peter_n
Veteran
It is bad enough trying to focus a Noctilux at 1M...
maddoc
... likes film again.
Not an orchestra and maybe pointless
but (f/1.0, using Superpresto @ either 1600 or 800 ISO and 1/60s)... 
Vieri here at RFF has posted far better photos of musicians with the Noctilux, BTW.
tomasis
Well-known
it is sooo stupid! why should you have for 11000? Suddenly I want to have 200gram weight, small as 35cron, short throw etc.
I'm glad that the lens is limited by Leica to 1m to prevent poseurs who want shot all thin dof crazy bokeh stuffs (DSLR a la mode 300mm 2.8). I dont like that all. I mean if you buy nocti for shooting at daylight and use nd filter because thin dof purpose when nocti is produced for low light shooting (anybody recognizes that for gods sake??). It is wrong lens for such guys IMHO if they take ONLY thin dof freaky shots at daylight.
awilder
Alan Wilder
As I said earlier, having a minimum focus of 0.7 m used a few stops down would be something nice to have especially if the lens performs even remotely close to the 50/1.4 ASPH. Still, I suppose a Leica user would not carry an $11,000 lens like this as their universal 50 but pull it out for special low light assignments.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Matthew,
The old Noctilux was as close to flare-free as you can realistically expect, but paradoxically, veiling flare can increase apparent speed by 'filling' the shadows. You get more shadow detail at a given exposure, so more speed immediately; but the lower contrast means that often, you increase development time to get the contrast back, and get even more speed...
Incidentally, I believe this is a floating-element design, which may explain the 1m close focus limit. Still more to the point is that I doubt if the RF is up to 0.7m. Still more again, d-o-f is negligible at 1m, and 0.7m would be even worse.
Obviously Leica sells these lenses to anyone who wants them and can afford them, but my impression is that they design them for normal photography at very low light levels, not for slow film and minimum d-o-f.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
tomasis
Well-known
it sounds that you should have 3000$ lens for all-universal purpose lens which Summilux can be. If some use Noctilux as universal lens, that's better for them. It is even more amazing value then. It just depends when people sleep and wake up. You know it exist some photographers who wakes up on "wrong" time.
When 21mm Summilux arrives, it means not that every general Leica user should have it as complement to their lens lineup. Again it is really not general purpose lens if we see size and weight of that lens. But dont forget some photographers who would take f1.4 at any cost if one focal length is required. All that reminds me much of Noctilux case. We know that we can shot wide at a stop lower compared to 50mm.
Myself, I cannot justify weight of lens with lots of glas to be as a general purpose lens so I tend to think Noctilux as night lens from 6PM to 6AM and have Elmar-M or Cron as nice complement for general purpose shooting at daylight. It is a same focal lenght still but is easier to use and it is for good ergonomics sake also. 1,2kg can be quite tiresome if you use all day then you want shoot at night again.
All that is my opinion. If some people spend money of getting new Nocti no matter of what purpose, then it is great for Leica. They always need $$$$
kevin m
Veteran
Well if the words don't exist, isn't the "gist" largely a product of your imagination?
My only "constant carping refrain" is that people use hyperbolic, almost religious language to describe the lens, then produce example pics that, honestly, would struggle to meet the threshold of "mediocre."
That, in a nutshell, is the trouble with the lens. It reminds me of this Joyce quote: "Any work of art that leads the viewer to want to possess it is pornography." Some owners think the lens itself is the thing; that it will produce stunning results of its own accord. Who wouldn't pay $11,000 - or any price - for a lens that could do that?!
But it can't, of course. The few photographers who produce good work with the Noctilux would produce good work with a Summilux 50 or even a Jupiter-3. Sure, they might bitch about it, but their drive to produce meaningful work that compels viewer interest would win out. And, as a bonus, they wouldn't bore the crowd with chatter about a "magical" lens.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,
I will leave others to decide whether this is the case. Obviously I do not think so; but I am perhaps not the best person to judge. Nor yet the worst...
Incidentally, I did not refer to you as the originator of the constant carping refrain. By implication, you are a contributor; but only one of several.
I refer to 'some'. So do you. And yet you seem content that your 'some' is wise, balanced and reasonable, while my 'some' is none of these things. Does it not occur to you that our shared use of the word 'some' implies that we may both be right -- SOME of the time. I do not deny that there are those who have unreasonable expectations of the lens. Are you equally willing to admit that there are those for whom it is a tool worth every penny of its admittedly high price?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
cam
the need for speed
i am with you 100%, Roger.
**************************************************************
(separated -- because these are my thoughts only)
I also am getting a little disgusted with the trashing of owners/users of the Noctilux. in certain cases it is so extreme that i can only think it's deep-seated envy, a total cry-baby attitude.
maybe i'm naive, but i've really found this forum of RF users wonderful and helpful and spite-free for the most part. it is a refreshing change from many other boards. this thread has got me rethinking that. pity.
i, for one, am excited about this lens. it doesn't matter that i can't afford it. hell, i can't even afford a used version of the old one... but i can dream.
i am mad for the draw of the Noctilux, even when it's stopped down. i personally find it drop-dead gorgeous. when i have a lens i love, i shoot more. it inspires me. is there something wrong with that??? i feel like i'm being belittled and i don't even own the damned lens!
i actually hoped this thread would be about the lens and/or wishes/hopes for it. but no, it's a character assassination of those lucky few who own one.
time to unsubscribe to this thread.
kevin m
Veteran
Absolutely. There are even a few unique images in this thread.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Cam,
Same here. Cameras, too. This, above all, is the justification for 'equipment worship'. Never mind if it's rational or not. If it gets you out taking pictures, that's good. If the pictures are good (as they're likely to be when you're fired by enthusiasm), that's better still.
Yes, I'll take pictures with a Zorkii 4K and a Jupiter-8 if I can't find better.
But I enjoy shooting with an M and a Noctilux (or C-Sonnar, or Thambar, or 75 Summicron) more. So I take more pictures, and even if my percentage of successes remains constant, I'll get more good ones.
Odds are, though, that I'll fall in love with it because I get more good pictures out of it, so the percentage goes up, and I win twice over.
Cheers,
R.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Seriously? A lens should be crippled to maintain exclusivity in favor of the kinds of photography YOU deem valid? Seriously?
tomasis
Well-known
it was ironical remark. If some believe that thin dof photos is great photography, I will not try to argue with them. For me, it is cheap trick to enhance the dramatic view of the object. Of course ( seriously speaking) there are no absolute rules which you cannot bend (who are you trying to prove? yourself?) It is just my opinion that photographer would work harder than relying on some easy tricks
kevin m
Veteran
No, it's just a gentle reminder that the hype and the reality don't always match up.
If a lens brings you pleasure in its use, no one can argue with that. But for others to share in that pleasure, some of it should be evident in the print.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The question I have to ask is ... is this lens value for money? Yes for some I guess and obviously not for others. Performance wise it probably can't be doubted because Leica's expertise is in glass after all and if it's going to cost the reputed eleven big ones then you would have to assume it's a step up from the previous f1 version. (hell of a step financially though I might add)
Then again the M8 wasn't quite all they promised it to be so I would hope that their grip of quality control is very firm with this lens because if there is one issue relating to build quality they are in deep you know what.
When I think about the Noctilluxury f.95 (my pet name for it) I also think about the other things you can get for $11000.00 .... twenty R3A's or maybe thirty 50mm Noktons ... or even twenty five R3A/50mm Nokton combinations ... that's a lot of camera gear!
Then again the M8 wasn't quite all they promised it to be so I would hope that their grip of quality control is very firm with this lens because if there is one issue relating to build quality they are in deep you know what.
When I think about the Noctilluxury f.95 (my pet name for it) I also think about the other things you can get for $11000.00 .... twenty R3A's or maybe thirty 50mm Noktons ... or even twenty five R3A/50mm Nokton combinations ... that's a lot of camera gear!
Livesteamer
Well-known
Maybe we need to put this into perspective. I have a friend into high end stereo equipment. He considers $100,000 worth of stereo as "medium" quality. True high end performance will cost much more. There are those who will happily pay for the new Noctilux and I look forward to their reports on it. It's too expensive for me and I'm very glad I got a good used Noct. when it only cost $1,400. It's the law of diminishing returns. To get that last little extra bit of quality you will pay a lot. Joe
maddoc
... likes film again.
My thoughts, too. I have this lens (couldn't afford it easily but went for it) and really like it that much that I use it for ~ 70 % of my shooting. I am not sure if I get inspired, I don't know if my photos are any good or boring but ... I am willing to continue using it and shoot, shoot, shoot.
I had the 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH before that, not a bad lens at all but it stayed most time at home. I found it to heavy being only one stop faster than a 50/2.0 and while I got some nice photos, I much preferred the 5/2.0 Summitar over the Summilux.
Turtle
Veteran
What I am getting at is the issue of selecting an image so that they can use a particular piece of kit rather than select the kit to take the image they want. I could not care less if people do that, but it sounds pretty lame when it is used to 'justify' the use of, say, a Noctilux, when there is no apparent point to it (other than to use the special kit and then tell everyone how you took a shot in a darkened shed of a paint tin). There can be a lot of snobbery involved with high end kit. I am very happy for people to own ultra expensive kit and play with it, but don't particularly want to hear lame justifications for 'needing it' when 'I want it because I want to own this beautiful mechanical marvel/rare item' would have been more honest. I have kit because I want it, like it, felt like it - fine.
Yes, I do have opinions on photography and I am sure I am not the only one who has seen outrageously expensive kit being used for novelty value 'just because it can do XYZ...and hammering that sole function' rather than to achieve a creative end. It is nobody's job to determine what is 'pointless' or not, but I am perfectly entitled to form my own opinions wherever i wish. I happen to hold the same view about some LF/ULF contact printers who are fixated with a particular process and IMO produce awful, dreary, unimaginative images after endlessly debating the merits of their own variation on ABC Pyro. Just my opinion of course....
Last edited: