focusing, madness and the Noctilux

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have I just been very lucky?

Maybe my QA standards are not very high?

 

I went to a wedding reception in a pub last night - the lighting was horrid, mixed flourescent and tungsten,and mostly spots onto white walls.

 

I wasn't 'working', so I had a bit of fun with the M8 and the nocti - for the most part I put it on ISO 320, f1.4 1/60th and fired away - some were shot at f1.

 

It IS quite hard to focus, and there are lots of shots which aren't quite, but it really reinforced my feeling that this is a useful lens, not just a wierd exotic. I'm sorry that others (Mark and Eoin come to mind) who are certainly much more technically adept than I am are finding it hard to love.

 

if you're interested in the shots, I took about 150, and the survivors can be found here:

 

Sam and Anna's Reception - Page 1

[marknorton]

I wish!

 

I think you've got the lens they made when the Sun, Mars and Jupiter were in perfect alignment... Either that, or Leica QC has gone disastrously wrong by letting a lens which does focus properly slip through the net.

 

Your shots do reinforce the benefit of the high speed lens, no annoying flashes destroying the informality of the occasion.

[Laki]

jono, i like them, specially that you captured all in a natural non invasive way i hope when my nocti comes back from its 2nd trip to solms it will be usable as well.

[robsteve]

Jono:

 

From looking at your pictures they don't seem to be taken at the troublesome distance of about 10m. You were shooting at just about the perfect distance for a Noctilux, not too close so the images are a bit soft and not too far so the focusing is tough because of the transition point from the near to the far focus.

[erl]

Jono, clearly you were not setting out to 'test' the lens, but rather document an event in your style, which you did. If you are happy with the result there is nothing more to analyze.

 

As Rob pionted out, you were working in one sector of the lens' scope. Outside that, it does change. You results, from a technical perspective, are not at all definitive as too many variables are obvious. Some shots have nailed the focus, some have missed. Others display camera shake and so on. Problem is, are the errors yours or the lens? Well, in some shots it can't be decided. The only way to nail a definite answer is to test the lens. A painful process that I am currently induging in with mine. I don't believe it can be better adjusted. It has already had two trips to Solms for focus, with the M8.

 

I am convinced after days of testing, that the Noct, on an M8, does vary in consistency of focus dependent at least on the focus distance set. Maybe other factors too, such as the body I have discovered. To work with lenses of this calibre I believe it is necessary to test carefully and memorize the differences and when they occur to permit manual focus correction. A PITA, but necessary IMHO.

 

My saga continues.

 

EDIT: I should add that I am not about to give up on this lens. It does draw, paint, shoot diffently from all others, and I like it.

[LichMD]

This mirrors my own experience with this troublesome, frustrating and often rewarding lens.

At greater then 5 m the difficulties in focusing make it unreliable, if a crisp sharply focused image is your intention. And the long throw makes candid photography somewhat difficult.

I left this lens at home recently when I went on a 2 week trip to India (for the above reasons and because of it's weight/size) and regretted it tremendously. I wish I'd had it during our late afternoon/evening tour of the Taj where the difficult light and subject would have served as another opportunity to learn more about the Noct. Especially inside where flash photography is forbidden and the limited light proved to much for my 28/2.0.

 

Jono, how many total pics did you take that led to these 150 that you selected?

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wish!

 

I think you've got the lens they made when the Sun, Mars and Jupiter were in perfect alignment... Either that, or Leica QC has gone disastrously wrong by letting a lens which does focus properly slip through the net.

 

Your shots do reinforce the benefit of the high speed lens, no annoying flashes destroying the informality of the occasion.

 

Hey Mark--the one I used for a week before I ordered it was also fabulous on my M8, and I even "hip-shot" it and acheived focus.

 

Now that lens was probably set up by someone in the States, but it was great. Having said that, I certainly didn't shoot it too much past, say, 10m. Focus was very good, though, and I'm sorry you're having so much trouble.

 

We'll see when the lens actually arrives

[robertwright]

if it is any consolation, I regularly shoot a gig involving corporate portraits on the canon 85 1.2, and it is 90% on at traditional head, shoulders, bust, waist distances.

 

Going full length and leaving a little breathing room around the subject-I don't know is that around 7-10m? the focus accuracy drops to 50% or less, at least as judged on screen at 100% on the eyeballs, where I am aiming.

 

There just is not a large enough target. My dof calculator says I have .5m at 7m at 1.2 but I think that is optimistic in the digital age of 100% judgement.

 

Rangefinder should be a little more accurate than that, but I believe the misfocusing is the total of no dof plus small target, plus too high expectations. Assuming your camera can focus other 50's accurately.

[robsteve]

Just to test my theory, I mounted the Noctilux on my M3 and M7 and the focus is perfect in the 10m range. My Noctilux seems to focus fine on the M8 in the shorter ranges and my 90mm APO is perfect all the way through the ranges.

 

I suspect that what ever changes were made to the M8 rangefinder reduced its compatibility with the Noctilux.

 

It looks like the Noctilux rangefinder cam needs to be adjusted out fractions of a mm, but will that throw off the near focus limit? As an experiment, I put a little tape on the rangefinder cam starting at about the 10mm mark and it seemed to improve the focus.

 

My conclusion, and this may be wrong is there is one of three problems:

 

1.)The balance between near and far focus adjustment made to the M8 are not suitable to Noctilux use. This adjustment may need to be changed. The manual I saw for setting up a M rangefinder included .7m, 10m and infinity targets. The technician tried to balance the infinity and near focus settings until the 10m was good.

 

-If this is the problem, what will it do to proper focusing lenses like the 90mm APO. Will we need to dedicate a body to the M8?

 

2.) The focus cam of the Noctilux needs to be adjusted out a bit to get the further ranges focusing accurately.

 

3.) The focus cam needs to be extended out and some fine tuning made to the profile in the 10m range. In other words a new cam profile needs to be ground for use on the M8. My little experiment of putting some tape on the focus cam in the 1m and 10m plus area does just this in a crude way.

 

In the end, Leica is the only one that can tell us what the most accurate way to solve this focus problem.

 

Robert

[marknorton]

I've spent some time today looking at my Noctilux in more detail and it turns out it is actually focussing accurately. The mistake I've been making is confusing lack of resolution with out of focus.

 

Still don't like the Noctilux and these two 100% crop images at infinity or close to it will tell you why:

 

Noctilux, f1, Centre

 

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!

 

50mm Summilux ASPH f1.4 Centre

 

 

You don't want to see the corner comparisons...

 

It's clear there's a significant IQ price to pay for that extra stop. The Noctilux is roughly twice the price of the Summilux now and I'm bound to ask the question, why is it still in production?

[Tony C.]

The Noctilux is roughly twice the price of the Summilux now and I'm bound to ask the question, why is it still in production?

 

Mark,

 

First of all, I don't doubt that the 50mm Summilux is a superb lens, and a better choice than the Noctlux for many. However...

 

I have not tested my Noctilux at infinity with a 100% crop, but I have a hard time believing that yours is properly calibrated based on that example. To be sure, did you take similar shots with it stopped down? I'd like to see those results in contrast.

 

As to your question above, the Noctilux is still highly sought after and prized by many because of its low-light capabilities, and the beautiful and unique manner in which it draws. For many of us, it's disadvantages are outweighed by those factors.

 

Regards,

 

Tony C.

 

 

[marknorton]

Tony, I did take some shots stopped down (to f4) and there is then much less difference between the lenses, I also focus-bracketed for the f1 shot and this is the best result - and the lens is pretty much up against the infinity stop. So, this is a test independent of the rangefinder calibration and depends only on the infinity stop calibration. Maybe that is off...

 

My conclusion at the moment is that the lens is focussing accurately but that the resolution of what is in focus is quite poor.

[Tony C.]

I'm curious, Mark: how does it resolve wide-open with closer subjects?

[glenerrolrd]

Mark that looks like the infinity setting is off ..exactly the type of results I was getting when I was using the allen wrench to adjust infinity ..Suggest you shoot a subject that has a lot of depth ..say fence posts ..then you can just find the area thats sharp ..independent of your focusing accuracy.

[robsteve]

I've spent some time today looking at my Noctilux in more detail and it turns out it is actually focussing accurately. The mistake I've been making is confusing lack of resolution with out of focus.

 

Still don't like the Noctilux and these two 100% crop images at infinity or close to it will tell you why:

 

Noctilux, f1, Centre

 

[ATTACH]58577[/ATTACH]

 

50mm Summilux ASPH f1.4 Centre

 

[ATTACH]58578[/ATTACH]

 

You don't want to see the corner comparisons...

 

It's clear there's a significant IQ price to pay for that extra stop. The Noctilux is roughly twice the price of the Summilux now and I'm bound to ask the question, why is it still in production?

 

 

Mark:

 

It should be better than that. Try the lens a touch before infinity and see if it gets any sharper.

 

With my Noctilux, which needs the adjustment, unless something is really far away like a KM or so, it needs to be focused slightly before infinity. On my M3, this is obvious, as only really distant objects coincide.

 

Btw, I figured mine is out by the thickness of Scotch Magic matte finish scotch tape. I think this stuff used to be called invisible Scotch tape. It shows how fine the adjustments on a Noctilux have to be.

 

Robert

[robsteve]

I just tried a test with my Noctilux. It is bright out now and even at 1/8000th it was over exposed by one stop and brought down in Lightroom. I think I shot at f1.2 to compensate a bit for the bright light.

 

To illustrate how fine the focus is, this building is only a fraction of a millimeter turn of the focus to get the range finder to align.

 

First the whole scene:

 

These next two images are 100% crops. Lightroom sharpening of amount 30 and .5 pixels (half a pixel).

 

Lens at infinity stop:

 

Lens moved slightly off infinity. This is where the rangefinder aligned with my tape adjusted Noctilux.

[Tony C.]

I just tried a test with my Noctilux. It is bright out now and even at 1/8000th it was over exposed by one stop and brought down in Lightroom. I think I shot at f1.2 to compensate a bit for the bright light.

 

To illustrate how fine the focus is, this building is only a fraction of a millimeter turn of the focus to get the range finder to align.

 

That's a good illustration of what a properly aligned M8 and Noctilux can, and should achieve near infinity. I would add that the need to finely calibrate the focus near infinity is not reserved only for the Noctlilux.

 

Regards,

 

Tony C.

[Eoin]

Hi Jono, Congrats on your new addition. It should be working fine, after all Wilson had it with solms twice and still he mentioned a slight 1 inch back focus IIRC.

 

Let me clarify my position regarding this lens, the Noctilux I received from solms in August had very poor resolution wide open, hard to tell exactly where focus was as nothing seemed to have any sharpness to define a focus point. That coupled with the fact that at f:/5.6 there was a whopping 8 inches of backfocus in the 2 meter range. As you may know it's been back twice and now shows good resolution and focus accuracy wide open and back focus is down to about 1 inch between f:/2.8 and f:/4.0.

 

I'm learning how to deal with this "trait" which seems common place with Noctilux and M8 combinations. I will also say I'm using the lens stopped down in reasonable light. I notice the lens fingerprint seems more noticeable in poorer lighting conditions than in daylight and I'm not talking f:/1.0 here.

 

The lens without a doubt has a number of looks it can create and I look forward to exploring them and trying to master the repeatability of the looks, I was and still am disappointed by the fact I had to send it and my M8 back to Solms at my own expense twice to get the thing within tolerance.

 

I wanted this lens for it's slightly lower contrast and resolution and the fact it was a very reasonable deal and about the only lens I needed from the 30% letter. I don't feel it's worth the full retail asking price, as are many other things Leica when they are new. But I have it now and I'll have fun exploring and getting to know it.

 

I'm delighted for you that you seem to be getting to grip with the lens straight out of the blocks.

 

 

 

Noctilix @ f:/2.8

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!

[marknorton]

Rob, thanks for that, it's clear there's more work to do with my lens. I did bracket the focussing but of course you can only go as far as the infinity stop. It looks like the lens needs to be still closer to the sensor. This lens has just come back from Solms, so doubly disappointing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[robsteve]

Rob, thanks for that, it's clear there's more work to do with my lens. I did bracket the focussing but of course you can only go as far as the infinity stop. It looks like the lens needs to be still closer to the sensor. This lens has just come back from Solms, so doubly disappointing.

 

Mark:

 

Just to be clear how fine the diffrence is, the focus ring rotated about a tenth of a mm or less.

 

I sent you a PM with a couple other things to check.