Noctilux, 50mm 1.4, or 50mm 2.0?

[Tony C.]

Please bear with me, as I've only owned one previous rangefinder (Contax G2), and am not familiar with the Leica lenses.

I am considering an M8, and would really appreciate feedback from those with opinions on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the three obvious 50mm options. To make things a bit more simple, let's not include price as an issue. I'm well aware of how expensive the Noctilux is, but let's remove value from the equation, and focus (groan!) on performance.

One other qualification: I am very interested in low light (and available light) shooting. I imagine that the Noctilux is superior for that specific application, but am interested in some insights into the relative performance of the other two under such conditions.

OK, that's enough from me, so it's your turn now.

Thanks in advance!

Tony C.

 

[Sailor Ted]

Tony,
I've got a Noctilux and almost never use it- it's a brick IMO. Also I am very much an available light shooter and don't bring a flash even when I'm flying out for a photo vacation- I have flashes and I don't need them 2.0 is fast enough for me especially with Digitals low light high ISO performance. Take a look at my gallery to see what I mean. Also if this puts my bias in perspective I am seriously considering a Zeiss 15mm Distagon as a lens I'll use often and it's a brick at least as big and heavy as the Noctilux AFAIK. Yes I'm a wide-angle guy but if I were into intimate perspectives in low light with magical OOF painting then I might advise you differently- you'll doubtless get that perspective from someone else here.

That said I'd go for the Summilux- what a lens and what a form factor. It's the lens I wish I had although in a 35mm package as 50mm is pushing it for me with film let alone the M8's 1.33 crop factor. My current 50mm is a late model Summicron and it's terrific but the Summilux is special from what I read and better all around when compaired to the Summicron.

Good luck and happy shooting in the New Year,
Ted

 

[VinceC]

F/1.4 is a good compromise ... smallish lens, nice out-of-focus look with thin depth of field (only the eyes are in focus), and it's nice to have the extra stop in dim light, even with faster ISOs ... you can freeze action isolate the subject.

 

[MikeL]

My 2 uneducated-bits:
Images produced by the noctilux at f1.0 and f1.2 are unique. When used by someone who knows how to use the tool the noctilux can produce images that are beautiful (Tommy Oshima's work comes to mind). I used one exclusively for 3 weeks and while I had some images I liked, I always felt much more time was needed for me to understand how to use it to it's potential. And it's potential for great images to my mind is when you want certain effects and under certain conditions.

When you are not looking for that effect or conditions, as Ted says, it's a brick. The 'brick' has a long focus throw. Images when stopped down are fine. It's a lot of weight to carry if you like rangefinders for their small size.

You can't go wrong with either of the other lenses, and I'd try to see all of them on a camera if you can. I'd also consider the Zeiss 50mm's as well. I have a pre-asph 50mm summilux that I've been real happy with. I'd love to see a comparison of the pre-asph and asph that show their strengths and weaknesses and when they might matter. Raid?

 

[BudGreen]

I apologize if any of the following is repetitive of above. Here’s my take:

The Noctilux does have an advantage in available light shooting, but in my opinion, it's more of a specialty lens than an all around general purpose 50. This is in part because of its heft, but also because of its very distinct fingerprint which you may or may not like. It's noticeably softer than the other lenses, especially wide open. It has a long throw focus, intrudes on the viewfinder, and is generally less ergonomic than the other two lenses. Having said that, some of my favorite pictures were taken with the Noctilux, and I could never do without it. With the right light, pictures have a dreamy quality that is unique to this lens. The very small depth-of -field at f1 also provides some creative opportunities. Because of its speed and its flare resistance, the Noctilux is always my first choice for handheld night photography.

The Summilux on the other hand is a better workhorse of a lens if you can only have one. It is incredibly sharp with plenty of contrast at all apertures. And at f1.4, it's still pretty fast. I have the LHSA version of this lens which has knurled focus ring and a clip-on vented metal hood. The standard version has a tabbed focus ring and a built-in extending hood and a 46mm filter size instead of the 43 on the LHSA. In my opinion, the standard version is a little more convenient (if you don’t mind tabbed focus rings) but the LHSA version looks better. Either way, you would not be disappointed with this lens.

Given that you've taken price out of the equation and mentioned low-light photography specifically, I would probably eliminate the Summicron 50. It offers no better performance than the Summilux and is only marginally smaller. I think you'd probably miss that extra stop. I own all of these lenses, and this one is easily the least essential of the three.

50mm is my favorite focal length. My gallery has a few examples of each of these lenses if you’re interested. Good luck with your decision.

 

[Tony C.]

Thanks Bud...

Thanks Bud...

I appreciate your insights, as well as those contributed by the others. I also like what I see of your work.

A small coincidence: I grew up in Evanston! I feel lucky to have done so, as it was (and I'm sure still is) a really a fine place to live. I didn't really begin to explore photography until I left the Chicago area, but here's one early image from my early work that I've always liked:

http://mtanga.com/urban2.htm

It was taken outside of the Art Institute over 20 years ago.

Best regards,

Tony C.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Tony,

The Noctilux requires a lot of discipline and loyalty to make it pay off. People buy it and sell it at the drop of a hat.

But it can be a very powerful lens if one follows through ... see TommyOshima, Moaan and other's works with it on www.flickr.com

Summilux is a good compromise if you need speed, and the new ASPH is simply amazing. The pre-asph is excellent as well, lots of people really like the bokeh of this lens.

Summicron is a great lens in its own right. Compact relative to others, sharp as all get out. And has very pleasing signature. And, you have 6 versions to choose from, all of them excellent, all of them slight different (save 2/3 and 5/6 which are the same optically).

 

[Richard Marks]

Tony

I have no experience of the noctilux
I have used both the Summilux and Summicron current lenses on an M8. Money no object, it would have to be the summilux 1.4. It offers considerably higher contrast. There are those however who like the out of focus areas of the Summicron better and you really have to try both. One of the advantages of digital is that you can try both lenses on the same sd card and play about with the images to your satisfaction in your own home relatively quickly. One advantage of the M8 over my MP is its top end shutter speed. 1/8000 may sound a bit excessive, but what this means is that you can actually use your widest apperture even in relatively bright light. This is a bonus! I have posted a few images with the Summicron

Enjoy

Richard Marks

 

[tblanston]

Richard, is that a colour photography thing?

If shooting black and white, purchasing a lens simply because it renders in higher contrast has always seemed a confusing concept to me. That's what the contrast filters are for on my enlarger, no? I mean.. it's always easy to add contrast to just about any neg but to take it away from a negative that's already contrasty.. well, that is less fun.

It's really common for me to see people neglecting the pros to a low contrast lens, especially wide open. In most typical wide-open situtations, light is already at a high contrast, and I think that's why some lenses are purposely designed for lower contrast at wide open apertures because it is actually very beneficial.

 

[Tony C.]

You guys are great, and...

You guys are great, and...

I'm starting to get a good sense of which lenses I should consider. Your input been remarkably helpful, and I thank you all.

Knowing myself (as a photographer), it seems certain that I will want to use a Noctilux. That, of course, changes the premise of my original question, and I suppose that if money is not an issue, then it would make sense to also buy a Summicron.

Then, given the digital conversion, there is always the question of 35mm vs. 50mm...

Tony C.

 

[Sailor Ted]

tblanston- good points and I enjoy your "Public Transit" series, excellent well-crafted work.

Sailor Ted

 

[peter_n]

Tony as everyone has said here the Noctilux is different. It almost doesn't make sense to use it at anything other than f1.0 or very close to it because of it's unique signature wide-open (which not everyone likes BTW). It sometimes requires a camera body to be adjusted to it - the incredibly narrow DOF at f1.0 makes high demands on accurate RF calibration. It is a specialty lens and I can understand the high turnover, it is such a brick to carry around as a normal lens and doesn't look that different from other Leica 50mm lenses at smaller apertures.

Personally I think the best all-round 50 is the Summilux - whatever version strikes your fancy. It's comparatively small size and versatility along with excellent flare-free performance at all apertures (pre-ASPH is a bit soft at f1.4 though) makes it a terrific carry-round lens.

 

[Richard Marks]

"Richard, is that a colour photography thing?

If shooting black and white, purchasing ...."


Travis, it really is a "colour thing". Interestingly the older summilux 1.4 pre aspherical has much less contrast and is if anything more pleasing for black and white.

Regards

Richard