Noctilux: farewell to the king

[Roger Hicks]

Assuming it really is discontinued, here's a brief obituary-cum-review:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps king.html

Some may find it interesting.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mfogiel]

A nice article Roger, I am sure a hot debate will follow, especially among the Canon owners.... Considering that Noctilux had no aspheric surfaces, I wonder if Zeiss will pull out something similar - I would love to get an ultra fast 50mm from them, for the look, and more importantly, for the flare resistance of the T* coatings, as shooting with artificial lights in the frame is quite normal for the use you make of this type of glass.

 

[Cron]

nice article;
but why worry? As rumors tell, there will be a new one with beginning at f/0,85-0,9 but much higher priced :-(

 

[Austerby]

Thank you Roger - that's inspired me to use my Noctilux a bit more often. I am somewhat intimidated by it -and now it's value (fortunately though not what it cost) and don't like taking it out of my home. It's mainly therefore used at dinner parties or family celebrations for which it is ideal. Having accidentally dropped lenses in the past I'm treating this one with reverance!

 

[Paulbe]

Great article, Roger and Frances--thanks!
Paul

 

[awilder]

It's really a lens requiring more discipline than most in one's shooting technique given it's rather high degree of light falloff at f/1 and greater care in focusing. That and it's necessary massive size (for an RF lens) makes it less tempting to carry than a 50/1.4, thus reserving it for special low light shooting. One very interesing effect unique to this lens in daylight shooting is to isolate the subject giving a "telephoto lens" look impossible to achieve with any other lens. For this, a Hexar RF with a 1/4000 speed really helps out.

 

[mr_phillip]

but why worry? As rumors tell, there will be a new one with beginning at f/0,85-0,9 but much higher priced :-(

People are nervous because history has shown us that classic designs are often replaced with items perceived as lacking the 'magic' of the original. There's a reason that the 35mm V4 pre-aspherical 'crons are now changing hands for as much (or more) than used examples the ASPH version (beyond people just being nuts of course!)

 

[Matthew Allen]

Nice article Roger, refreshingly even-handed like a lot of your writing.

I don't know if there's any logic in this, but I can't help feeling that it's unwise for a company like Leica to discontinue something with the (now) iconic status of the Noctilux. Even though the vast majority of Leica users would never have bought one, it was always there as a distant possibility.

I think it's a recognized fact that companies like Canon lure people into buying 450D/XSi/whatevers with the thought of joining a system that includes the L glass and some very high end pro bodies, even though most of the people buying the low end DSLRs will never actually move up. Maybe this is just a bad analogy but if forum comments are anything to go by then the Noctilux falls into the category of things that people are glad exist even though they themselves will never use or own one. It's a bit like the Shipping Forecast or Radio 3 in this respect. You're glad they are there but you never actually listen to them.

Matthew

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks for all the replies and kind words. A few responses:

Yes, Canon owners sometimes do take slights easily, but the basic argument is that if the Noctilux weren't better in just about every way than the Canon, no-one would have bought Noctiluxes.

I would be amazed if there were not another, probably faster lens on the way; and if Leica's not making it but has has heard something (I honestly don't know who is planning what) then they'd do well to discontinue a 41-year-old lens that would only be second fastest. The new lens may well lack some of the magic of the old, but it may (with any luck) depress used Noctilux prices as the willy-wavers pile out of the old, 'slow' lens, into the new one. And of course the new lens may have magic of its own.

I can't justify a Noctilux either, but I keep the Canon mainly because it's not worth much; if I want a sharp, fast lens, I'll sacrifice the half stop and use one of my f/1.4 or f/1.5 lenses instead.

And I completely agree about the lure of 'glamour bottles' that most people will never handle, let alone buy, but act as bait for camera systems.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Matthew Allen]

I would be amazed if there were not another, probably faster lens on the way; and if Leica's not making it but has has heard something (I honestly don't know who is planning what) then they'd do well to discontinue a 41-year-old lens that would only be second fastest. The new lens may well lack some of the magic of the old, but it may (with any luck) depress used Noctilux prices as the willy-wavers pile out of the old, 'slow' lens, into the new one. And of course the new lens may have magic of its own.

I hope that happens but the alternative scenario is that the Leica clique deems the new lens in some way wanting (a bit like with the 35 Cron ASPH mentioned by mr_phillip) and consequently drive 50/1 prices even higher than they already are.

Matthew

EDIT: I've decided this post needs a disclaimer because I'm starting to sound a bit armchair expert-ish.

1. I've never owned a Noctilux
2. I've never seen a Noctilux in the flesh.
3. I've never take a photograph with an aperture greater than f1.2, and with the SLRs I've used to do that it was not easy to get good results.
4. I have no insider knowledge of Leica's plans and
5. I have no qualifications that would justify my pronouncements about the future of the lens market.

 

[Harry Lime]

I had a Noctilux or as I liked to call her "The Queen of the Night" for a little over a year. In the end we weren't meant for each other and parted ways, but I do have fond memories of her. Is is a very special lens.

Here are two links to Erwin's reviews.

http://www.imx.nl/photo/lenstest/noctilux-m_11050mm.html

http://www.imx.nl/photo/lenstest/leitz_noctilux_11250_the_un.html

 

[Paulbe]

Matthew--I read your disclaimers again. They make you a true expert! Opine away--
🙂
Paul

 

[Ben Z]

Three years ago the little corner camera store near us (owner since retired and closed the store) took in a Noctilux in trade. It was the version immediately prior to the latest, E60 filter size but with a separate hood. Really tip-top condition, too. They had it priced at $1600. I never wanted the lens, it's too heavy for my taste. I remembered all the snotty posts on forums about how Leica's should be bought to use, not as investments, and so I passed on it. Stupid is as stupid does :bang:

 

[sockeyed]

One of my flickr contacts, Anhtu, does quite special work with a Noctilux on the streets of Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) using Velvia and an M6. Examples here and here.

 

[manfromh]

I've never understood the Noctilux look.

 

[Harry Lime]

I've never understood the Noctilux look.

I find it interesting that so many people comment on the unique Noct bokeh, when at least to me it looks very much like what you get from a Sonnar.

But what is unique to the Noct is the nearly total lack of flare. There simply is none and as Erwin points out in his review, there is so little scatter as the photons travel through the elements, that pretty much only the light contained in the scene reaches the film. To me that is what gives Noctilux images their unique look. Unfortunately this was one of the main reasons why I sold my Noct. I felt that the images were flat and I prefer a little glow and blooming. The images from the Noct are so perfect, that they contain none of these traits.

Just to give an idea of how flare proof this lens is, here's an example. One night I was on a night shoot for a movie. To entertain myself between takes I shot directly in to a 20,000 watt movie light, that was suspended about 20 ft off the sidewalk, The Noct didn't even bat an eye. When I examined the frame I saw geometry (Octagons etc) from a lens flare, but no actual flare. Pretty amazing.

 

[maddoc]

Roger, an interesting review. One thing I like about the Noctilux is that it ia also quite usable at day-time (without ND filter) 🙂

1/1000 s f/2.0 (or 2.8) Fuji Astia 100F

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

One of my flickr contacts, Anhtu, does quite special work with a Noctilux on the streets of Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) using Velvia and an M6. Examples here and here.

I've been admiring Anhtu's stuff on Flickr for a while. Noctilux + Velvia is a wonderful combination. Very dream-like.

 

[furcafe]

Completely agree re: both the Noct's Sonnar-like boke & its flare resistance. 1 of the reasons why I like the Noct is that it is (or was) like a modernized Sonnar on steroids, i.e., w/some nice field curvature/vignetting wide-open, only without the annoying propensity for flare from point light sources in or just out of the frame. Unfortunately, when using the Noct on an M8, I have to deal w/flare from the stupid UV/IR cut filter.

I find it interesting that so many people comment on the unique Noct bokeh, when at least to me it looks very much like what you get from a Sonnar.

But what is unique to the Noct is the nearly total lack of flare. There simply is none and as Erwin points out in his review, there is so little scatter as the photons travel through the elements, that pretty much only the light contained in the scene reaches the film. To me that is what gives Noctilux images their unique look. Unfortunately this was one of the main reasons why I sold my Noct. I felt that the images were flat and I prefer a little glow and blooming. The images from the Noct are so perfect, that they contain none of these traits.

Just to give an idea of how flare proof this lens is, here's an example. One night I was on a night shoot for a movie. To entertain myself between takes I shot directly in to a 20,000 watt movie light, that was suspended about 20 ft off the sidewalk, The Noct didn't even bat an eye. When I examined the frame I saw geometry (Octagons etc) from a lens flare, but no actual flare. Pretty amazing.

 

[Harry Lime]

Completely agree re: both the Noct's Sonnar-like boke & its flare resistance. 1 of the reasons why I like the Noct is that it is (or was) like a modernized Sonnar on steroids, i.e., w/some nice field curvature/vignetting wide-open, only without the annoying propensity for flare from point light sources in or just out of the frame. Unfortunately, when using the Noct on an M8, I have to deal w/flare from the stupid UV/IR cut filter.

Being nearly impervious to flare is also what makes the Noct the ultimate low light lens. There are other lenses out there that are as fast or almost as fast and even a few that are faster, but they all flare, which muddies the subtle tonality of what little light is available.

I remember being awestruck by this when I examined the first roll of Delta3200 (1600) I had shot with the Noct.

Leica accomplished this by making some elements from a fairly exotic glass, that is not only very expensive, but also quite heavy. I seem to remember that Leica only had so much of the glass on hand. Perhaps they ran out. It is not uncommon for glass types to be discontinued. Another possibility is that the glass had a high lead content and under new EU regulations could no longer be sold.

If I had money to burn I would own a Noct, just for those special occasions.