50mm lens: summilux v2 1.4 or 1966 noctilux

[hrryxgg]

so i have an m6 to mate with my q.

for the m6, i have a 1962 summilux 1.4 v2.

i like it a lot, but have the opportunity to buy a 1966 noctilux 1.2 with great glass but enough wear on paint to make it usable as a daily driver.

i mostly shoot street, architecture and street portraits when i can.

if i were to have only one 50mm lens which of the two do folks recommend?

size and weight are issues to me, but if the consensus is the noctilux is THAT amazing, well...

any input really appreciated.

thanks!

 

[Richard G]

Not the Noctilux. That same Summilux did for me for the first ten years till it was stolen. I loved it. But you speak of size and weight and I now prefer my Canadian black tabbed version 4 Summicron. For faster, which I don’t “need”, the Zeiss C Sonnar is much more magical, and though f1.5 it is much lighter and more compact than the Summilux. Somehow I would find the Summilux a strange mate for the M6 and much better suited to an M5.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The Noctilux 50mm f/1.2 is an extremely expensive collectors item, so it is not advisable to do any streetphotography with that lens. It is also quite heavy. If you take the lens outside, make sure it is properly insured.

The Summilux 50mm f/1.4 v2 is a fine lens, but it is designed for photography that is free of coma. The consequence of this optical quality is however a severe barrel distortion, not very nice for street photography.

A Summicron 50mm f/2 is a much handier lens and all the versions perform extremely well if they are in good condition.

Erik.

 

[hrryxgg]

well, let us assume i would use the noctilux. is that the best?

this same seller has a 1956 rigid summicron.

is that one really great? or the newer ones are more recommended?

 

[a.noctilux]

hrryxgg,
You are lucky to have opportunity to try out this mythical Noctilux 1.2.
In your shoes, I would take the chance.

Myself, as longt time fast-optic-fool, I have tried the original Noctilux 1.2 after years of 1.0 use and the result from 1.2 didn't impress me much.
Not for it's weight (450g F/1.2 for about 600g F/1.0) but in photo-pleasing results.

Now as years go by, I admit that for Summilux-M 1.4/50 the "best for me" is the latest Summilux-M with sliding hood (E46 filter) for it's light weight 275g and 70cm focus in place of 360g and 1m for the former (E43 filter).

 

[michaelwj]

I've never used the Noctilux but I always thought the 1.2 was expensive because it was rare, not because it was good.
On the other hand, given the opportunity, I wouldn't turn it down. You never know if you never go so to speak.
If you don't like it then you know, and can move on with a bit more experience and knowledge towards your perfect 50mm. If you don't try it and you're anything like me, the nagging voice will make you buy one anyway.

 

[x-ray]

I owned a 1.2 noctilux in the early 70's. I only kept it a couple of years because it just wasn't that good for everyday shooting. It's peak performance was around f4 and was ok there but not on par with a Summicron. Where the lens excelled was in flare suppression in situations where you'd have a light source in the scene like street lights at night.

At the time I was doing some journalistic / documentary work with the ku klux klan and much of the shooting was in the dark of night. For this kind of shooting it was great but not daily shooting.

If you're weight conscious, it's a pretty heavy lens for RF.

Think about this too, f1.2 is only 1/3 stop faster than f1.4. Its not even 1/2 stop faster and at what price in $ size and weight.

Edit:

The only way I'd buy another would be if I could pick it up dirt cheap. Use it a while and flip it for a profit.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

No idea. It is very individual. I know two individuals who used 50mm lens on Leica. HCB and Viktor Kolar. And third one is Vladimir on West Coast. He is using old fast 50 Leica on the street. His more than f1.4 is not just worn out it is covered with black tape.
I know why HCB and Vladimir choose faster than 1.4 and Leica for the street. But does it have to be now?
For what, if 50 1.1 is now available under 400$ and even color films are pushable @1600 now. Just because it is Leica, for bokeh? This is not why HCB used it. He told what amateur will be fine with Elmar 50 3.5. If you taking pictures of the street, architecture and street portraits this is it. If you want to feel like pro and take pictures of bokeh something more than tiny Elmar 50 3.5 is needed. But Elmar is still Leica and it will gives images with same look as on HCB and Kolar pictures. In theory and with practice on practice 🙂

 

[Vincent.G]

The Noctilux is a special lens. You have to try one to know if you like it or not. You must make sure your RF is properly adjusted. I prefer the E60 version with removable hood (version 3?), the f/1.2 is usually for the collectors.

 

[a.noctilux]

As out topic note, now my go-to-every-day-M-lens is a Summarit-M 2.5/50.
This light thing has every bit of bigger/heavier brothers (err... no more than f/2.5, but this does't bother me now), and so handy to use.

 

[x-ray]

Having owned a 50 Noctilux 1.2 ( see my above post ) I would much rather have the CV 1.1 50 or a CV 35 1.2 which I used to own. The CV lenses are far better in every respect. The only benefit of the Noctilux 1.2 was flare suppression compared to other lenses of it's time. Shooting a scene at night with light sources in it with the V2 rigid or DR, there was a ball of light, flare, around light sources. The V3 Summicron improved that dramatically and the Noctilux 1.2 was an improvement on the V3 Summicron. The tradeoff was reduced resolution and optimum performance at wider apertures and a huge price. I've never owned the V1 or 2 Summilux, only the ASPH. The ASPH is a far superior lens in flare control and especially resolution. If I wanted a lens as a novelty and for bragging rights then the Noctilux is the one but for image making I'd put my money in the Summilux ASPH or CV lenses.

I traded my Noctilux for a Summicron v3 if I remember correctly plus a load of other great.

I always felt Leica produced that lens for bragging rights. I think it was the first lens with hand ground aspheric surfaces. I think it had two surfaces and they had to be ground the old fashioned way by hand and I believe on 1000 were made.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The Noctilux v1 in my opinion (based on results I have seen on the internet) is a nice lens. I think it is also handier than the f/1 and the f/0.95.

A nice substitute for the Noctilux 50mm f/1.2 is the Summilux 50mm f/1.4 v1, a far better lens than the Summilux 50mm f/1.4 v2. The v2 was designed to be free of coma (the "butterflies" around the highlights) but this resulted in a quite spectacular barrel vault distortion.

However, the Summilux 50mm f/1.4 v1 is a very fine lens, is without distortion and is an obvious improvement over the Summarit 50mm f/1.5. (the same optical lay-out, but with newer glasses). The Nokton 50mm f/1.1 has the same optical lay-out.

Erik.

 

[iaeaix]

The Noctilux is a rare lens to come by, if have cash to spend, I would give it a try. Why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk