Jump to content

Noctilux f1 alternatives


chasdfg

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

I'm considering selling my Noctilux f1, partly triggered by @SiOnara mentioning that the 50mm Summitar has a nice classical signature that reminds him of the earlier noctiluxes (I presume the 1.2s?). Truth is, I've been considering selling the f1 for a while now because I rarely ever use it except when I'm in a Noctilux-f1 mood (I prefer modern lenses though I have Mandler days). Whenever I put it on my camera, I always get blown away by the unique images it gives, though I'm also reminded of it's weight (as another factor weighing against it, pun intended).

The main reason why I'm inclined to keep it is because of its pastel colours and special background rendering. There's another non-photographic reason which is that my copy is a v4 in pretty great shape, 6-bit coded, has a nice-to-me serial number (not 4444/8888 though), with box and pouch (albeit sans papers); it's not everyday you find one that ticks so many boxes. This said I'd be perfectly happy with any version without all the additional stuff since I'm not a collector and can't tell the difference between the images from each version. I just can't be bothered to go through the hassle of finding the right copy again and ensure it is calibrated, if I ever get seller's remorse.

I use the lens probably about half a dozen times a year. I don't need f1 and am past the days of yearning for ultra-thin depth of field. And whilst I cited background rendering above, there are also times I absolutely detest how the bokeh looks. There's also the field curvature, which I find distracting, and then there's the vignetting and sharpness (or well, the sharpness masked by the mandler glow/spherical aberration) which I suppose are quite far down the list of gripes I have about the lens, almost to the point of being non-issues. Despite all these "flaws", these are characteristics which make the lens so distinct, makes the usage of this lens so rewarding and make it so charming. 

If I do sell it, I'd like to find a replacement for it...which brings me to my question - what are the other niftier lenses out there which give a fair amount of the f1's look? For those who owned the f1 before and swapped it for another (smaller) lens, which lens took its place? I'm open to swapping the f1 for non-Leica lenses too, though the ones that come to mind are:

- 50mm lux pre-asph (no hands on-experience but from pictures i've seen, it's less similar to the Noct f1 than the 50lux asph is to the Noct 0.95. I like the black paint version but prices have gone up quite a bit and black paint has lost a tiny bit of appeal for me since my Ms are black chrome)

- 50mm Cron DR (prices have gone up a bit too, but I guess that's a theme for all Leica glass)

- 50mm Summarit and Summitar (I know they aren't the same and I haven't really looked into them much except for some pictures on flickr and the web in general)

- 50mm Noctilux f1.2 re-issue (rendering isn't exactly the same, but that can be said for any other lens on this list. Would give me the general look and vibe I'm looking for, but from the pics I've seen, I still prefer the f1's rendering. The smaller size is welcome but to pay more for a lens I won't use much...not really an option)

- 35mm lux pre-asph (not so inclined to buy this lens because I've got a 35FLE and a 35mm f2 Ultron and the latter takes care of the smaller 35mm solution)

I also considered the MS-Optics 50 f1 and 50 1.1 but I'm not a big fan of the ergonomics and I'm not so sure they're similar enough to the f1.

I know the f1 is unique and there's nothing that's like-for-like. I'm just looking for something that has a similar general vibe, that is smaller and costs less so I'm not so bothered by its lack of use. I do have a 75lux which I actually prefer in all respects to the Noct f1, particularly the additional crispness and the more controlled bokeh rendering. Except for the focal length, as I'm a 35mm guy but 50mm is far more useable as a walk-around lens than a 75mm. I suppose the 75lux could be a ready-made replacement for the Noct f1, but I note it is quite telling that every time I feel Mandler-y I grab the Noct f1 instead, meaning I'd probably still want a 50mm lens when I'm in a Mandler mood.

Thanks in advance and looking forward to your views!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Whenever I put it on my camera, I always get blown away by the unique images it gives... 

The main reason why I'm inclined to keep it is because of its pastel colours and special background rendering. There's another non-photographic reason which is that my copy is a v4 in pretty great shape...

I just can't be bothered to go through the hassle of finding the right copy again and ensure it is calibrated, if I ever get seller's remorse...

Despite all these "flaws", these are characteristics which make the lens so distinct, makes the usage of this lens so rewarding and make it so charming...

what are the other niftier lenses out there which give a fair amount of the f1's look...

I know the f1 is unique and there's nothing that's like-for-like...

it is quite telling that every time I feel Mandler-y I grab the Noct f1...

 

@chasdfg I have been a member of this forum for many years; the observations you yourself have made about your Noctilux f/1.0 is the most compelling argument I have ever seen for not selling a lens.

You don't shoot with it much - so what??  There's no law stating that you have to use a lens "X" number of times per month or sell it. 

Some may think otherwise, but IMHO there is no replacement for the f/1.0 Noctilux.  It has a fingerprint that no other lens can produce.  I have a copy of the f/1.0 myself.  Some of my best images would not exist if it were not for this lens. 

Add to all the above the fact that your f/1.0 Noctilux is paid for; it costs you nothing to just keep it. 

Your post tells me that rather than selling your Noctilux, a better course of action would be for you to make using it more often a priority.  Based on your own words, it is a good fit for you.

Your comments that I have quoted above are six red flags warning against selling your Noctilux.  Some lenses are simply keepers, regardless of how much or how little you use them. 

IMHO if you sell your Noctilux, you will come to regret doing so.

 

 

 

Edited by Herr Barnack
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Never sell an F1 Noctilux. I bought one - the E58 version 1 - in 2006, and it cost me £900.

Sold it in 2012, because I wasn't using it much, and was astonished to get £2800 for it.

It's a lens that renders like nothing else. I really wish I hadn't sold mine. The E58 version 1 is now at stratospheric collector prices. I could never afford to buy that lens again. 

Don't be like me - if you can keep your Noctilux, do.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a new noctilux f1 in 2006 after a few years of lusting for one, I used it for a while and then put it down for a long time because I discovered very quickly that after spending £1800 on it,  I didn't enjoy using it.  After a few years of the lens laying dormant in it's original packaging, I picked it up and started using it again in earnest so that I could be really be honest with myself about the noctilux f1 and whether it was worth keeping it.   

There was no change in my opinion or feeling about the lens, I found I still disliked it, I didn't like the images I was making with it and I sold it around 5 years ago for just under £5000.   I liked banking the money more than I liked the lens!

The thing I disliked most about the noctilux f1 had nothing to do with the terrible ergonomics, although bad enough, it was more to do with how the lens dictated my approach to photography when using it, and this, in my opinion, is the key to owning a noctilux.  You're either suited to it as a photographer, or you aren't.   It's as simple as that and is why most people who buy a noctilux sell them on again after a period of self-discovery.  

  I see this all the time in the noctilux threads on this forum and the fact is, the vast majority of noctilux owners are not suited to the lens.  The noctilux is probably responsible for more cat, potted plant, cliche shots with mobile phone lighting and stultifying bokeh images than any other lens.     

Some photographers are very well suited to the lens like @colint544 above, as is Tina Manley.   It shows in their work because those photographers have the right vision for it and they are able to bring the best out of the lens, but those who do are very much in the minority of noctilux owners. 

My point is, I'm not a noctilux photographer by nature and it was pointless for me to keep the lens.  I'm inspired by photography and photographers, not bragging rights. 

Yes, it's an f1 lens, it has it's own signature, it's an icon, it's unique, it's an object of desire and it's legendary.  It isn't a lens for me but I'm glad I tried it.

From my own experience, the fact that the OP is asking the question in the first place tells me he isn't a noctilux photographer either.  Sell it. :D

Edited by Ouroboros
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you are open to non-Leica lenses, I would suggest Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.1 as a lens that has the "vintage rendering". The user "Harpomatic" has done an extensive comparison of fast fifties. The link below. If you prefer a smoother bokeh and top class sharpness, then I can wholeheartedly recommend the newer Nokton 50mm f/1.2 Asph.

https://www.47-degree.com/focus-shift/leica-m-50mm-lens-comparison-part-1

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had my 50/1 Noctilux v4 for 15 years or so.  For years before I eventually gave in and bought it I was adamant that I didn't need a Noctilux and that people only bought it for bragging rights and my beloved 50 Summilux asph could do virtually everything the Noctilux could do, and was smaller lighter etc.

Eventually curiosity got the better of me when I had a little spare cash and I bought my Noctilux and instantly understood how wrong about it I had been for many of the reasons you wrote in your post about liking it.  Ever since then it has been my 'cold, dead hands' lens and I would never part with it.

Since you're looking for a similar alternative, I note that nobody's mentioned the 50/1.4 'Retro' Summilux asph Black Chrome edition. I mention it because I've had it since it was first released and its rendering, to my eye, makes it the love child of the v4 Noctilux and the 'standard' 50 Summilux asph. The Retro's filter thread is 43 mm (compared to the 'standard' Summilux's 46 mm), which produces a similar attractive subtle vignette to the Noctilux when shot wide open but the Summilux asph's lineage produces crisp images in the centre where the crispness expands into the corners as you stop down.  By f/8 it's as crisp and any aberrations are very well controlled.  Wide open it is crisper than the Noctilux but that's down to the difference between Mandler's and Karbe's lens design philosophies.

My 'standard' 50 Summilux that I'd had from new made way for the 'Retro' Black Chrome version owing to the rendering mentioned above, and for its superior ergonomics, and because its 43 mm filter thread and lack of slide-out 'hood' makes it appear smaller and more compact than the standard when it really isn't.  For my use I find that it complements the Noctilux's rendering in all but the Noctilux's wonderful pastel tones.

With the 'Retro' Black Chrome Summilux, imho, you get the best of both Noctilux and Summilux worlds.

Pete.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's a tall order, finding a noctilux-like lens that is cheaper, smaller and similar color rendering.  If I had to choose one Leica lens that fulfills that best it is the very seldom mentioned Leica 50mm Summilux ver. 1 produced from 1959-1961.  At max aperture there is a glow that is attenuated as the lens is stopped down, at f5.6 it reaches a high level of sharpness, both lenses lack any aspherical elements.  If you look at mtf curves stopped down to f5.6 there's great similarity, wide open they both have 40 lpm curves that are at 30-40% on center and only get lower further out.  The summilux has greater astigmatism contributing to the sharp/unsharp look that Leica tries to eliminate in all their latest lenses.    if I had to pick the characteristic of both lenses that contributes to their similarity, they are sharp lenses with lower contrast wide open and beautiful color.   The ver. 2 Summilux, also a beautiful lens is more like the 50mm asph, both sharp and higher contrast wide open, it exhibits slight glow wide open but not to the extent of the ver. 1. 

I would agree with everyone that says don't sell the Noctilux, despite very little use lately.  I wouldn't be surprised to find that f1 Noctilux lenses spend very little time being shot compared to the likes of Summicrons and Summilux', after all the M is designed to be nimble.  Couldn't agree more with Pete's "cold, dead hands".

Playing with lens and filter combinations would appear to offer some work arounds for Noctilux like images.  I've done some experimentation trying to simulate a Thambar without success, the closest I could find is a white soft net filter with a fog filter combination.  The white soft net filter does show promise at simulating glow of wide open apertures with sharper lenses.  Post processing in lightroom can simulate the look of the Noctilux by lowering clarity, but despite all theses attempts there is no substitute for Noctilux' or Thambars, or the 35mm Summilux ver. 2.  

Lately, I've had a chance to play with two of the three Nikon f1.2 offerings in F mount, the 58mm f1.2 from the 1960's and the later 50mm f1.2, a lens recently discontinued.  After comparing these optics to Leica's it is clear why the prices are what they are.  Neither Nikon lens is sharp wide open anywhere in the image, the 58/1.2 is soft with low contrast, colors are okay, post processing can not save these images (in color).  The Nikon 50/1.2 is a lens that Is not all that different from the newly released Noctilux 50mm f1.2 wide open, it is not sharp on center and it is low contrast however it's an improvement over the 58/1.2 and it's a lens that has potential, I just haven't found it yet.  Btw- everything I've said pertains to color images only.  

The one issue of the f1 Noctilux that I find difficult to overcome is the wide purple chromatic aberrations found on focused light sources with the M10-R, because of this I prefer to use this lens on a 24mp Leica body such as the M10-P, otherwise the higher resolving sensors and older (Mandler) glass is a beautiful combination.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, darylgo said:

The one issue of the f1 Noctilux that I find difficult to overcome is the wide purple chromatic aberrations found on focused light sources with the M10-R, because of this I prefer to use this lens on a 24mp Leica body such as the M10-P, otherwise the higher resolving sensors and older (Mandler) glass is a beautiful combination.

Interesting.  I don't get the purple CA (or is it actually sensor 'bloom'?) with my 50/1 Noctilux v4 although I did get it on the 50/0.95 Noctilux I owned briefly before returning it to the wild because its rendering was all but indistinguishable from the 'standard' 50/1.4 Summilux asph's rendering; this is probably owing to Peter Karbe's design 'fingerprint' in both lenses.

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do not mind a chrome/titanium lens, you might consider looking at the 50mm 1.2 M-Hexanon lens that Konica made. It is a more compact and light version of a classic fast lens. It has a big front element, but it is not as heavy or bulky as a noctilux. It is more modern than thinks like the Summarits or Canon 0.95 lens, so the performance is good, but it also fast with lovely bokeh. I sold mine in 2010 or so, so I cannot say how it does on high res digital, but I never had any issues at the time. Also not sure how expensive it is now...I doubt it is cheap, but probably not as expensive as most Leica lenses...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, darylgo said:

The one issue of the f1 Noctilux that I find difficult to overcome is the wide purple chromatic aberrations found on focused light sources with the M10-R, because of this I prefer to use this lens on a 24mp Leica body such as the M10-P, otherwise the higher resolving sensors and older (Mandler) glass is a beautiful combination.

That's kind of OT but definitely an interesting point regarding how lenses behave with different sensors. I have recently received the 50/1.2 re-issue and am finding that chromatic aberration is much less visible when the lens is paired with the M9's CCD (as opposed to the M10's CMOS). No idea as to whether this is related to sensor technology or resolution.

52 minutes ago, farnz said:

Interesting.  I don't get the purple CA (or is it actually sensor 'bloom'?) with my 50/1 Noctilux v4 although I did get it on the 50/0.95 Noctilux I owned briefly before returning it to the wild because its rendering was all but indistinguishable from the 'standard' 50/1.4 Summilux asph's rendering; this is probably owing to Peter Karbe's design 'fingerprint' in both lenses.

Like Daryl, I also see CA with my 50/1.0 v4. BUT, it seems to depend on the light source (some "colder" artificial lights are just terrible, whilst it's more manageable with the warmer ones).

Edited by Ecar
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

If you do not mind a chrome/titanium lens, you might consider looking at the 50mm 1.2 M-Hexanon lens that Konica made. It is a more compact and light version of a classic fast lens. It has a big front element, but it is not as heavy or bulky as a noctilux. It is more modern than thinks like the Summarits or Canon 0.95 lens, so the performance is good, but it also fast with lovely bokeh. I sold mine in 2010 or so, so I cannot say how it does on high res digital, but I never had any issues at the time. Also not sure how expensive it is now...I doubt it is cheap, but probably not as expensive as most Leica lenses...

Good suggestion, with one caveat: these lenses were originally paired with Hexar RF bodies and require focus calibration to play nicely with the Leica RF.

Also, besides the questionable colour of the barrel, the hood blocks a fairly large chunk of the RF view.

An otherwise excellent lens, with its own personality, but I wouldn't ditch my Noctilux 50/1 to buy it. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Noctilux f/1 was my favorite lens until I had to let it go (along with another great companion, the 75mm Summilux) to pay some bills. I have kept a 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH v3, which is a kind of "light" version of both the other two. The rendering is pretty similar, because they belong to the same "family", but of course it cannot fully replace any of them. Stopped down to f/1.4, I actually think the Noctilux was an even better "Summilux" than the 50 Summilux, with a slightly nicer rendering and a little sharper. And of course, wide open there is nothing alike.

So if I can ever afford it, I will probably buy back a Noctilux f/1. When I watch my old pictures, many of the best ones were taken with this unique lens.

Edited by evikne
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a little push for the Summitar.

I was fortunate enough to be gifted a pristine IIIf and Summitar a few years ago, and lately have been primarily shooting the Summitar on an M6 (B&W).  At f2, this lens has a beautiful rendering with a fairly crisp central region, and a quick fall-off to lovely out-of-focus blur either side of the plane of focus. Stopped-down, it is a sharp lens.  The far bokeh creates a round, circular, appearance that frames the subject of the photograph.  This is due to the football (American football) shaped bokeh highlights that are all tangential to the central crisp region.  Very eye-catching, and makes much nicer B&W (and probably color) images than other lenses, such as the current Summicron 50.

If you come across a clean copy of the Summitar, they are not expensive, it is well worth purchasing, IMHO.  It's a great option for a classic Leica look.  It's a huge bonus that the Summitar is tiny and beautifully made.  I will never part with mine.

Edited by Danner
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, darylgo said:

(...)

Lately, I've had a chance to play with two of the three Nikon f1.2 offerings in F mount, the 58mm f1.2 from the 1960's and the later 50mm f1.2, a lens recently discontinued.  After comparing these optics to Leica's it is clear why the prices are what they are.  Neither Nikon lens is sharp wide open anywhere in the image, the 58/1.2 is soft with low contrast, colors are okay, post processing can not save these images (in color).  The Nikon 50/1.2 is a lens that Is not all that different from the newly released Noctilux 50mm f1.2 wide open, it is not sharp on center and it is low contrast however it's an improvement over the 58/1.2 and it's a lens that has potential, I just haven't found it yet.  Btw- everything I've said pertains to color images only.  

(...)

Off-topic, but can't resist to comment on your assessment of the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.2. If the Noct-Nikkor wasn't as sharp as the regular Nikkor, then I am quite confident that you tested a bad sample. From all reports I have read and test shots too, the Noct-Nikkor is usably sharp wide open. There are good reasons why it is still sold for about $3000 on eBay. The regular f/1.2 Nikkor is not worth it in my opinion since it's not sharp wide open and shows old school bokeh. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest JMF
14 minutes ago, LarsHP said:

Off-topic, but can't resist to comment on your assessment of the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.2. If the Noct-Nikkor wasn't as sharp as the regular Nikkor, then I am quite confident that you tested a bad sample. From all reports I have read and test shots too, the Noct-Nikkor is usably sharp wide open. There are good reasons why it is still sold for about $3000 on eBay. The regular f/1.2 Nikkor is not worth it in my opinion since it's not sharp wide open and shows old school bokeh. 

I read LarsHP's comments and also believes Lars tried a bad Nikkor 58 1.2 sample . 

Never bonded the 50 1.2 AIS Nikkor nor with the Konica 50 1.2 , yet I like the early 55 1.2 Nikkor and 50 Nikkor 1.1 .

I guess it's all subjective. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest JMF

I also like the Canon 1.2 LTM, but it took me to try four of them to find a perfect sample. Hade to make chims and colimate them  to the M digital bodies to achieve correct RF accuracy.

Edited by JMF
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, farnz said:

Interesting.  I don't get the purple CA (or is it actually sensor 'bloom'?) with my 50/1 Noctilux v4 although I did get it on the 50/0.95 Noctilux I owned briefly before returning it to the wild because its rendering was all but indistinguishable from the 'standard' 50/1.4 Summilux asph's rendering; this is probably owing to Peter Karbe's design 'fingerprint' in both lenses.

Pete.

I shoot all my lenses straight into a bright light (focused on the light) to see behavior, the f1 on an M10-R had this issue, the purple band was wider than most lenses that exhibit chromatic aberrations and my interpretation (synonym: opinion) is the blue channel, responsible for glow was responsible, more so on the M10-R than the M10-P.  I could run more tests to see if sensor bloom is occuring, it's not always easy to separate sensor characteristics from lens characteristics or the synergy produced.  

 

6 hours ago, Ecar said:

Like Daryl, I also see CA with my 50/1.0 v4. BUT, it seems to depend on the light source (some "colder" artificial lights are just terrible, whilst it's more manageable with the warmer ones).

Thanks, I hadn't thought of light source variables, it makes perfect sense that it would.  The unfocused blue wavelengths would perhaps account  for the colder

light characteristics. 

3 hours ago, LarsHP said:

Off-topic, but can't resist to comment on your assessment of the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.2. If the Noct-Nikkor wasn't as sharp as the regular Nikkor, then I am quite confident that you tested a bad sample. From all reports I have read and test shots too, the Noct-Nikkor is usably sharp wide open. There are good reasons why it is still sold for about $3000 on eBay. The regular f/1.2 Nikkor is not worth it in my opinion since it's not sharp wide open and shows old school bokeh. 

 Apologies, the lens I referred to as 58mm is 55mm, the Nikkor-S, a very old design from the 1960's and Nikons first f1.2 lens for the F mount.  I don't have any experience with the Noct-Nikkor but from what I read it is as you state.  

 

3 hours ago, JMF said:

I guess it's all subjective. 

Subjective and with all these discussions we might be talking about different photography: street, landscape, architecture, portraiture, different lighting etc.  

It's challenging and so much fun.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...