New and Old Noctilux

[doug_m]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

RE "I think what is perhaps missing is a painterly rendition of images and what many call "nauseating bokeh". The new lens is undoubtedly an optical marvel but Leica did state that the "characteristics" of the old lens would be retained. Some doubted that because the new lens is highly corrected and the old one was not, and it was those aberrations in the old lens that produced the unique rendering."

 

 

I think the new Nocti ASPH "renders" very well. In fact, the bokeh is outstanding- not nauseating. Anyone who thinks otherwise should try one and give it a real work-out. That is, of course, if any dealer will let them touch it without buying first.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[swamiji]

RE "

 

I think the new Nocti ASPH "renders" very well. In fact, the bokeh is outstanding- not nauseating. Anyone who thinks otherwise should try one and give it a real work-out. That is, of course, if any dealer will let them touch it without buying first.

 

I have and I disagree. It's too much like the 50mm Lux for my taste.

Edited September 28, 2009 by swamiji

[carstenw]

Well, I love the old Noctilux and will buy one when I can, and I would like to test the new one, but will not buy it: too expensive. Still, the photos I have seen made with the new one look awesome, and I don't see the loss of soul at all that some are talking about.

 

Perhaps some examples could be posted, rather than just talk?

[swamiji]

 

Perhaps some examples could be posted, rather than just talk?

 

Ok... F1, In print (13x19), the detail is incredible.

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 28, 2009 by swamiji
adding spec

[robsteve]

I took these pictures last year when somebody mentioned the original Noctilux was not that sharp wide open and up close. Seems sharp enough to me at f1 BTW, I focused on the eyes.

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2009 by robsteve

[glenerrolrd]

Rob

 

First good to see you posting again. You are one of the very few people that could focus that accurately with a Noctilux at F1:D

 

But if you look closely its the contrast of the deep blue eyes that is giving the appearance of resolution. The eyelashes aren t well separated . If you shot this with the 1.4asph the eyelashes would be resolved better.

 

Try shooting a piece of fabric with the two lenses and you will see it in a minute. I shot a picture of the Leica reps pin on his suit with the new .95 and you could see the weave. It is a technical marvel .

 

If I can get my hands on one I would like to test it a dawn , dusk or at night. I shot the 21/1.4 lux and the older F1 Noc on Times Square a few weeks ago. The 21/1.4 renders a lot like the F.95 ......the older Noctilux had a more attractive look... But I would enjoy shooting them side by side.

[alexc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

never tried the old one but love the new one. most of the pictures in this folder were taken with 0.95

 

Zenfolio | ALEX LANDA PHOTOGRAPHY | Temp

[peter_n]

I think the new Nocti ASPH "renders" very well. In fact, the bokeh is outstanding- not nauseating. Anyone who thinks otherwise should try one and give it a real work-out. That is, of course, if any dealer will let them touch it without buying first.

My syntax wasn't clear enough and I apologize for that. It's the old Noctilux that is supposed to have nauseating bokeh, not the new one. Many people like it a lot though.

[swamiji]

alexc

 

Beautiful photos, Your Nocti renders like my 24mm lux asph, very precise.

 

peter_n

 

I picked up your meaning clearly... nauseatingly clear.

 

 

To me, they are not the same lens at all, they just share the same name. I guess one could say the .95 is just a further refinement, but as I see it, the differences out weight the similarities. It is my opinion that there is more in common with the Lux 21/24mm and the Nocti .95. than the F1 Nocti....

 

I am not saying that any of these are better... Just different. Like any artist palette, the more options the better.

[brill64]

i guess a lens's "soul" could be discerned as the f1's dreamy, soft, warm, painterly glow v f0.95's technically mastered, razor sharp, hard rendition of focused and oof areas

[Bo_Lorentzen]

swamiji, those images ARE lovely.

 

RobSteve, location portraiture with a Noct is a artform, well done.

 

AlexC, nice, I love the scattered mixed flowers. wonderful images.

 

Interesting conversation here I would say. because we are in the M9 forum I assume everybody here are comfortable with the price of these lenses, new or old, (and we can probably all agree the new is ridiculously expensive for a piece of glass in brass barrel. yes we wanted it we could probably all pick it up to play with.)

This conversation seems less polarized than most I have seen, probably because of the entry ticket for most of the people interested in the M9, I gotta say i appreciate that we can talk quietly about lenses in several price brackets without having to demand that the one I can afford is the best and only worth using.

 

Personally I tend to agree with swamiji, I love how the 1.0 renders, I also agree it is NOT as perfect as the new 0.95.... but for me that is the charm, wonderful old fashioned huge chunks of slightly imperfect glass... ahh, nature is not perfect, neither is lenses, they just render differently, each perfect in one or another way, and each perfect for some users taste.. (im too cheap to pick it up and have instead been making do with the nokton 1.1 which so far have been blowing me away also because its not quite perfect.. oh and its pretty darn cheap also.)

[haribo]

f0.95 vs. f1.0 ... I'd say it's more about bragging rights for Leica than a noticeable difference between the old and new Nocti. The ASPH factor on the other hand does make a clear difference. But not necessarily one everybody will like.

From the pictures I have seen so far the new Nocti is like the 50 Summilux on steroids. I'd say it's in the eye of the beholder.

Although I don't use it all that often, I love my Nocti f1.0.

Is it like my 50/f1.4 Summilux a lens I would never part with?

Honestly, I don't know. Guess, I'll decide that when somebody offers me an indecent amount of money for it.

[tom0511]

While I also like the "look" of the old Noctilux, I have to say that focusing it wide open at shorter distances is critical. At least in my sample there has been some focus shift when stopping down the lens - meaning it would not be possible to adjust it in a way so that it does focus 100% accurate at all f-stops.

You can see this in many Noctilux shots in the net which are not allways totally in focus. Some people dont care that much, personally I do like the eyes to be in focus.

So for me- as much as I liked the "character" and f1.0, I decided the lens is to "unreliable" for me.

I would want a lens which would focus accurate at f1, f1.4 and f2.0 and not one which would focus ok at either or.

IMO in accurate focus destroys every little bit of sharpnes and IQ - no need to use an expensive lens if focus is slightly off.

If someone proofs me wrong and offers me a sample of an old Noctilux which focuses correct at all distances at f1, f1.4 etc than I would buy it even if it without any hesistation.

 

In this regard I would probably rather use a new Noctilux, even if it had less character (which I can not judge) but doesnt suffer from focus shift. But it is just too expensive IMO.

[swamiji]

When I tested the Nocti .95, I found it harder to focus, than my F1, but on the other hand, I am very used to my F1. I think the key to any lens is practice, practice, practice, and in the case of Nocti, practice some more!

[sclamb]

What about the Red Dot Cameras or the Leica London shop? They have the new Noctilux I would thing and I guess you could take a walk to do shots to compare.

 

Ivor at Red Dot definitely has the new Nocti in stock, and I believe he has a couple of used f/1.0s too

 

Simon

[tom0511]

When I tested the Nocti .95, I found it harder to focus, than my F1, but on the other hand, I am very used to my F1. I think the key to any lens is practice, practice, practice, and in the case of Nocti, practice some more!

 

My lens was mainly calibrated for f1.4 - where it did focus very accurate.

Would I go to f1 I woul have to focus with the rangefinder and then move the distance ring just a little bit more, but than again only at short distances.

Is this what you do? Or what would one practise? The rangefinderfocusing itself should be the same with each lens, shouldnt it? But how do you practise to compensate focus shift?

[peter_n]

I bought my f1.0 a few years ago. It was virtually unused from an estate sale so I sent it to DAG for a CLA along with the 0.85x mag body I use it on as he recommended "matching" it to a body. I've focused it very accurately at closest focus but in available light you are often operating at very slow shutter speeds so sometimes the sharpness isn't what it should be. I've never used the lens with a tripod but would love to.

[tom0511]

I bought my f1.0 a few years ago. It was virtually unused from an estate sale so I sent it to DAG for a CLA along with the 0.85x mag body I use it on as he recommended "matching" it to a body. I've focused it very accurately at closest focus but in available light you are often operating at very slow shutter speeds so sometimes the sharpness isn't what it should be. I've never used the lens with a tripod but would love to.

 

I assume that the focus shift is less a problem with film since film is thicker than the sensor surface and therefore the transition between sharp and unsharp plane is not as pronounced. (also with film it was harder to poxel peep )

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[glenerrolrd]

My lens was mainly calibrated for f1.4 - where it did focus very accurate.

Would I go to f1 I woul have to focus with the rangefinder and then move the distance ring just a little bit more, but than again only at short distances.

Is this what you do? Or what would one practise? The rangefinderfocusing itself should be the same with each lens, shouldnt it? But how do you practise to compensate focus shift?

 

Practice either by shooting a lot or with a target will make a hugh difference. I try to take photos in a series of 3....re focusing on each . I think bing..bing..bing. The first is usually the sharpest but not always . I have watched my PJ friends work a subject. The shoot 9-12 captures . Three images..pause talk move recompose.....three more etc. This is manually refocusing every capture . This is hard work IMHO .

 

I find it helps a lot if you prefocus to an approximate distance and then left,right stop. You can t stare at it ..or at least I can t . There is a certain hand eye coordination that requires practice or at least repetition .

[tom0511]

Roger,

thanks for the help and suggestion.

When I focus my 50 at f1.4 I can nail the focus. This leads me to the conclusion that it is not about my eyes or focusing capabilities but about lenses.

 

Shooting several images of the same portrait works - but IMO it is more like if you shoot 5 images one will be focused in a way that the focus-shift problem of the lens is compensated by random. I like to have 3 or 4 out of 5 in focus, and not 1 (eventually).

 

It was not thre ruler-test in the first place, there were unsharp eyes in the first place.

Some people may even think its user error.