hmmm noctilux 1.2?

[kenspix]

Is that a ten thousand dollar asking price for a noctilux 1.2 on the bay,wow... i have held one of these a few weeks back and it was a wonderful build but i didn't know they get this high.

 

[Mackinaw]

The Noctilux 1.2 was the first Noctilux introduced back in 1966 which featured hand-ground aspheric lens elements. Very expensive to make so was dropped and replaced by the current F1.0 Noctilux (with conventional spherical elements) in 1976. The original 50/1.2 Noct is now coveted by collectors, hence the high price.

Jim B.

 

[peter_n]

The pictures the f1.2 lens makes are unbelievable. There are examples over on the German Leica forum that are out of this world.

 

[x-ray]

The pictures the f1.2 lens makes are unbelievable. There are examples over on the German Leica forum that are out of this world.

I owned one for several years in the early 70's. I didn't feel it was anything impressive other than fast. It performed at it's best around f2 and degraded at f4. Not particularly good as a general purpose lens but was the best at the moment. 1.2 just wasn't that much of a gain over 1.4 with my 1.4 nikkor performing much better. If I remember right I traded for a DR summicron and got some cash in the deal. It was my understanding the f1.2 version varied greatly in quality due to the hand ground elements.

Collectors have driven up the price and the price has been boosted by the cult folowing. I think there were less than 1000 of this lens made with most in the hands of the collectors. It's another one of thos lenses like the 35 1.4 v1 and 35 summicron v1 that don't justify the prices they're bringing. The reputaiton is mostly myth.

In the mid 70's I worked for a company that had the 50 f1 which I used and liked much better than the 1.2 version. In todays world I feel my f1.2 35 Nokton is a far better lens than the original Noctilux 1.2 and would rather have the 35 FL for extreme low light shooting.

 

[x-ray]

Her's an image i shot with the Noctilux 1.2

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=13243

 

[Peter A (NYC)]

For a user, the 1.0 is way better, really flare resistant plus super quality at 5.6 or f8 if you need that.

 

[peter_n]

Here's an example of what I was talking about on the German Leica forum:

http://tinyurl.com/2dpzjs

 

[Tom A]

I concur with X-ray on the 50f1,2 Nocti. I had one in the lated 60's and early 70's - it was a lens that I really did not warm to. The f1,2 performance was OK, but not spectacular and mid range f-stops were inferior to my 50f1,4 (and that was an early one at that!). These days it is strictly a "collectible" and if you need that extreme speed, go for the f1 although with modern film you can do better with a 50f1,4 ASPH when it come to performance anyway.
The teaser that Mr Kaufman throw out at LHSA in Rochester" Maybe a f0.9/50mm Noctilux". Most likely a $8000+ lens and the difference between a f0.9 and an f1 is nominal (think VC 28/1.9 versus 28f2 S-cron). It will give Leica some bragging rights, but that is about all it does.
Over the last 4 decades I have had about 6 different Noctiluxes and none of them has stayed in my hands for more than a couple of years. They are fun to shoot at f1, but the novelty soon wears off and you get tired of hauling it around.
The problem is also that if you use it at f1 with high speed film, it will be dark enough to make it almost impossible to focus - the proverbial black cat in the coal cellar! If you cant focus absolutely with a Nocti, it will be fuzzy!

 

[Peter A (NYC)]

Tom, I shoot at f1 with high speed film with a neutral density filter. Not all the time, but when I want that shallow DOF look.

 

[x-ray]

Here's an example of what I was talking about on the German Leica forum:

http://tinyurl.com/2dpzjs

I don't see anything here that knocks me out and feel any number of other lenses could have done atleast as well and most likely better. Personal taste I guess.

 

[peter_n]

I don't see anything here that knocks me out and feel any number of other lenses could have done atleast as well and most likely better. Personal taste I guess.

Yes we are all different. The picture by Brent Nicastro is the one I like in that thread (i.e. the one that shows in the browser when you click the link). It isn't a work of art but it is almost startlingly three-dimensional at least on my monitor. That, the lighting, and the rendering of the out of focus area is what I like about it.

 

[Abbazz]

I should have jumped at the Noctis (1.0 and 1.2s) that KEH had a year or two ago. There must have been 3 or 4 of them each in the 2-3.5 K range.

I remember seeing the Noctilux 1.2 for months in Keh's catalog. So I doubt the one on eBay will find a buyer for ten grands...

Cheers!

Abbazz

 

[xayraa33]

I was offered one in 1978, but its cost was a lot of money back then too.

 

[venchka]

Really makes you wonder about the modern Konica 1.2 lenses: 50mm and 60mm. For a whole lot less than either Noctilux.

 

[crawdiddy]

I think the Noct images are pretty spectacular. I suppose it IS amatter of taste. But as a portrait lens, it can't be beat for bokeh.

 

[dreamsandart]

I had a Noctilux 1.2 for awhile, thought it would be my standard fast 50 till the temptation of selling at collector's prices became too much. If it hadn't been for that selling price factor I would have loved keeping it.

It may not have been 'as good' as a modern optical design but it had a beautiful way of painting a picture on film. Its much smaller than the f1 Noctilux too and was very well made just a bit larger than the Summilux.

One thing interesting about the design was the 'mirroring' factor. Its was suppose to be designed this way, it you looked into the front of the lens at a slight angle it became a mirror and was suppose to help with flare/reflections. And yes the boken was very smooth lookiing, completely different than the f1 Noctilux look.

 

[dandp]

Yes we are all different. The picture by Brent Nicastro is the one I like in that thread (i.e. the one that shows in the browser when you click the link). It isn't a work of art but it is almost startlingly three-dimensional at least on my monitor. That, the lighting, and the rendering of the out of focus area is what I like about it.

I believe Brent owns the current 1.0 version - though he states the aperture used is 1.2