Comparing Noctilux f0.95 to f1.0 v4

[brusby]

I've been seeing many apparently out of focus or very fuzzy images from the original f1 version Noctilux, suspecting it was just missed focus using a rangefinder. I wanted to see how the f1 version compares to modern f0.95 under more controlled conditions, so I did a brief comparison. The final images are compared in Capture One and I made a screen capture movie of the results. This is the first time trying to post a movie so I hope it works. You might have to click through to the Flick page.

Both taken with Leica SL hand held at 1/100 sec.

Noctilux f1 vs f095 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The 50/1.0 images look typical of a lens that is over-corrected for spherical aberration. This is similar to a classic Sonnar. This spreads the depth of field out, the point-of-focus wide-open "smears out". The alternative- DOF so shallow that "sharp focus" is too limited for most use. It is a practical compromise, one that worked before digital pixel-peeping.

Try a shot with some depth, like a ruler. I like my fence post. Stop down to F4. On a Sonnar- you can see that the image at F4 is a component of the image wide-open. At 20 seconds- the strands of hair on the left of the model look better defines with the 50/1.0. This might be from the DOF being spread out using spherical aberration. I suggest you redo the test with the Live Models in your portfolio...

 

[brusby]

I suggest you redo the test with the Live Models in your portfolio...

I'd have been happy to use live subjects if I thought I could get someone to hold still long enough for a valid comparison. 😎

I was surprised at how sharp and useable the f1 is - at least for portraits, which is mostly what I'm interest in - when in focus. I've used it a few times and gotten decent results, but for some reason I keep neglecting to put it with my kit before shoots. I was pleasantly surprised at how well it kept up with the f0.95.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I just bought a Nikon Z5 and the Canon 7 breechlock adapter- was amazed by how good the Canon 50/0.95 is on it. The images on Digital look much sharper than what I got on film.

 

[brusby]

Oh, verrrrrrrry nice. I love that lens. And I understand the new Nikons are great for using manual lenses. I've used 'em on new Canons with really good results, but I think the sensor glass is better (thinner) on the Nikons. Most of the bad rap I've seen about that lens comes from users who missed focus. It's really a beautiful piece. Congrats!!!

 

[Vince Lupo]

I had both the f/1 (the version with the hood pins and detachable hood) and f/0.95 and if I could have either one back it would be the f/1. It seemed to be easier for me to nail focus wide open when using it with my Monochrom cameras. The 0.95 was just too hit-or-miss to me, mind you I had to also keep reminding myself that there were other aperture settings on the lens besides 0.95.

Three with the f/1 wide open (I think!) - these shots are all from the first Monochrom and were taken in 2013.


Lee by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Mike2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


My Mother by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[brusby]

Very nice images Vince!

I've finally realized that for me it's kind of a crap shoot trying to focus either the f1 or f0.95 wide open using a current Leica rangefinder. My camera's rangefinder is dialed in as are both those lenses. The problem is the rangefinder patch is just way too small, at least for my eyes, to reliable focus wide open and expect to have a high hit rate. For that reason alone I've adapted to non Leica mirrorless and have also gotten the SL. Focus peaking works just ok. But I find the error rate still too high. The best solution I've found is to dedicate a button to x10 magnification so I can quickly check critical focus if needed.

Here's a Flickr album from my first outing with f1 Noctilux wide open on a Sony mirrorless for anyone who might be interested. Caution, contains NSFW pics for the disinclined. https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjAo62u