feel with a lens like this?

Well, yes, I said as much earlier in the thread, Jono.

I'll go out on a limb though and suggest that this is not a lens for colour digital. To play to its strengths, I think you really need to load up with black and white film.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[darylgo]

39 minutes ago, Ecar said:

I don't think anyone would buy this lens on the basis of MTF charts

Geek photographers will compare mtf charts from lenses they like, such as the 35 pre-asph and 50 Summilux ver. 1 and buy the 50/1.2.

  

Edited February 2, 2021 by darylgo
misquote