Noctilux 1.2 (reissued) vs Noctilux 1.0?

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Curious if anyone has directly compared the sharpness and rendering of these 2 lenses, wide open?

Clearly I’d assume both are more for “character” wide open.  But is the 1.2 less well corrected with nothing sharp at all wide open …:: but the 1.0 might better resolve some fine details?

 

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[Advertisement]

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

[jankap]

See the FM forum

 

[tightsqueez]

Been comparing my E58 version with the 1.2 reissue for a few weeks now, with both film and digital (M10M and Sony A7s). 
 

I plan on doing a comparison post with pictures hopefully next week if I have the time. Worst case I can always shoot some images to those wanting to see images with both. 
 

But from I can conclude as of today, the 1.0 is much sharper off center. You can actually focus on a subject, recompose and have something in focus. It’s a world of difference. This is with the M10M. The 1.0 is a lot less frustrating to use when shooting multiple people, children, etc. I still need to compare lenses at infinity. 

With film it’s very hard to tell the difference… sometimes I cannot even tell which is which. 

Rendering wise, they are different. The 1.2 has a “feathery” rendering of out of focus areas that make the impression of motion, sorta like a Van Gogh. It’s what separates it from any other lens in my opinion.
 

Central/middle field: With the 1.0, out of focus subjects a few feet behind focus point are softer and diffused. However, objects in the far distance are softer with the 1.2, with the 1.0 being more busy. Stop down to 5.6 and it’s the opposite. It’s quite odd. I believe it’s due to the 1.0 being a faster lens; faster lenses have less depth of field even at the same aperture compared with a slower lens. 
 

Edges: The 1.0 is much busier than the 1.2. Far edges are pretty ugly with 1.0 if you ask me, giving a “V” shape. 
 

I’ll hit up highlight rendition later… they are very different in this regard. Just my quick observation for now. 
 

 

 

[Wyck]

I also think there may be some sample variations. I say this as a friend also had the Nocti 1.2 and we both use the lens on a M10 M. My friends observation was ‘if my copy was as sharp as yours I wouldn’t have sold it’. 
 

I like the lens and I also use it on film as well as my M10M.  I also have the 50 APO so it’s nice to have a completely different look for different projects. 

[tightsqueez]

41 minutes ago, Wyck said:

I also think there may be some sample variations. I say this as a friend also had the Nocti 1.2 and we both use the lens on a M10 M. My friends observation was ‘if my copy was as sharp as yours I wouldn’t have sold it’. 
 

I like the lens and I also use it on film as well as my M10M.  I also have the 50 APO so it’s nice to have a completely different look for different projects. 

I’d love to see some sharp wide open off center shots. I’ve been asking anyone to provide some since March of last year. Ha ha. 
 

The lens is pretty sharp dead center. Come off a third and it gets nasty. Move out to the far corner and it actually gets almost as sharp as the center. MTF charts confirm this, and I can definitely see it when I’m shooting. 

[Capuccino-Muffin]

this probably does not show anything but here it is. A print of a shot wide open @f1.2

i like the lens and don’t bother with testing it against my F1.0. I just go with what it gives me and I live with it. It’s been more than a decade that I’ve totally unhooked from sharpness and technical talk. I just do my Stuff and it just works. Soft? Blurry? I’m ok with it. I also have a big collection to choose from, and this is what I do; I choose based on mood of the moment.

Even my rolleiflex and elmarit 28 v1 with a decentered lens give me results that are unlike anything else. I just embrace it and go along... 
 

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!

[jankap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Wyck said:

I also think there may be some sample variations. I say this as a friend also had the Nocti 1.2 and we both use the lens on a M10 M. My friends observation was ‘if my copy was as sharp as yours I wouldn’t have sold it’. 

Did you try your lens on his camera too?

Edited February 18, 2022 by jankap

[Wyck]

7 minutes ago, jankap said:

Did you try your lens on his camera too?

No I’m in the UK and he’s in America. I literally sent a few tiff files. 
 

sorry I should also add we weren’t comparing lenses. I just sent a few tiff files as were discussing a photograph. 
 

like Cappuccino Muffin I just use the lens and never really worry about comparing to my other lenses. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Wyck
To add additional info.

[Capuccino-Muffin]

My non-negotiable pet-peeve is accurate focus. I cannot live with a lens that is not accurately calibrated. Front or back focus irritates me so bad. But anything else goes...

[tightsqueez]

9 hours ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

this probably does not show anything but here it is. A print of a shot wide open @f1.2

i like the lens and don’t bother with testing it against my F1.0. I just go with what it gives me and I live with it. It’s been more than a decade that I’ve totally unhooked from sharpness and technical talk. I just do my Stuff and it just works. Soft? Blurry? I’m ok with it. I also have a big collection to choose from, and this is what I do; I choose based on mood of the moment.

Even my rolleiflex and elmarit 28 v1 with a decentered lens give me results that are unlike anything else. I just embrace it and go along... 
 

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!

Couldn’t agree more. There’s beauty in the chaos of imperfection. 
 

However, the OP asked for specific characteristics regarding these two lenses. He was lucky we’ve been snowed in for quite awhile now! In between shots of the kids on their snow days, I’ve been learning these two lenses a little more in-depth and learned a lot. 

[Parolibre]

I would suggest considering the equally formidable Voigtlander 50mm f1.0 VM. Great all-around lens with character wide open and very sharp stopped down. 

[John Black]

My experience with the 50mm V4 is that it can be sharp'ish wide open at distances ~25 feet, but close subjects were generally pretty soft.  At F1 there is not a clear plane of focus, just a zone / range where stuff is less blurry.  

Kudos to tightsqueez - he put much more effort into the comparison   I agree that the 50/1.2's bokeh was more pleasing.  I do not think it's the sharper lens of the two (when shooting wide open), but its bokeh was more aesthetically pleasing to my eye.  I generally shot the 50/1.2 at F2 because the wide open sharpness was too soft for my tastes.  At F1.2 there might be something at the very, very central area that sharp'ish.  Anything off center would be OOF'd for sure.  

If there are "better" copies out there that do better wide open (than my experience), then I probably would have kept the 50/1.2.  As size goes, it was great.  

[Jon Warwick]

17 hours ago, tightsqueez said:

Been comparing my E58 version with the 1.2 reissue for a few weeks now, with both film and digital (M10M and Sony A7s). 
 

I plan on doing a comparison post with pictures hopefully next week if I have the time. Worst case I can always shoot some images to those wanting to see images with both. 
 

But from I can conclude as of today, the 1.0 is much sharper off center. You can actually focus on a subject, recompose and have something in focus. It’s a world of difference. This is with the M10M. The 1.0 is a lot less frustrating to use when shooting multiple people, children, etc. I still need to compare lenses at infinity. 

With film it’s very hard to tell the difference… sometimes I cannot even tell which is which. 

Rendering wise, they are different. The 1.2 has a “feathery” rendering of out of focus areas that make the impression of motion, sorta like a Van Gogh. It’s what separates it from any other lens in my opinion.
 

Central/middle field: With the 1.0, out of focus subjects a few feet behind focus point are softer and diffused. However, objects in the far distance are softer with the 1.2, with the 1.0 being more busy. Stop down to 5.6 and it’s the opposite. It’s quite odd. I believe it’s due to the 1.0 being a faster lens; faster lenses have less depth of field even at the same aperture compared with a slower lens. 
 

Edges: The 1.0 is much busier than the 1.2. Far edges are pretty ugly with 1.0 if you ask me, giving a “V” shape. 
 

I’ll hit up highlight rendition later… they are very different in this regard. Just my quick observation for now. 
 

 

 

That’s very helpful indeed. Many thanks. And yes, any comments on how you personally see rendering differences between the 1.2 and 1.0 would be gratefully listened to. I’ve now played with DNGs from the Leica official site, there is something charming and certainly very “interesting” about the imperfect look from the 1.2 that I really like. 

[a.noctilux]

I have something (I think very important) to add concerning Noctilux in general.

- trying to compare two or more Noctilux is a waste of time and effort

One Noctilux needs to be used as such for months to learn the lens which is subtle and different from one Noctilux to another, even same type 🙃

- Noctilux is not created to be sharp, so trying to find sharpness with Noctilux is not in the spirit of it's use

- trying to only use at wide open (worse yet at close or very close) is another frequent-user-error, the limit of 1m mfd is there to remind this

unsatisfaction guaranteed

- in these past years, I lent one of my Noctilux to many becoming-Noct-users ...I've learned two things, the real use prevents them searching one and let them see in real use that

Noctilux is NOT for everyone and the "myth" becoming "effort myth".

[tightsqueez]

4 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

I have something (I think very important) to add concerning Noctilux in general.

- trying to compare two or more Noctilux is a waste of time and effort

One Noctilux needs to be used as such for months to learn the lens which is subtle and different from one Noctilux to another, even same type 🙃

- Noctilux is not created to be sharp, so trying to find sharpness with Noctilux is not in the spirit of it's use

- trying to only use at wide open (worse yet at close or very close) is another frequent-user-error, the limit of 1m mfd is there to remind this

unsatisfaction guaranteed

- in these past years, I lent one of my Noctilux to many becoming-Noct-users ...I've learned two things, the real use prevents them searching one and let them see in real use that

Noctilux is NOT for everyone and the "myth" becoming "effort myth".

Well thanks for enlightening all of us mortals with your wisdom. The “a” in a.Noctilux must be short for Ace? Authority? Or maybe Artist? 

[shirubadanieru]

pictures speak lounder than words so here are some fresh out of the oven w/ the nocti. wide open first, closed down a bit next.

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!

[shirubadanieru]

& closed down. all shot on colorplus 200

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!

[a.noctilux]

@shirubadanieru

Please don't take me wrong.

 

I have to say that the photographer always put his sense/sensivity/style on his production,

these pictures can be from almost all 50mm lens (not the first serie ones of course which I see some Noctilux fingerprints).

Noctilux (in my use also Summilux 50/75) can produce "not so sharp" but pleasing (not for everybody taste) images with unique fingerprints.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[shirubadanieru]

@a.noctilux thank you. Yes, of course..otherwise photography would be boring. 

I shared these just to show how the f1.2 renders open / stopped down.

At f1.2 wide open, it is indeed dreamy yet the center is sharp enough for portraits and looks lovely from my POV, and it has just the right amount of glow. 

But from f2.8, I would say this lens is as sharp as any summicron; I actually was not expecting it to be this sharp to be honest and the results surprised me. That being said, distortion is definitely there whereas all other 50mm (non  noctilux lenses that is) have zero distortion. Despite this, if distortion is not critical for your work the nocti f1.2 can indeed be a 2-1, do it all in one lens (dreamy wide open, tack sharp from f2.8 onwards). Size wise and weight it’s also ok to carry all day round to shoot other things other than portraits wide open, whereas the f1 or 0.95 is just too heavy to be a do it all in one lens, carry it all the time kind of lens. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by shirubadanieru

[a.noctilux]

Thanks for your inputs @shirubadanieru.

I'm sort of explorer of light gatering lenses for Leica M for decades,

I don't have same opinions (mainly) as new Noctilux users who want "sharp-portrait-as-close-as-can-be" wide open with neutral filter,

forgetting that Noctilux can do much more than that, and you prove this well that Noctilux 50mm can be used as normal 50mm.

I had tried the original asph.1.2/50mm long time ago, and I prefer my 1.0 as "old friend" (standard rendering ).

👇

My last "giant lens" is the one I carry/use a lot for it's specificities : not too heavy, hide less the VF (about nothing hidden with M3's 50 round frame), large focus ring a pleasure to use ...larger than my thumb, just tried out now 180° from infinity to 1m, I even cancel it's infinity lock, and it uses E55 filters that I have plenty (needing 14225 ring though), no Ninja star aperture as 1.0, no onion rings.

Edited February 21, 2022 by a.noctilux