Three "Noct's" and a 'Cron

[Jared]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently purchased a 50mm Noctilux f/1.2 "reissue" and I've been trying to learn the lens' behavior a bit. I thought you all might be interested to see how it manages a real-world image wide open in comparison to a couple other fast lenses and a "reference" lens. So, here are four shots taken with:

• 50mm Noctilux f/1.2 @ f/1.2, 1m distance (close focus), cropped down to the field of view of a 75mm lens
• 50mm Voigtlander Nokton f/1 @ f/1, 1m distance (very nearly close focus), cropped down to the field of view of a 75mm lens
• 50mm APO Summicron f/2 @ f/2, 1m distance (to give the same field of view--close focus is actually 0.7m), cropped down to the field of view of a 75mm lens
• 75mm Noctilux f/1.25 @ f/1.25, 1m distance (very nearly close focus), uncropped

The order listed above is the order I see the images in the browser window, so no tricks in this thread. Focus point was, of course, the near eye. Thanks to my model for her tremendous patience; her ability to hold a pose while keeping things looking natural is unsurpassed. 

Here are my observations from these four images as well as general observations from using all four lenses:

1. All four lenses were surprisingly sharp wide open at the center of the frame. I expected that from the Summicron, of course, since it is 1.5-2 stops slower than the other lenses and is considered a "reference" lens, but I thought I'd see less contrast out of the other lenses than I actually got. On axis, when you get focus just right and have a tripod, all these lenses do just great.
2. The fall-off in sharpness from the Noctilux f/1.2 as you move away from the center of the field is quite dramatic at this aperture, creating the illusion of even less depth of field than the f/1 Nokton in certain parts of the image. Notice, for example, that there is no foreground "dirt" that appears sharp in the 50mm Noctilux image, while the Nokton image has much more even performance across the field, and therefore there is an area of "dirt" foreground that is quite sharp--the portion that lies at the same distance as the pig's eye. This means the 50mm Noctilux may actually do a better job of subject isolation for center subjects, but will be more of a challenge for off-center compositions. Bokeh is less smooth than in either the Nokton or the 75mm Noctilux, but it does add a glow and a swirl that provide a somewhat etherial look that is absent in the other fast primes. I can imagine this being either magical or distracting, depending on the subject matter. The 50mm Noctilux will almost certainly be the most challenging lens to get good results from just because of the uneven performance across the frame, but I expect it to be a lot of fun. Stopped down to f/4 things are much more consistent, and by f/8 it is essentially the same as the 50mm APO at the same aperture, so it could definitely be a "daily driver" as long as one is careful with aperture selection and/or subject placement. Not a lens one can just shoot wide open all the time.
3. The 50mm Nokton performed surprisingly well with very even performance across the frame, and enough micro contrast even wide open to satisfy. By f/4, a good adjective to describe this lens is "biting". It seems to be a touch warmer than the other lenses, at least when you use auto white balance. In this case, I corrected all four exposures to be very close in color balance so you may not notice it. Probably a bit less micro contrast than the other lenses shot wide open, but that issue can be resolved just by stopping down to f/1.4 or so, and if you don't want to do that, it's pretty easy to compensate in post. There are really only three issues with this lens. First, the vignetting is quite strong wide open--probably even stronger than in the f/1.2 Noctilux which is saying something. Easy to correct in post if you want to, but the vignetting is strong enough that you might actually see some noise creeping in after correction. Second, the lens obscures an awful lot of the viewfinder, perhaps 25% or so. Third, and perhaps most seriously, the lens has an extraordinarily flat field of view. In fact, it might even have a touch of reverse curvature (thought it's very slight if so). This can sometimes create a somewhat odd look to some images. We are all used to having a bit of concave field curvature--where objects closer than the point of focus are likely to look sharper as you move towards the corners rather than objects farther than the point of focus (aside from some 35mm Summicrons which have almost mustache shaped field curvature). This lens is somewhere between perfectly flat or slightly convex field curvature, depending on subject distance. 
4. The 50mm APO is, essentially, flawless. It's not as fast as the other lenses, so it can't isolate subjects as well and you won't get that insane low-light performance, but details and contrast are excellent across the frame at all apertures from f/2 onwards (until diffraction sets in starting around f/8). It is also insanely small and light for its performance level. There's a reason it's a reference standard for 50mm M lenses. Oh, it is noticeably longer in focal length than the other 50's (at least near close focus--haven't tried infinity). It also has a close focus of 0.7 meters which lets you get a bit more subject isolation than you might expect, though at the cost of some perspective distortion.
5. The 75mm is just phenomenal. It has a touch of chromatic aberration when used wide open, but the resolution and contrast are astonishing. Because of the extra focal length, it has an even narrower depth of field than the f/1 Nokton. However, it is big, heeeaaavvy, has a lot of viewfinder blockage, and is very difficult to focus consistently and accurately with the rangefinder when used wide open inside of 1.5 meters. The performance is, honestly, surprisingly similar to the 50mm Nokton except with even more sharpness and contrast wide open, and with a more traditional approach to field curvature (nearly flat, but with a touch of concave curvature). Nothing glow or etherial in this one, just solid performance with insane levels of depth of field control. 

Let me know where your observations differ from mine. I know a lot of what I mentioned comes from more images than just the ones I posted, but many of you own one or more of these lenses so I'd like to hear what you have observed.

In general, I think I'm really going to enjoy shooting with the 50mm Noctilux f/1.2. To say it has "character" is an understatement. It has minimal viewfinder blockage, is light enough to carry all day, and behaves like a fully modern lens by f/4. I wish the sharpness didn't fall off quite as fast as you move away from the center of the field, but there are lots of ways to deal with that. Oh, as an aside, while the sharpness falls off a bunch as you move from the center of the frame to about perhaps five or six millimeters off axis (1/3 of the way to the edge of the frame), it actually picks up again as you approach the edge. Just a quirk to be aware of. Unfortunately, this quirk puts the absolute weakest performance about 7mm off axis which is right where the 'rule of thirds' compositional aids would tell you to put most subjects. So, if that's where you want your subject, either stop down to f/2.8 or smaller, or compose a bit more loosely, center your subject, and crop in post. Assuming, of course, that having a sharp subject is important. If it's not, then shoot away! Oh, and feel free to confirm what I was mentioning about the sharpness falling off then picking back up in the MTF charts that Leica posted for the lens. It's not a matter of a defective lens. 

By the way, I didn't mention distortion for any of the lenses. The 50mm Noctilux f/1.2 has a bunch. The others have little. In all cases, profiles correct it. Plus, these aren't lenses one is likely to use for architectural photography.

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 September 10, 2022 by Jared
Typos

[Guest]

vor 57 Minuten schrieb Jared:

... Thanks to my model for her tremendous patience; her ability to hold a pose while keeping things looking natural is unsurpassed. ...

😀😀😀

Thanks for your report, which shows me how unimportant the small blurry differences outside the zone of sharpness are for my kind of photography.
So no reason to switch, for example, from my old Mandler-Summilux 1.4-75mm to one of the ones shown.

[Jared]

11 hours ago, mnutzer said:

😀😀😀

Thanks for your report, which shows me how unimportant the small blurry differences outside the zone of sharpness are for my kind of photography.
So no reason to switch, for example, from my old Mandler-Summilux 1.4-75mm to one of the ones shown.

For any given person's style of photography, the differences could be very important or completely irrelevant. For example, at f/8 I literally would not be able to tell the difference with any of the lenses shown at any point in the field of view. Any field curvature differences go away since the depth of field expands so much. Bokeh differences evaporate. Longitudinal chromatic aberration all but vanishes. All four of the lenses I showed here are perfectly sharp, corner to corner, such that you will only be limited in your results by motion blur, either the camera or subject. So, if I tended to do landscape photography or product photography from a tripod with the lens stopped down to the best aperture, I would likely just choose a current generation Summicron (non-APO) since results would be indistinguishable from more expensive lenses. I might even save a little more money and go for a Voigtlander equivalent. In any event, I would choose a small, light, inexpensive lens that didn't block the viewfinder.

Likewise, if I were just zone focusing for street photography, I would probably choose a small, inexpensive lens. Heck, I might even go for the 28mm Summaron (in the Leica system) due to its insanely compact size and the expanded depth of field from the shorter focal length. F/5.6 just wouldn't be a limitation for this kind of shooting, and the vignetting adds its own form of subject isolation.

Environmental portraits? More formal portraits? Travel photography? Low light photography? For these scenarios I start caring a bit more--a lot more--about the out of focus areas and how they render. I am likely to be shooting at or near minimum aperture. Astrophotography? I need a perfectly flat field, minimal astigmatism, and as little vignetting as possible (to control noise when I correct). I also want as little off axis astigmatism and coma as possible at as large an aperture as I can get away with, but preferably f/2.8 or faster.

As Al mentioned, it always comes back to horses for courses. By all means keep your 75 'Lux if it's getting the job done for you. I have never owned or used one myself so can't speak to its strengths and weaknesses. It's been a fan favorite for years, though, and I know it's a lot smaller and lighter than the current generation 75 Noctilux. While I love my 75mm Noctilux, the size, weight, and viewfinder blockage keep it from being an everyday lens for me. The 75 APO, on the other hand, makes it into my bag quite a lot.

[wzsalzbg]

excellent pictures that could have been not made without one of these lenses.

[jakontil]

Hi jared, thanks for the reports and observation, very much in line with my findings regarding to the 1.2 remake, while others cant live with it and sold in the end, i found that the 1.2, while it performs great in low light, it’s also an excellent travel lens due to its size

I always was torn between the 0.95 and 1.2 but i have made plan for its own, profesional shot with the former and fun family trips with the latter 

the apo is just like a cheat code lens for me 

 

[shirubadanieru]

The problem with the nocti f1.2 is that, while magical wide open, the distortion is just too much to make it an usable lens for anything other than portraits. If you’re shooting digital, the profiles correct it so no problem, but shooting film like I do it’s a real problem…so for me while I’m really happy Leica remakes such classic lenses, as a user I much prefer to use the Summilux series instead : ) Hope Leica remakes the summilux line at some point!

[Jared]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, shirubadanieru said:

The problem with the nocti f1.2 is that, while magical wide open, the distortion is just too much to make it an usable lens for anything other than portraits. If you’re shooting digital, the profiles correct it so no problem, but shooting film like I do it’s a real problem…so for me while I’m really happy Leica remakes such classic lenses, as a user I much prefer to use the Summilux series instead : ) Hope Leica remakes the summilux line at some point!

Yes, the distortion is much stronger than with, I think, any other current Leica lens. Since I'm using digital, I don't care at all--the profile takes care of it perfectly. If I were shooting film, though, you are correct that it would be a problem for lots of subjects, not just architecture. 

Honestly, if I were to choose the most "balanced" 50mm Leica currently makes it would probably be the current Summilux. I don't own one at present--sold it to pay for the 50 APO--but it is a great blend of low light capabilities, excellent color correction, sharp across the frame by f/2.8, and good depth of field control for portraits when used wide open. It's also reasonably small and light and not too expensive, at least by Leica standards. Definitely a well balanced lens giving you a little bit of everything.

[jakontil]

13 hours ago, shirubadanieru said:

The problem with the nocti f1.2 is that, while magical wide open, the distortion is just too much to make it an usable lens for anything other than portraits. If you’re shooting digital, the profiles correct it so no problem, but shooting film like I do it’s a real problem…so for me while I’m really happy Leica remakes such classic lenses, as a user I much prefer to use the Summilux series instead : ) Hope Leica remakes the summilux line at some point!

Yeah i very much agree with the 1.2 being used in film, too much distortion to consider