jordan.dickinson
Jordan Dickinson
I imagine this will spark a bit of controversy, and believe me, I shouldn't be one to talk really, as the Noctilux 0.95 ASPH is one of my dream lenses....BUT....has anyone else had the impression that the new Noctilux ASPH is missing that special something that the F1 versions really seemed to bring out? I know, I know, the ASPH is corrected for many more optical aberrations and has the ASPH elements of today's technological advances, but I have been looking through recent photos by lucky 0.95 ASPH owners, and to be honest, I'm finding the quality of the photos a little too generic, and not all that distinctive. I think if I saw a photo taken with the new Noctilux ASPH, and one with a Canon 50mm f1.0 L, I may not be able to distinguish between the two. However, the older Noctiluxes vs. a Canon 50mm f1.0 L would be easily separated. Please note that I am mainly talking about digital images, as most Noct ASPH owners seem to also be shooting M9's. I don't know if I can pinpoint the difference I'm seeing necessarily, but I did want to put the thought out there and see if anyone had the same feeling.
Just a note: Despite the pessimism that might be inferred from this post, I would love a 0.95 to shoot, so please feel free to pass one along!!!
Just a note: Despite the pessimism that might be inferred from this post, I would love a 0.95 to shoot, so please feel free to pass one along!!!
Tim Gray
Well-known
1. I thought the 50/1 had ASPH elements as well.
2. It's not a special 'something'. It's very clearly all the uncorrected aberrations that made that lens distinctive looking.
There's no doubt that the 50/0.95 is MUCH higher performing. Probably because it corrects the aforementioned aberrations. It's a real shame that 50/1's are going for 5-6k now. I wish it were 2005 when they were going for considerably less; I might think about picking one up. As it stands now, it's a class of lenses that I'll never try.
2. It's not a special 'something'. It's very clearly all the uncorrected aberrations that made that lens distinctive looking.
There's no doubt that the 50/0.95 is MUCH higher performing. Probably because it corrects the aforementioned aberrations. It's a real shame that 50/1's are going for 5-6k now. I wish it were 2005 when they were going for considerably less; I might think about picking one up. As it stands now, it's a class of lenses that I'll never try.
back alley
IMAGES
IF you have a question about a specific lens, post it in the forum about that type of camera, NOT HERE.
jordan.dickinson
Jordan Dickinson
Agreed that the special something is actually a result of the aberrations of the older Noctiluxes. However, the corrected physics of the new Noctilux has seemed to knock the Noctilux out of the Noctilux. Just my opinion, but I wish it the new ASPH had a little more character while still achieving the high-performance of today's optics. Maybe it's too much to ask...and maybe the new Noct's look will grow on me. time will tell.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Yeah but the whole reason to make a new Noctilux is to modernize the old design and increase the performance... which gets rid of the aberrations which gave it it's special look. So you got to pick one or the other. Fortunately, for those with deep enough pockets, both are/were made so you can take your choice.
leicashot
Well-known
The difference is that the 'special something' gets old after a while which is why so many Noctilux owners (including myself) buy and sell, and buy and sell again. It's a nice effect but not good for general purposes. It isn't that sharp stopped down either. Many Noct owners buy the lens to make boring subjects more interesting, that is until they later realise that the bokeh doesn't make a bad picture, good. A bad picture is still a bad picture.
Thats why this time around I bought the 0.95 and have no intentions to sell it. I believe it's look to be very much like a Lux ASPH but a stop and a bit faster, which was the main reason I bought it. For situations with interesting backgrounds, the 0.95 will take advantage of it and produce a nice bokeh, but without distortion (in the unsharp areas), which is much better for documentary purposes. Oh and it's sharp at 0.95, and stops down in sharpness very nicely too. The F/1 has the distorted bokeh, and the f/0.95 has the sharpness and corrected bokeh.
Thats why this time around I bought the 0.95 and have no intentions to sell it. I believe it's look to be very much like a Lux ASPH but a stop and a bit faster, which was the main reason I bought it. For situations with interesting backgrounds, the 0.95 will take advantage of it and produce a nice bokeh, but without distortion (in the unsharp areas), which is much better for documentary purposes. Oh and it's sharp at 0.95, and stops down in sharpness very nicely too. The F/1 has the distorted bokeh, and the f/0.95 has the sharpness and corrected bokeh.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
Well .... for me the Noctilux was always that heavy-weight and far from perfect chunk of glass suitable for photography at stages or live events. That lens shines the way it can render colors and shadow details in very dim light, resistance against flare is exceptional good. Yet, I have to see a photo taken with the new 50/0.95 ASPH that really convinces me ...
jordan.dickinson
Jordan Dickinson
Your Noct ASPH photos are very good Kristian, and believe me when I say that I do have a lot of respect for the 0.95 and it's abilities. I also completely agree with you that a bad photo is not remedied by "interesting" bokeh. My inspiration for starting this thread was simply to state an observation from my own research into the 0.95, which is a lens I was contemplating on trying to fund. Both my hesitation and inspiration to buy this lens were for the reasons you mentioned above, as it is similar to the 50 lux asph in it's rendering and sharpness, which is phenomenal, but lacks the Noct look which I so love. As a side note, I am a proud owner of an f1 Noctilux, and do love its capabilities, but as you and others above have already mentioned, it falls prey to a lot of problems; focus issues, focus shift, and aberrations to name the obvious. Despite all of my concerns with the original Noctiluxes, I find when the photos are sharp, and the content of interest, the resulting look is what I really admire from the legendary Leica lens.
cam
the need for speed
1. gets old after a while?
2. not good for general purposes?
3. isn't sharp stopped down?
where do i begin???
on the first point, that is obviously your opinion. i've owned the f/1 for a couple of years now and it never ceases to delight me each and every time i put it on the camera.
on the second point, i heartily disagree! when the light goes, my Nocti comes out -- and no other lens will do. and we're at that time of year when there seems to be a lot more dark than light. maybe not where you are, but it's certainly true of where i am.
i mostly shoot at f/1 to get a shot when it's too dark to get it with any other lens. not to try to be artsy with bokeh and the like. this seemed to be a lot truer for users of the f/1 -- they used it as it was intended to be used rather than this endless parade of daytime shots, using ND filters, that seem to be cropping up everywhere with the f/0,95.
and thirdly, my lens is plenty wicked sharp for me at f/2.8 and down. what it isn't, is clinical -- something i find the new lens to be.
you yourself said the new Nocti was like the Lux Asph with an extra stop. you nailed it -- that's exactly what it is. but i'm not that fond of the 50 Lux Asph -- i find it too sharp, too smooth, and frankly too boring for my taste.
the only thing in the world that ever could have tempted me to buy the f/0.95 is if they got the near focus down to .7m. but they didn't -- thank goodness for my pocketbook.
you obviously like the sharpness of the newest crop of Leica lenses and that's great (the f/0.95 is obviously perfect for you). i know a lot of people that feel the same way... i don't. they look too digital to me, too perfect.
i don't mind imperfections. i like the unexpected. i am over the moon with my f/1 Noctilux still and, i expect, i always will be.
it is in a class of its own -- not just a replicated lens with an extra stop.
rant over.
Turtle
Veteran
better corrected lenses and high resolution digital = less character. Photoshop gives you the character you want if you want it.
Its hard for lens designers to design in less perfection than is possible within their cost parameters.
Personally I wish Leica made some more imperfect, cheaper, smaller, lower contrast lenses for this reason. As great as the 24 3.8 asph is, why not a lens half the price, no asymmetric, but with a lovely character like the 35 summarit-M? The summarit line ahs not done too well for Leica and therein may lie the answer to this whole issue. People want blistering corner resolution and flare resistance and perfection wide open... and the result is, well, less character.
Its hard for lens designers to design in less perfection than is possible within their cost parameters.
Personally I wish Leica made some more imperfect, cheaper, smaller, lower contrast lenses for this reason. As great as the 24 3.8 asph is, why not a lens half the price, no asymmetric, but with a lovely character like the 35 summarit-M? The summarit line ahs not done too well for Leica and therein may lie the answer to this whole issue. People want blistering corner resolution and flare resistance and perfection wide open... and the result is, well, less character.
tightsqueez
Well-known
I own both of these and find they are different tools, aesthetically and their applied usage in the field.
The new Noctilux is just easier to use and for that reason alone it yields better images. While it is bigger than the older one, the shorter focus throw makes a world of difference.
The older Noct does have a certain charm/mystery/mood that the newer lacks. Depending on your subject this may be a good thing or a bad thing. They also have different color casts, which again suits different applications. The new one is really sharp wide open and the central OOF areas are much smoother than the f/1.0 version. I've owned A LOT of lenses over time and in terms of 3D quality, the f/0.95 gives it like no other.
For me these are two keepers that compliment each other. I consider myself lucky that I don't have to choose to sell one or the other.
But if I had to... I'd keep the new one hands down. As mentioned before, the f/0.95 is easier to focus, making moments more accessible.
The new Noctilux is just easier to use and for that reason alone it yields better images. While it is bigger than the older one, the shorter focus throw makes a world of difference.
The older Noct does have a certain charm/mystery/mood that the newer lacks. Depending on your subject this may be a good thing or a bad thing. They also have different color casts, which again suits different applications. The new one is really sharp wide open and the central OOF areas are much smoother than the f/1.0 version. I've owned A LOT of lenses over time and in terms of 3D quality, the f/0.95 gives it like no other.
For me these are two keepers that compliment each other. I consider myself lucky that I don't have to choose to sell one or the other.
But if I had to... I'd keep the new one hands down. As mentioned before, the f/0.95 is easier to focus, making moments more accessible.
leicashot
Well-known
Well it all depends on what you're shooting with it and whether you want a signature or not. The new Noct is so well corrected that it's distinction isn't strong, especially when compared to the f/1 which is very obvious. I do find the Lux ASPH so well corrected that it's too perfect and the 0.95 has just enough of a signature wide open to give it a little character of distinction - which of course is miles apart from the obvious rendering of the f.1. I understand where you are coming from and feel that it's pretty clear that you already have all you need in the f/1 model.
I shoot a lot of set work including portraits and find that my clients are loving the sharpness of the 0.95 wide open. I don't think they'd appreciate the nature and character of the f/1 which is a shame, but also understand that what my clients need is true undistorted representation of the subjects and backgrounds I'm shooting, even if they are blurred out. The main reason I went for the 0.95 is because of the speed and standard rendering. Certainly if I had the funds I'd have both because the f/1 is truly a unique lens, though I gotta be honest, I do feel that for total 'effect' the Canon 0.95 is crazy interesting, so I'd have to try that before deciding on a winner of the most interesting bokeh.
All this coming from a previous 2 time Noct f/1 owner. Cheers
cam
the need for speed
i disagree with you about Photoshop being able to give you the same character as a lens...
but anyways if you want an inexpensive, imperfect, 25mm lens -- check out a Canon 25/3.5 screw mount one. it's teeny, flares, and has lovely softness at the corners
leicashot
Well-known
Guys, the two Nocts are completely different, and while we are comparing them, it really isn't a contest. There is no winner here. One has modern design and performance for 10k and the other has character and traditional flare for 5k (pun intended).
Sometimes I feel people get worried about certain comments because it may just affect the resale value and desirability of the lens they own and love - why should that matter, and why do I get that feeling here?
Anyway, choose the one you want. They are easily differentiated so the choice isn't difficult really - 5k vs 10k.....ummm
Sometimes I feel people get worried about certain comments because it may just affect the resale value and desirability of the lens they own and love - why should that matter, and why do I get that feeling here?
Anyway, choose the one you want. They are easily differentiated so the choice isn't difficult really - 5k vs 10k.....ummm
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
... well to the old Noctilux I would not assign the attribute "traditional flare" (character or flaws ... yes !)
cam
the need for speed
Kristian,
i totally understand where you are coming from -- your clients come first and you should have the best tool at your disposal for their needs.
only speaking for myself here, but i could give a fig about the resale value of the f/1 -- this is one of those pry from my cold dead hands lenses. nor am i saying it is the better lens; it obviously isn't. but it is the lens i much prefer.
i apologise if i was overly defensive -- i've heard one too many f/1 bashings and how stupendous the new f/.95 is and i took it out on you. mea culpa. i did it out of the true love i have for this lens.
and i had to laugh about your comment on the Canon f/.95 -- that, too, has tempted me. i'm kicking myself for not picking one up relatively inexpensively when i had the chance, but i was already tapped out after the Nocti :bang:
(and i've been looking for a 60mm Hex too
)
cam
the need for speed
lol -- agree completely! i actually get excited when i make mine flare
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
50 1.0 Noctilux on Leica M film
I've never understood why one lens has to be put down to celebrate another.
The new Noct is everything you would expect in a modern lens. If you're into that clinical look, then there you go. Personally, I feel it's a little too perfect for my taste. If I wanted that sort of look, I would have kept the Canon 50 1.0 AF and the 5D2.
I wanted the Noct 50 1.0 for all its imperfections. Saying the older Noct gets old after awhile is more an indication of the photographer's inability than the lens.
Last edited:
