Noctilux lenses

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Although I am very impressed with the technical achievements of the recent Noctilux lenses, I question the wisdom in spending so much effort to design lenses for a rangefinder camera in the digital age, when M digital cameras have much greater low-light capacity than film ever had. A rangefinder focussing system is not sufficiently precise to allow the user to place the plane of focus of such lenses on a living, breathing subject at full aperture. When used on an SL-type camera, the situation is of course different. The original Noctilux (50mm f/1.2) came out in 1966 when films were slower, and the need for capturing the most photons was great. Today, it just doesn't make sense. Leica should instead concentrate on designing such lenses for the SL camera, as manual-focus options. They are wasted on the M camera, and obscure the viewfinder.

Not every lens for the SL camera needs to be autofocus!

Edited January 19, 2022 by Ornello

[a.noctilux]

"...Today, it just doesn't make sense..."

How about to make money ?

[Advertisement]

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

[Ornello]

4 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

"...Today, it just doesn't make sense..."

How about to make money ?

I am saying that it makes more sense for the SL line, where you can see the image directly.

[a.noctilux]

With the Summilux-M 1.5/90 asph. (this one )

we can read

"...Thanks to the M-Adapter L, the Summilux-M 90 f/1.5 ASPH. is also compatible with the Leica SL and SL2.

..."

I think that as Leica can not offer the lens or Noctilux 50/75 in L mount so AF lens, it is kind of saying "we can do these as manual focus then you can use on L camera also".

All is good for Leica (to make more money), M and L users if they need these nice lenses.

[Ray Vonn]

16 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Although I am very impressed with the technical achievements of the recent Noctilux lenses, I question the wisdom in spending so much effort to design lenses for a rangefinder camera in the digital age, when M cameras have much greater low-light capacity than film ever had. A rangefinder focussing system is not sufficiently precise to allow the user to place the plane of focus of such lenses on a living, breathing subject at full aperture. When used on an SL-type camera, the situation is of course different. The original Noctilux (50mm f/1.2) came out in 1966 when films were slower, and the need for capturing the most photons was great. Today, it just doesn't make sense. Leica should instead concentrate on designing such lenses for the SL camera, as manual-focus options. They are wasted on the M camera, and obscure the viewfinder.

I know that you mean, I think it comes down whether the user likes the way a Noctilux looks/ renders and wants that Noctilux badge as opposed to Low light.  

[Ornello]

10 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

With the Summilux-M 1.5/90 asph. (this one )

we can read

"...Thanks to the M-Adapter L, the Summilux-M 90 f/1.5 ASPH. is also compatible with the Leica SL and SL2.

..."

I think that as Leica can not offer the lens or Noctilux 50/75 in L mount so AF lens, it is kind of saying "we can do these as manual focus then you can use on L camera also".

All is good for Leica (to make more money), M and L users if they need these nice lenses.

Well, I think it would be better if they made the lenses available in the SL mount too, to avoid using the adapter. I think they are more suited to such a camera. I challenge anyone to focus on an eyelash with a 0.95 50mm using an M rangefinder. If the subject has a pulse, you'll fail! But of course, Leica doesn't always choose the most sensible approach.

Edited January 19, 2022 by Ornello

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So long ago, 1954 remember ?

same history, when Leitz offered adapter rings LTM to M for customers who already have LTM lenses.

Now just offering to more customers (M + L) may be better economically.

Same lens in L mount (AF) would be way more expensive/bigger/heavier and would sell far less and AF technology must be very good.

...

I know as user of Noctilux for decades that the challenge of close focus Noctilux lens is something I avoid but so fun...

I used also Canon AF 1.0/50, I know the flaws of AF (well 30 years ago ! )

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 January 19, 2022 by a.noctilux

[Ornello]

4 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

So long ago, 1954 remember ?

same history, when Leitz offered adapter rings LTM to M for customers who already have LTM lenses.

Now just offering to more customers (M + L) may be better economically.

Same lens in L mount (AF) would be way more expensive/bigger/heavier and would sell far less and AF technology must be very good.

I said as manual lenses. Please read! Is there any reason that manual-focus SL lenses cannot be made?

Edited January 19, 2022 by Ornello

[a.noctilux]

Your suggestion for manual focus L lenses is very nice, indeed.

Ask Leica ?

Edited January 19, 2022 by a.noctilux

[evikne]

Firstly, although fast lenses are no longer as important in low light, they are still useful for shallow depth of field. They may also have a special rendering one wants to take advantage of.

Secondly, we do not know anything about Leica's future plans. Maybe we will see a future EVF-M where these lenses can be fully utilized without any external aids.

Third, Leica does it because they can (and want to show that they are still among the world's leading lens designers).

Edited January 19, 2022 by evikne

[Ornello]

6 minutes ago, evikne said:

Firstly, although fast lenses are no longer as important in low light, they are still useful for shallow depth of field. They may also have a special rendering one wants to take advantage of.

Secondly, we do not know anything about Leica's future plans. Maybe we will see a future EVF-M where these lenses can be used without any external aids.

Third, Leica does it because they can (and want to show that they are still among the world's leading lens designers).

1. Yes, but you cannot see the DOF on a rangefinder. That was my point! You can see it on an SL.

2. They should do it to make more money with little additional investment. Sell the lenses in more than one mount (as was done with the 90mm Summicron APO ASPH for both R and M mounts.)

3. So what? Who doesn't know that already?

Edited January 19, 2022 by Ornello

[Ornello]

The SL system offers more flexibility, and with video, wider applicability for the Noctilux lenses. You may or may not know that Nikon's own 0.95 lens is a manual-focus design for their mirrorless Z system:

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-lenses/nikkor-z-58mm-f%2f0.95-s-noct.html

https://petapixel.com/2020/06/15/nikon-adding-autofocus-to-the-noct-lens-would-increase-size-far-beyond-imagination/

I believe that Noctilux lenses for the SL system need not be much bigger than the ones for the M system.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Ornello

[rtai]

I also have an SL2 along side my M10m. As much as I love the M system the negatives such as finder blockage, imprecise rf, need for external finders and as Ornello said about not seeing oof transition, have been address by EVF focusing. Moreover I can now accurately focus my heavy as hell 85mm Summarex and keep it steady with IBIS. 

Edited January 19, 2022 by rtai

[Hanno]

I bought the SL2 as I had enough of shooting Noctilux lenses on the M. 

But with the new Visoflex 2, I have to say shooting the Noctilux 75mm/1.25 and 50mm/0.95 on the M11 have become a valid proposition. All the more if you have the hand grip. Both design and ergonomics are actually great and well thought of.

The shape of the new Visoflex (rectangular) fits so well with the M11, it can of blind with the camera body while the previous iteration truly felt like an external piece.  The hand grip is smart, ingenious, discret and light. On the 1kg 75mm/1.25 it makes a difference. True these lenses will balance better on the SL2, but it offers a less heavier solution than the SL2.

The visoflex is not as good as the SL2's, but it works well with the M11. There is still a blackout, but reasonably short. It didn't bothered me as the previous version. I have configured the EVF display and function buttons on the M11 with the same menu/functionality as with the SL2, thus using the EVF on the M11 is now seamless.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Hanno

[SoarFM]

4 hours ago, Ornello said:

I believe that Noctilux lenses for the SL system need not be much bigger than the ones for the M system.

The 50 Summilux-SL suggests otherwise. Even the 50 Summicron-SL, as reasonable as its size is, dwarfs the 50 APO-Summicron-M

 

[Aryel]

If you look through this Thread, you can see some beautiful photos made with M cameras, film and digital. Some of the images are beautiful and unique to these lenses. I never tried one but looking at the images, it seems to make sense to continue making them. 
 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Aryel

[adan]

From a technical point of view, you are possibly correct. Although there seem to be plenty of folks who can focus a Noctilux with an M just fine (even with just the classic RF). You might as well complain about the M's fast 75s or 90s (which have even less DoF than a 50mm Noctilux, especially given how much tighter they can focus and frame).

From a marketing point of view, making lenses that will work on two or more camera systems increases potential sales. But it is a one-way street: M-mount lenses will work on the SL/TL cameras via an adapter, but SL/TL lenses cannot be adapted to work on an M (no focus cam, different flange-to-sensor distances).

From a philosophical point of view, what does Leica have to do with "making sense?" For a fair number of customers, it is an emotional (and in some cases nearly a religious) joyride.

From a practical point of view, if you think you are smarter than Leica, send them your resume. (I would gently suggest that telling them that you are smarter than them, and they are not making sense, will not be a successful approach, however. ).

Or buy the company.

[Parolibre]

I agree with @adan here. The compatibility of using M-mount for the Noctilux line is indeed more versatile than designating it for L Mount. Given that sales don't seem to be doing so well with the SL APO Summicron line (with how slow the lens are rolling out), M to L adapter seems to be the most logical solution for now. 

[Ornello]

10 hours ago, SoarFM said:

The 50 Summilux-SL suggests otherwise. Even the 50 Summicron-SL, as reasonable as its size is, dwarfs the 50 APO-Summicron-M

 

Not as a manual focus lens!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ornello]

6 hours ago, adan said:

From a technical point of view, you are possibly correct. Although there seem to be plenty of folks who can focus a Noctilux with an M just fine (even with just the classic RF). You might as well complain about the M's fast 75s or 90s (which have even less DoF than a 50mm Noctilux, especially given how much tighter they can focus and frame).

From a marketing point of view, making lenses that will work on two or more camera systems increases potential sales. But it is a one-way street: M-mount lenses will work on the SL/TL cameras via an adapter, but SL/TL lenses cannot be adapted to work on an M (no focus cam, different flange-to-sensor distances).

From a philosophical point of view, what does Leica have to do with "making sense?" For a fair number of customers, it is an emotional (and in some cases nearly a religious) joyride.

From a practical point of view, if you think you are smarter than Leica, send them your resume. (I would gently suggest that telling them that you are smarter than them, and they are not making sense, will not be a successful approach, however. ).

Or buy the company.

I am not proposing to make the Noctilux lenses available only in the SL mount; rather, I am suggesting that they be offered also in SL mount, as manual focus lenses! Nicht nur, sondern auch!

Edited January 20, 2022 by Ornello