If you had to choose today: Noctilux f1 vs Noctilux f1.2

[Bear]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alrighty folks, just for fun (and to potentially fuel GAS for myself and others), if you had to choose one today would it be the Noctilux f1 (any version) or the Noctilux f1.2 which is now available for us mere mortals as a re-issued edition. I don't own either, but what I've gleaned from perusing this forum is that they are similar in size / weight and they have the same minimum focusing distance at 1 meter. 

I'm leaning towards the f1 as so many sentiments here remark on it's special qualities. Which would you pick! 

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 27, 2023 by Bear

[jakontil]

I would lean more towards the f1.2 reissue especially for some reasons, i have the 0.95, so i’d prefer smaller noctilux, and i prefer the less vignette on the 1.2 compared to the f1 which to my eye is more a little hard 

but even without the 0.95, i’d probably still pick the 1.2 for its image rendering overall

[Bronco McBeast]

F1.0 is Notcilux.

F1.2 is much closer to Summilux than to Noctilux.

 

 

[Bear]

@Bronco McBeast that's an interesting take that I haven't heard yet. 

thank you both for your perspectives! 

[Bear]

8 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Good read:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/381556-is-a-noctilux-worth-it/

 

Ah yes, I've read it, as with most other threads with Noctilux in the title. Perhaps I need to do a bit more reading, but I haven't found anything that really discusses the f1 vs f1.2. But with the reissue out in the wild, I'm thinking there are more perspectives now. 

[John Black]

The 50/1.2 is wonderfully sized and balances nicely with the M10 / M11 bodies.  Mine had a light focus action.  No built-in hood though and if dealing with light just outside of the frame, that hood is needed.  The 50/1.2 has a very small area of sharpness at F1.2 and that area doesn't really get big enough to use in most case until F2 or F2.8.  That said, I think the 50/1.2 has a really nice rendering at F2.8.  

The 50/1 is larger and their focus ring is generally stiffer.  It has the built-in hood which is handy vs toting around a clip on lens hood.  I think 50/1 is sharper wide open and does better F1.2, but at F1.4 my 50 Lux ASPH's are sharper.  If going for the wide-open look, my vote would be the 50 Lux ASPH (version I, not the new close focus one).  The 50 Lux ASPH is cheaper & easier to find too.

I never compared the 50/1 and 50/1.2 side by sides, can't really say much about that.  Some recent pix with the 50/1.2 with the Leica Monochroms & M11.

https://www.pebbleplace.com/gallery/rangefinder/leica_50mm_noctilux_f12.html

 

[darylgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

There are SO MANY alternatives now in the nifty fifty area thought so if someone wants to forego the Leica

F1.2 is not a unique 50mm aperture, many Japanese manual focus lenses were issued as such.  And some get very close to the rendering of the Leica reissue.  
 

The only reason I would choose the f1.2 is size, I could never get an image wide open that was sharp anywhere in the frame. Perhaps it was my copy, but as I look at the image thread I don’t see any different.  The f1, despite its size would be my choice.  

[tritentrue]

3 hours ago, Bear said:

Ah yes, I've read it, as with most other threads with Noctilux in the title. Perhaps I need to do a bit more reading, but I haven't found anything that really discusses the f1 vs f1.2. But with the reissue out in the wild, I'm thinking there are more perspectives now. 

This page compares both with a 50mm Summilux and has quite a few sample images as well.

I chose f/1 and had a lot of fun with--it until I re-acquired an R80mm Summilux to replace a beat-up copy I'd previously let go. Then the Noctilux sat idle while I wished I had a "normal" 50mm.  I have since ditched it in favor of a 50mm Summilux.

The most oft-repeated advice I read while perusing forum pages here is that a Noctilux is a specialty lens that one finds useful only if one needs it, otherwise a normal 50 is a better option.  That turned out to be the case for me.

Best of luck in determining which of the two suits your needs.

[Ouroboros]

Neither.
Scratched the noctilux f1 itch a long time ago and once scratched I sold it. Not for me.

If I wanted another f1 lens, I’d buy a Voigtlander 50mm f1 and put the money I’d saved into Premium Bonds for my grandkids.

[Knipsknecht]

If I would be forced to choose one, it would be the f1 - without any doubt. The f1.2 looks better and handles better on the camera, but I don't like the swirly Bokeh wide open. Additionally, I own a f1.4 Summilux which is - at least for me (!) - the best compromise in regard to size, weight and image quality.

As someone who mostly shoots street and travel, I rarely need large apertures, except when I am shooting film at night. Especially on a Leica M body I prefer small and unobtrusive lenses. Probably my most used lens over the last couple of months is the 35mm Voigtlander Nokton f1.4 Mark II (single coated).

[Ouroboros]

27 minutes ago, Knipsknecht said:

………As someone who mostly shoots street and travel, I rarely need large apertures, except when I am shooting film at night. Especially on a Leica M body I prefer small and unobtrusive lenses. Probably my most used lens over the last couple of months is the 35mm Voigtlander Nokton f1.4 Mark II (single coated).

Not wishing to turn a discussion about Noctilux lenses into another Nokton 35mm f1.4 sc ii appreciation thread,  but I really like this lens on film and digital.  It makes a great pair with a ZM 50mm c-sonnar f1.5.

[hansvons]

34 minutes ago, Knipsknecht said:

Probably my most used lens over the last couple of months is the 35mm Voigtlander Nokton f1.4 Mark II (single coated).

This. Noctiluxes are overrated

[fil-m]

Well, I spent so much time buying and selling 50s until I settled on a "preferred selection", that I'd like to share my experience. But at the end, the choice is a matter of personal taste and preference as there is no single "universal" answer. That is why I always recommend trying & comparing in real life, if that is possible for you of course. 

The 50/1 replaced my 50/.95. It was a hard choice but I could not resist the charm of my early 50/1 "v3" with its unique signature. It is not very sharp wide open, it is not soft, the bokeh is smooth and creamy, contrast is neither strong nor soft, the details are still there, subject separation is pronounced. It is a really unique lens with nothing close to it (in the scope of my experience). The only downside is the rather long focus throw; and it is bulky (though not as much as the 50/.95 which crosses my threshold of acceptable on a M) 

My biggest surprise was the 50/1.2 In fact I bought it with very little conviction that I'd keep it. I had some doubts on its swirly bokeh and its so often mentioned lack of central sharpness. But in fact this lens grew on me and it is today hard for me to pick any of my other 50s. I love its (relatively) compact size & handling. Its images are unique, in different ways than the 50/1. Slightly less sharp than the 50/1 though rather than calling it soft, I'd characterise its rendering as "gentle" and very smooth, I don't notice the slightly less sharp central area when I look at the overall picture unless I zoom in. There is a kind of consistency across the whole frame that gives the 50/1.2 its personality and that pushes me to look at the picture as a whole for what it is and its rendering rather than trying to analyse or zoom in. That's what also makes it special in my view. There is visibly less blurring of the background/subject separation obviously due to the 1.2 vs 1.0 difference and maybe optical formulas in the transition towards OOF areas. 

At the end if you really want the 50/1's thinner DOF/stronger subject separation with its characteristic look then the choice is clear, with the compromise of the longer focus throw and bulk (assuming these are of any concern to you). But the 50/1.2 is a more versatile lens with an equally unique (if different) personality that makes it my all rounder. The 1.2 has also an extra advantage of being new, so less need for CLA.

Finally both Noct are in a totally different world than the Lux 50/1.4 aspherical. The Lux has a more "objective" rendering of reality, with way more sharpness IMHO. Not to say that the Lux isn't a great lens, but it is simply not what I am looking for so I finally sold it.  

 

 

 

 

[costa43]

I’ve not used either but the photos I’ve seen when someone has really nailed them with the f1 are special to my eyes. 

[grahamc]

I've never used the 1.2 but can say that several of my favourite images have been taken with my 50:1 E58.  It's not an everyday lens but for me it is completely unique.

Edited September 27, 2023 by grahamc

[spydrxx]

Having owned the f/1 Noctilux beast, if I had to own another one (and I wouldn't) I'd choose the 1.2. But FWIW, I find them too unwieldy to use on a film M body and achieving spot on focus is a challenge at best. Same for Canon's 50/0.95 Dream Lens. On a digital body I can see achieving focus much easier, but unless character is the prime consideration rather than light gathering, I'd just bump up the ISO. Guess that opinion makes me the ogre in the Leica Noctilux fancrowd.

[fil-m]

A quick comparison between the two. Obviously one comparison does not do justice and I did not have time to arrange an environment with a more "cluttered" background but at least it shows some of the differences between the two. My personal analysis of the differences:

- Most notably the 1.2 has a kind of virtual "soft filter" compared to the 1.0 being, less sharp optically. So less details that could be recovered, kind of (despite the 1.2 vs 1.0).

- The 50/1 has more fringing, actually kind of green (but not like my previous "god of CA & fringing" the .95 with the M11, which was often magenta colored). Could be related but very very slight green cast to the image with the 1.0

- OOF areas a a bit smoother with the 1.0 compared to the 1.2: less "vibrating" or less of the virtual "movement blur" effect that I sometimes see with the 1.2 Generally the 1.0 has "calmer" or more tamed OOF backgrounds

My 50/1 is 6 bit coded and has been recently CLA'ed by Leica (last month). The 1.2 reissue is obviously relatively new and I think, well calibrated.

I believe that I nailed the focus, in fact I chose the best out of 3 for each lens. I generally nail the focus better with the 1.0 for the simple reason that the 1.2 is "at the limit of sharpness" so if the focus is a bit off, the area of interest might look a bit "too soft" if the image is zoomed in at 60MP. So there is less margin for error at focusing with the 1.2 (if I want to get the best possible focus at a given point), but this is not an issue for me as the overall picture is relatively smooth and less sharp. As I said, with the 1.2 I tend to look at the picture "from a distance", due to the nature of its rendering, with less incentive to zoom in and analyse... 

This is a straight "out of the box" rendering from the M11 in C1, my two daughters posing with the younger one making my life hell to maintain the same pose while changing lenses But she helped me improve my lens switching time performance:) We did not end up with a broken noctilux

No image adjustment except highlight recovery applied to both images. 

 

 1.2 wide open

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!

1.0 wide open

[RexGig0]

Given only one day to decide, I would buy neither. The world of f/1 Noctilux lenses is not a simple one to navigate. I learned this during a “deep internet dive,” in early 2022. I have not retained enough of that knowledge to make a snap decision, today, but recall concluding that any Noctilux would be a niche lens, rarely used. Money not spent on a Noctilux enabled me to buy a well-preserved, pre-owned Elmar-M 24mm ASPH, which tested so well, that I bought a second one, several months later, with zero regrets or remorse. (The only true “insurance policy,” for a discontinued lens, is to have a spare.)

As I see that other reply posts have already used the “V-word,” 😉 I will say that I bought a Cosina Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1 Aspherical, in May 2022, and do not believe that I conceded anything, except perhaps bragging rights, by choosing this option. $1800 US seemed to be more reasonable, for a niche-use fast Fifty.

Edit: I should add the disclaimer that I have a bias, in favor of the Summilux-M 50mm ASPH. If I had to start from scratch, in a world in which a Summilux ASPH cost the same as a Noctilux, I would still buy the Summilux ASPH. I started the Leica-M system, with a well-preserved, pre-owned Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, and still believe that I started at the top. 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by RexGig0

[Bear]

12 hours ago, John Black said:

The 50/1.2 is wonderfully sized and balances nicely with the M10 / M11 bodies.  Mine had a light focus action.  No built-in hood though and if dealing with light just outside of the frame, that hood is needed.  The 50/1.2 has a very small area of sharpness at F1.2 and that area doesn't really get big enough to use in most case until F2 or F2.8.  That said, I think the 50/1.2 has a really nice rendering at F2.8.  

The 50/1 is larger and their focus ring is generally stiffer.  It has the built-in hood which is handy vs toting around a clip on lens hood.  I think 50/1 is sharper wide open and does better F1.2, but at F1.4 my 50 Lux ASPH's are sharper.  If going for the wide-open look, my vote would be the 50 Lux ASPH (version I, not the new close focus one).  The 50 Lux ASPH is cheaper & easier to find too.

I never compared the 50/1 and 50/1.2 side by sides, can't really say much about that.  Some recent pix with the 50/1.2 with the Leica Monochroms & M11.

https://www.pebbleplace.com/gallery/rangefinder/leica_50mm_noctilux_f12.html

 

Thanks John, great shots I particularly like the warmth of the colors. I do have a 50 Lux Asph V1 which I'm happy with. But I'm a self admitted bokeh fanatic so thus my original query. 

12 hours ago, Al Brown said:

They are worlds apart. One is a super character lens and super special wide open - for some in a good way, for others not, the other is a huge beast and a true Mandler legend. For me, it is an absolute no-brainer... the f/1 all the way always.

There are SO MANY alternatives now in the nifty fifty area thought so if someone wants to forego the Leica brand the noctilux 50 no longer stands as the alpha and omega... I wanted a super fast character 50 but the sheer weight of owning the Noctilux again was really off-putting. I am having awesome results with this Japanese gem under 200g, and it is hand-made by a craftsman as a hommage to 1932 Bertele Sonnar:

 

Thanks Al, this is something I haven't considered yet. I'm actually heading to Japan later this year so I may be able to find a vintage something or other. Great write up and even better photos - lots of food for thought. 

8 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

Neither.
Scratched the noctilux f1 itch a long time ago and once scratched I sold it. Not for me.

If I wanted another f1 lens, I’d buy a Voigtlander 50mm f1 and put the money I’d saved into Premium Bonds for my grandkids.

Ah, that's the beauty of not having children. Have to dispose the income somewhere before I die  

Edited September 27, 2023 by Bear

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Bear]

2 hours ago, fil-m said:

A quick comparison between the two. Obviously one comparison does not do justice and I did not have time to arrange an environment with a more "cluttered" background but at least it shows some of the differences between the two. My personal analysis of the differences:

- Most notably the 1.2 has a kind of virtual "soft filter" compared to the 1.0 being, less sharp optically. So less details that could be recovered, kind of (despite the 1.2 vs 1.0).

- The 50/1 has more fringing, actually kind of green (but not like my previous "god of CA & fringing" the .95 with the M11, which was often magenta colored). Could be related but very very slight green cast to the image with the 1.0

- OOF areas a a bit smoother with the 1.0 compared to the 1.2: less "vibrating" or less of the virtual "movement blur" effect that I sometimes see with the 1.2 Generally the 1.0 has "calmer" or more tamed OOF backgrounds

My 50/1 is 6 bit coded and has been recently CLA'ed by Leica (last month). The 1.2 reissue is obviously relatively new and I think, well calibrated.

I believe that I nailed the focus, in fact I chose the best out of 3 for each lens. I generally nail the focus better with the 1.0 for the simple reason that the 1.2 is "at the limit of sharpness" so if the focus is a bit off, the area of interest might look a bit "too soft" if the image is zoomed in at 60MP. So there is less margin for error at focusing with the 1.2 (if I want to get the best possible focus at a given point), but this is not an issue for me as the overall picture is relatively smooth and less sharp. As I said, with the 1.2 I tend to look at the picture "from a distance", due to the nature of its rendering, with less incentive to zoom in and analyse... 

This is a straight "out of the box" rendering from the M11 in C1, my two daughters posing with the younger one making my life hell to maintain the same pose while changing lenses But she helped me improve my lens switching time performance:) We did not end up with a broken noctilux

No image adjustment except highlight recovery applied to both images. 

 

 1.2 wide open

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!

1.0 wide open

Lovely photographs! Thanks for taking the time to make these comparison shots. Really feels like you invited me over for coffee at your home   To my eyes, the F1appears to be less contrasty across the frame with slightly less saturated colors. If I had to choose based on your photos alone, I'd take the F1 for the more subdued look which I think fits my style (or style aspirations) better.