Noctilux at f1 or another 50 at f1.2 and fine grain film. Also try a very pale blue filter to emulate the spectral response.
But you can get a Speed Graphic 4x5 for a traction of the cost....
A Noctilux (or Aero Ektar) would be grossly exaggerated - the picture has the entire face in focus, where the above, fully open, are famous for their out-of-focus eyebrows and noses.
Besides it is quite evident that it was not made that way - no lens that fast existed at that point in time (at least not without dramatic optical errors). The picture would, given the habits of the time and photographer, probably have been shot on what then was a "normal" and would today be considered a slightly long lens on 5x7", i.e. something around 240-280mm. By the relatively modern, fast looks a Tessar, Heliar or Cooke Triplet (the fastest sharpest lenses of the period), which would make it as fast as f/4.5 to f/6.3. It won't be that far off that mark as the edge performance still falls off, but probably it was not all the way there either, or the hair would be even less in focus. f/8-f/11 is a good bet. The picture was shot with the camera pointed downwards (given that the focal plane goes through face and chest) with no movements (which would have corrected the focal plane to be vertical), probably on a pier, as the background (water and pillars?) is uniformly far away and obviously at a much greater distance than whatever the girl is standing on.
Given that the lenses and films of that period did not have that much resolution, the image can today be pretty accurately approximated in small format. You'd have to pick a fine-grained film, lens of slightly narrower angle and higher speed (to make up for the format difference in DOF), and a lens formula with pronounced sharpness and quiet OOF areas.
Personally I'd pick a Nikkor 105/2.5, Acros and add a green filter for the colour response. Or of course the Mentor SLR with 210mm Heliar...
