Noctilux f/1 - Opinion from 2003

[goldenbear]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After finally finding a good copy of this venerable lens I came across the attached opinion of the lens from 2003 (photo.net forum). I’m keen to the notion of lenses, or anything really from the past, with perceived issues during their production, then becoming revered when production ceases.

I’ve read everything there is to read regarding this lens, and viewed 100s of images made with it. I’m convinced it’s the right choice for me. I have the black chrome 50 Lux and love it - it is going nowhere. I also have the Rigid glued to the M3. I’m interested in the f/1 for its unique signature. 

I’ve only been shooting Leica for 5 years, and in that time have completely bought in. I adore the M and the way it motivates me. I’ve spent the past year slowly acquiring vintage glass, all of which will be going nowhere: Summarit 1.5, Rigid, 35 Summaron 2.8, 40 Cron, 135 Tele-Elmar-M, 90 Cron pre, plus the 28 Summaron and 35 Steel Rim reissues. Upon looking to add the 1.2 reissue the opinions of that lens as compared to the f/1 were overwhelming. I’ve handled the 1.2 and it is indeed a gem in that regard (though not different from the black chrome Lux), but the characteristics of the f/1 have the edge, for me.

I’m curious what the longer terms users of the brand think of the attached comment, and its prevalence at the time. 

Happy shooting. 
 

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 March 2 by goldenbear

[Ray Vonn]

Interesting, thanks for posting.  There are so many changes in opinions (and increased values!) of lenses over a 20 year period of time, what is considered must have now clearly wasn't a while ago. 

[goldenbear]

14 minutes ago, Ray Vonn said:

Interesting, thanks for posting.  There are so many changes in opinions (and increased values!) of lenses over a 20 year period of time, what is considered must have now clearly wasn't a while ago. 

Agree. It’s more interesting to me to understand from those, who may have been of a similar opinion at the time, and now think highly of it.…from trash to treasure. 😊 

Edited March 2 by goldenbear

[farnz]

For years I resisted the 50/1 Noctilux, telling myself that I had the 50/1.4 Summilux asph (v1) and what difference could 1 stop make to the low pictures I took?

The 50/1.4 Summilux asph has since been 'released back into the wild' and my 50/1.0 Noctilux v4 is my "cold, dead hands lens" (as in that's the only way I would let it go) and it's been that way for some 15 years.

The Noctilux has three things about it that endear it to me: 1) it is the most flare-resistant lens I've ever used, so streetlights etc in the frame are very well-behaved; 2) it has a gorgeous, delicate, graduated vignette when shot wide open that even with a good degree of Photoshop skill (ahem, if I say so myself ) I cannot replicate convincingly using pictures taken through my other lenses; and 3) its colours have attractive pastel hues that I haven't seen in another lens.

Yes it's heavier than many other Leica lenses but, having come from a background of regularly hauling much larger and heavier medium format lenses, camera and wooden tripod up and down mountains at silly o'clock in the morning in the frost, the Noctilux's weight isn't something I notice.  (OMMV.)

Pete.

Edited March 2 by farnz

[goldenbear]

34 minutes ago, farnz said:

For years I resisted the 50/1 Noctilux, telling myself that I had the 50/1.4 Summilux asph (v1) and what difference could 1 stop make to the low pictures I took?

The 50/1.4 Summilux asph has since been 'released back into the wild' and my 50/1.0 Noctilux v4 is my "cold, dead hands lens" (as in that's the only way I would let it go) and it's been that way for some 15 years.

The Noctilux has three things about it that endear it to me: 1) it is the most flare-resistant lens I've ever used, so streetlights etc in the frame are very well-behaved; 2) it has a gorgeous, delicate, graduated vignette when shot wide open that even with a good degree of Photoshop skill (ahem, if I say so myself ) I cannot replicate convincingly using pictures taken through my other lenses; and 3) its colours have attractive pastel hues that I haven't seen in another lens.

Yes it's heavier than many other Leica lenses but, having come from a background of regularly hauling much larger and heavier medium format lenses, camera and wooden tripod up and down mountains at silly o'clock in the morning in the frost, the Noctilux's weight isn't something I notice.  (OMMV.)

Pete.

Thanks for this!

[3D-Kraft.com]

Interesting find - it's a shame I didn't buy it in 2003. That would have saved me a lot of money last year, when I reacquired it (after 14 years).

In 2003 there were already many improvements in lens design that made a design from 1975 seem outdated and therefore pretty bad. Today, character and a unique signature are valued very differently - and the Noctilux 1.0 has a lot of that, which is why I probably won't give it away too.

These were pictures, I took with it 14 years ago (published in a guest post at Steve Huff's site that time), which made me regret selling it and forced me re-acquiring it 2024:

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!

 

 

They show the unique signature (bokeh bubbles) and exceptional low-light performance allowing to take shots with a Lumix GH2 that were not possible with any other lens at that time (equivalent to a 100mm f/2 on full frame).

Edited March 2 by 3D-Kraft.com

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you buy a fast lens it is generally only worth doing so if you see some use for it wide open. This should be obvious but it does evade some purchasers. The f/1 Noctilux was a ground aspheric made by the Elcan business I think, so I would suspect some sample variation. I had one but it was too soft wide open for my liking. I currently have a little used 50/1.4 asph which suits me much better although my 35/1.4 is by far my most used M lens, and is used wide open at times. Personally I would not buy another because 50mm is no longer a focal length that I use a lot and I ertainly don't need f/1 these days. But its like anything else in that some will like it and use it a lot, others, like me, won't. Bokeh is a fairly personal thing but the comments made which you referred to and rather to my way of thinking although that is not to say that they are correct for everyone.

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 1 Minute schrieb pgk:

The f/1 Noctilux was a ground aspheric made by the Elcan business I think, so I would suspect some sample variation.

No, it was non-ASPH (after the negative experiences with the complex manufacturing and the sample variation of the first f/1.2 Noctilux at that time).

[goldenbear]

30 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

Interesting find - it's a shame I didn't buy it in 2003. That would have saved me a lot of money last year, when I reacquired it (after 14 years).

In 2003 there were already many improvements in lens design that made a design from 1975 seem outdated and therefore pretty bad. Today, character and a unique signature are valued very differently - and the Noctilux 1.0 has a lot of that, which is why I probably won't give it away too.

These were pictures, I took with it 14 years ago (published in a guest post at Steve Huff's site that time), which made me regret selling it and forced me re-acquiring it 2024:

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!

 

 

They show the unique signature (bokeh bubbles) and exceptional low-light performance allowing to take shots with a Lumix GH2 that were not possible with any other lens at that time (equivalent to a 100mm f/2 on full frame).

I’ve read that article! Many times, in fact. 

Stunning images. Thanks for chiming in. 

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb goldenbear:

After finally finding a good copy of this venerable lens...

May I ask, for which version you decided (there were four versions, but I am sure you know all about them... 😉)

[pippy]

2 hours ago, goldenbear said:

...I’ve spent the past year slowly acquiring vintage glass, all of which will be going nowhere: Summarit 1.5, Rigid, 35 Summaron 2.8, 40 Cron, 135 Tele-Elmar-M, 90 Cron pre, plus the 28 Summaron and 35 Steel Rim reissues. Upon looking to add the 1.2 reissue the opinions of that lens as compared to the f/1 were overwhelming. I’ve handled the 1.2 and it is indeed a gem in that regard......but the characteristics of the f/1 have the edge, for me...

The person who wrote the 'review' clearly doesn't like the lens. That's not to say that others wouldn't consider it to be the best lens Leitz has ever manufactured. How lenses render is such a personal and subjective matter that the only opinion which counts is your own.

A few years ago there was a forumite who posted comparison shots (with the camera tripod-mounted) taken with all the then-currently available 50mm Noctilux lenses and whilst each edtion of the lens shares certain rendering similarities with the others the differences were surprisingly marked. As such the preferences for a 'favourite', as expressed by members, varied across all versions from all years.

The bit about "The only reason to buy it is to use it at f1.0...nothing else!" is nonsense. Stopped-down it performs pretty much like any other 50 but that is, partly, the point. The Noctilux can be an every-day-carry as well as offering the possibility to shoot at f1.0. One of the members who has posted earlier has shown a number of wonderful photographs taken with his lens used at f1.0 but has also posted a number of wonderful photographs when his Noct. was used stopped-down. There is a reason it has an aperture ring!

I see that you have an example of the 50mm f1.5 Summarit. Had I 'listened' to all those who rubbished the performance of that lens I would never have acquired one for myself and would have missed-out on what has become one of my most loved 50's.

If you love the way that the 50mm f1.0 performs wide-open then that really is all that matters.

Enjoy using it!

Philip.

[goldenbear]

17 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

May I ask, for which version you decided (there were four versions, but I am sure you know all about them... 😉)

v3, from 1991. Please don’t allow me to get back into my own head on this topic! 🤣

[pgk]

57 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

No, it was non-ASPH (after the negative experiences with the complex manufacturing and the sample variation of the first f/1.2 Noctilux at that time).

Neither show particularly good performance wide open although it appears that the f/1 version is marginally better. Mine wasn't up to much wide open. I later had a Canon 50/1.2 (EOS) which also had relatively poor performance at full aperture. The 85/1.2 was good but very difficult to nail absolute focus with if used at 1.2; a common complaint.

[3D-Kraft.com]

The best overview of the different versions that I found so far was this:
https://tahusa.co/lens-review/leica-noctilux-50mm-f1/

So it's not only about the hoods and filter sizes. Late versions of the v4 seem to have a more modern coating improving the contrast a little bit but also making the bokeh a bit more "busy". In 2011 I had one of these "late v4", now I have one of the "early v4". I have no direct comparison but subjectively I think I like the "early v4" better - but it could also be a sample variation.

Of course you can make a science out of it, but I think each of the f/1 versions can be enjoyed.

vor 15 Minuten schrieb pgk:

Neither show particularly good performance wide open although it appears that the f/1 version is marginally better. Mine wasn't up to much wide open.

This was shot on a 50 MP sensor 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!

If you click on the image, it will open the flicker page where you can zoom in to 100% (1:1 pixels). As far as I remember, I focused on the metal wedge and also parts of the face are in the focus plane - but due to recomposing both already quite far away from the center. Perhaps the button on the vest is also a good point for evaluation sharpness and contrast. It is not brutally sharp at full resolution but in my opinion, it is completely sufficient. I would not call it "soft" but that's all subjective. The f/1 Noctilux is more about the out-of-focus rendering and bubbles...

Edited March 2 by 3D-Kraft.com

[goldenbear]

5 hours ago, pippy said:

The person who wrote the 'review' clearly doesn't like the lens. That's not to say that others wouldn't consider it to be the best lens Leitz has ever manufactured. How lenses render is such a personal and subjective matter that the only opinion which counts is your own.

A few years ago there was a forumite who posted comparison shots (with the camera tripod-mounted) taken with all the then-currently available 50mm Noctilux lenses and whilst each edtion of the lens shares certain rendering similarities with the others the differences were surprisingly marked. As such the preferences for a 'favourite', as expressed by members, varied across all versions from all years.

The bit about "The only reason to buy it is to use it at f1.0...nothing else!" is nonsense. Stopped-down it performs pretty much like any other 50 but that is, partly, the point. The Noctilux can be an every-day-carry as well as offering the possibility to shoot at f1.0. One of the members who has posted earlier has shown a number of wonderful photographs taken with his lens used at f1.0 but has also posted a number of wonderful photographs when his Noct. was used stopped-down. There is a reason it has an aperture ring!

I see that you have an example of the 50mm f1.5 Summarit. Had I 'listened' to all those who rubbished the performance of that lens I would never have acquired one for myself and would have missed-out on what has become one of my most loved 50's.

If you love the way that the 50mm f1.0 performs wide-open then that really is all that matters.

Enjoy using it!

Philip.

Thanks for the inputs. Agree with all points. And, yes, that Summarit 1.5 is magic. Unrelated to this thread, but here’s an image made with it during the holidays. 

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!

[goldenbear]

4 hours ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

The best overview of the different versions that I found so far was this:
https://tahusa.co/lens-review/leica-noctilux-50mm-f1/

So it's not only about the hoods and filter sizes. Late versions of the v4 seem to have a more modern coating improving the contrast a little bit but also making the bokeh a bit more "busy". In 2011 I had one of these "late v4", now I have one of the "early v4". I have no direct comparison but subjectively I think I like the "early v4" better - but it could also be a sample variation.

Of course you can make a science out of it, but I think each of the f/1 versions can be enjoyed.

This was shot on a 50 MP sensor 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!

If you click on the image, it will open the flicker page where you can zoom in to 100% (1:1 pixels). As far as I remember, I focused on the metal wedge and also parts of the face are in the focus plane - but due to recomposing both already quite far away from the center. Perhaps the button on the vest is also a good point for evaluation sharpness and contrast. It is not brutally sharp at full resolution but in my opinion, it is completely sufficient. I would not call it "soft" but that's all subjective. The f/1 Noctilux is more about the out-of-focus rendering and bubbles...

I love it. I do note the other setups in the image. I can’t imagine anything compares to this. Thanks for sharing. 
 

Yes, I have read accounts that align with your statement regarding the v4, and to target the earlier version for its lower contrast. It got to the point with me that I was only willing to work with sellers / shops that I know and trust. I’m confident this v3 will be superb. 

[davidmknoble]

As a side note, this lens was made for film first and was later adapter to digital.  Wide open on film, it performs a little better - because of the thickness of film.  I have a lot of film images from that lens during the 2015-2018 time I owned it, before I traded it in for a Noctilux 0.95.  It is a Mandler lens, the same as the 75 Summilux.  It draws light in a very creative way.

Edited March 3 by davidmknoble

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb goldenbear:

Yes, I have read accounts that align with your statement regarding the v4, and to target the earlier version for its lower contrast.

My assumption from that article is, that v3 and the early batches of v4 were produced with the same coating, so I would expect them to render identically.

[Ne314satel]

On 3/3/2025 at 3:41 AM, davidmknoble said:

As a side note, this lens was made for film first and was later adapter to digital.  Wide open on film, it performs a little better - because of the thickness of film.  I have a lot of film images from that lens during the 2015-2018 time I owned it, before I traded it in for a Noctilux 0.95.  It is a Mandler lens, the same as the 75 Summilux.  It draws light in a very creative way.

I agree that on film Noct 1.0 is much more interesting, and on modern digital (m11) - I like Noct 0.95 more. At the same time on m9 - Noct 1.0 is also very good. However, after several hours of street photography with it, my neck starts to get tired from its weight and I am happy when I just have 35mm Summilux))

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Eoin]

Reading this thread reminds me of 2006 when I purchased a new V4 German Noctilux as part of Leica's 30% discount off any lens offer, to early M8 owners.

While I enjoyed the novelty of it, I was never really happy with its rendering or the apparent focus shift. The article linked to now provides me with an understanding of what I was possibly seeing, interesting.

At the time I also had a chrome Summilux 50 ASPH which I preferred and still have it, though not a focal length I tend to use much nowadays. But when I do I keep telling myself I should use it more.