50 1.2 Nocti and 50 1.4 classic

[Leslie22]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Please notice that I didn't say "V's".

Can anyone who has experience of both the Nocti reissue and the Classic 1.4 reissue talk about the differences , and perhaps a comparison between the two lens, thanks

 

 

[jakontil]

Interesting topic.. i have been running on the 50 noct 1.2 for some years, and been itching to get the 50 lux 1.4 mainly because both lenses are sexy aesthetically… and have brass on the latter.. but the longer focus throw (said some who used both) has halted me to get new, instead waiting for used if any

but no rush, im always happy with 50 1.2 

[farnz]

10 hours ago, jakontil said:

.. but the longer focus throw (said some who used both) has halted me to get new,

(Sorry, I'm a 50/1.0 Noctilux and 50/1.4 "Classic" user, not f/1.2)

I've often heard the long focus throw on the Classic portrayed as negative but for me it's a positive.  Most of the time when I'm shooting I more or less know the distance where I want focus to be so the long focus throw offers more focus accuracy, ie more degrees of rotation are available to accurately place focus.

If I was returning to infinity after each shot (as some people dubiously advise) then, yes, it would be a nuisance to have to turn all the way out and back for each shot but that's not the way I work.  I have a 'natural' zone for portraits of about 4 to 6 feet from the subject and my feet and brain roughly maintain that zone so I don't need to turn the focus ring very much unless a more distant interest catches my eye.  Others might work differently to me. 🙂

Pete.

 

[FrozenInTime]

I don't think I've ever read a review that described the 50/1.2 as sharp; the new classic 50mm Summilux 11714 is; almost on par with the modern aspherical lenses, but with inferior corners due to field curvature.

[T25UFO]

I have both and difficult to chose, as each has its own unique rendering, but if judged on price the Classic Summilux wins.  It’s an absolute bargain at around half the price on the Noctilux (black finish).  Personally, I really like chrome but could never pay the astronomic price for a chrome Noctilux.

[jakontil]

6 hours ago, farnz said:

(Sorry, I'm a 50/1.0 Noctilux and 50/1.4 "Classic" user, not f/1.2)

I've often heard the long focus throw on the Classic portrayed as negative but for me it's a positive.  Most of the time when I'm shooting I more or less know the distance where I want focus to be so the long focus throw offers more focus accuracy, ie more degrees of rotation are available to accurately place focus.

If I was returning to infinity after each shot (as some people dubiously advise) then, yes, it would be a nuisance to have to turn all the way out and back for each shot but that's not the way I work.  I have a 'natural' zone for portraits of about 4 to 6 feet from the subject and my feet and brain roughly maintain that zone so I don't need to turn the focus ring very much unless a more distant interest catches my eye.  Others might work differently to me. 🙂

Pete.

 

Hi frank

i concur regarding the focus throw, i need to make myself clear, it wasnt a negative aspect… i like the long focus throw in 50 noct 1.2 and it makes focusing very accurately for a thin depth of field

i still enjoy the 1.2 that i feel no urge to get the lux classic yet, or just waiting in line for the used ones 

i love the lens aesthetically as much as i love the noct 1.2, but for now at least, the 1.2 noct is my main portrait lens for its rendering, which the classic lux can only give as much

[Kiwimac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There are plenty of relatively inexpensive original 50 Summilux lenses available. 
 

My local dealer has a nice one and it’s about half the cost of the reproduction. 
 

You could try that solution to see if you like it. 

[FrozenInTime]

6 minutes ago, Kiwimac said:

There are plenty of relatively inexpensive original 50 Summilux lenses available. 
 

My local dealer has a nice one and it’s about half the cost of the reproduction. 
 

You could try that solution to see if you like it. 

Trying out the lenses first hand is the best practice.

Be aware that the rendering of the original v2/v3 Summilux lenses and the 'reproduction' 11714 'classic' are rather different; the former is lower in resolution and contrast, but has better corners and a flatter field; the foreground/background bokeh outlining/smoothness characteristics are reversed; all indications of significant optical tinkering. I would summarise the v2/v3 as gentle and the 11714 as highly-tuned. 

[jakontil]

https://youtu.be/jDwAZU7khtk?si=8XeMwbaVaZusxfbL

this might actually help

[fabior]

even this can help

[Kiwimac]

On 11/18/2025 at 12:52 PM, FrozenInTime said:

Trying out the lenses first hand is the best practice.

Be aware that the rendering of the original v2/v3 Summilux lenses and the 'reproduction' 11714 'classic' are rather different; the former is lower in resolution and contrast, but has better corners and a flatter field; the foreground/background bokeh outlining/smoothness characteristics are reversed; all indications of significant optical tinkering. I would summarise the v2/v3 as gentle and the 11714 as highly-tuned. 

Interesting. The closest I have ever come to shooting genuine vintage glass is the LLL repro of the 35 eight element, which I like a lot. The biggest drawback with it (and probably with an original) is that it has ghosting and flaring aplenty with the sun in the wrong (or right) place.

It renders really rather nicely but on a rangefinder of course you can't see the flare and eliminate it if you want to unless you use the LCD or a VISOFLEX.

I guess many older lenses probably have a similar issue.

[farnz]

3 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

Interesting. The closest I have ever come to shooting genuine vintage glass is the LLL repro of the 35 eight element, which I like a lot. The biggest drawback with it (and probably with an original) is that it has ghosting and flaring aplenty with the sun in the wrong (or right) place.

It renders really rather nicely but on a rangefinder of course you can't see the flare and eliminate it if you want to unless you use the LCD or a VISOFLEX.

I guess many older lenses probably have a similar issue.

So ... you've never shot with a genuine vintage lens but you're happy to assume that many older lenses suffer from the 'drawbacks' that you've experienced in a modern, off-brand reproduction of a vintage lens?  That makes no sense to me.

Pete.

[FrozenInTime]

All these re-issues are like remakes of old movies; the story mostly follows the plot we love, but changes are made to account for modern sensibilities - which inevitably sucks some charm out of them.

Edited 22 hours ago by FrozenInTime

[Ecar]

4 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

Interesting. The closest I have ever come to shooting genuine vintage glass is the LLL repro of the 35 eight element, which I like a lot. The biggest drawback with it (and probably with an original) is that it has ghosting and flaring aplenty with the sun in the wrong (or right) place.

It renders really rather nicely but on a rangefinder of course you can't see the flare and eliminate it if you want to unless you use the LCD or a VISOFLEX.

I guess many older lenses probably have a similar issue.

So do many modern ones.