HU: Noctilux price increase effective January 1, 2008

Old adage: If a house doesn't sell at it's current price, raise the price and it is more likely to sell.
 
The Canon is very flare prone and has that infinity lock.
Click to expand...

You're right about the infinity lock, it's annoying. When I take mine apart to relube it, I plan to disable it somehow, even if that means spoiling the lens' 'collector value!'

I've only shot three rolls with my 50/1.2 so far, but it seems very flare resistant to me. That's the setting sun in the upper left corner of the attached image, shot at f4.0.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • flare2.jpg
    flare2.jpg
    295.6 KB · Views: 0
I am just grateful for all of the CV lenses. I am also grateful that I am not capable of detecting the image quality difference obtained between new Leica and new CV lenses. So Leica can go as high as they want for lenses.
Be curious to see how they price the R10 if it comes out at the next Photokina. For Leica to even attempt to compete with Nikon and Canon on their own turf is very dangerous. There is no competition for the M8 but there will be tons of great competition for the R10.
Eric
 
To those who think that no lens can be worth $6000:

If you don't think the Noctilux is worth the money, go and buy one of the other, cheaper 50/1 RF lenses on the market. Or live without f/1.

Snivelling about the price is just silly. If you can't afford one -- I can't -- then your opinion is close to worthless anyway. If you've never used one (I have) then your opinion is worth even less.

Comparing it with the Canon 50/1.2 is pretty silly too. I own the Canon and have been using the f/1 for some time (a loan from a generous friend). I have no difficulty in seeing why the Noctilux is worth more.

Twelve times more? If you can afford it, yes. If you can't...

IF I could afford one easily, I'd buy it. It's a nice lens, though big and heavy if it's your only 50. But I never cease to be amazed by the people who bridle when you suggest they can't afford it. "I could afford it if I wanted it," they sniff.

Now, either they're lying (and like me, can't afford it) or they genuinely don't want it. In the latter case, who gives a toss about their opinion of what it's worth? I don't want a horse, so a horse is worth nothing to me. I wouldn't even take one as a gift. But a Noctilux...

Cheers,

Roger
 
The true, most technically comparable bargain out there is the CV 35/1.2, the
only lens comparable to the 50/1 due to closer min. focus and added speed
due to wider angle.

Would be interesting to hear what you feel about the Nokton, Roger.

Roland.
 
Worth it? Beats me!

Worth it? Beats me!

I took this 2 days ago:
R-D1s
Noctilux@f1.0
1/15th second, hand held
Print: 13x19 on Hanehmuhle William Turner water color paper

You can smell the fetid odor of the dying roses in the print. Still, I won't make a nickel off it. But it is fun, until the sheriff comes to evict me from my home. 😱

Thank God, I bought this lens a year ago for alot less than $6K on eBay from a seller in Australia. I guess the "bargains" are all gone now. 🙁

/T
ooops, can't seem to attach it anymore. See next.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
If you've never used one (I have) then your opinion is worth even less. [...] In the latter case, who gives a toss about their opinion of what it's worth?
Click to expand...
Well, given that most of us here can't afford it and/or don't want it, and yet you've apparently given enough of a toss about their opinions to warrant an answer, I guess we can have a discussion anyway 😉

Philipp
 
huh?

huh?

Roland,

I can't imagine how a 35/1.2 could take any of the photos I took recently with the 50/f1, I can sort of imagine a 75/1.4 by stepping back a bit, but even the last snapshot I took, with prefocused on a toy mouse waiting for the cat to strike in the dark at F1, I can't imagine the 35/1.2 equalling it, I'd have to be closer, and the cat's behavior would have changed.

Do you think the 35/1.2 is really closer DOF wise than a 75/1.4?

I've also never felt any CV lens focus as smoothly or have such a solid feeling as the Noctilux. Also, the heads don't fall off randomly.

I think that if you can't take the same photo in the same light with the same DOF at the same distance, then it's not technically or otherwise comparable at all??

ferider said:
The true, most technically comparable bargain out there is the CV 35/1.2, the
only lens comparable to the 50/1 due to closer min. focus and added speed
due to wider angle.

Would be interesting to hear what you feel about the Nokton, Roger.

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
It doesn't seem right to have to pay the new price for a new Noctilux before January 1, 2008. But then again, many on this forum think it's not right to pay the current or even previous prices for this lens.

My original intention was to make those who were thinking about a Noctilux aware that the price increase is real and coming fast, and not to generate contention. Now I know why some people have said they try to avoid Noctilux threads on this forum. Yikes!
 
Usually the price is determind by supply and demend. At the moment, Leica can't make enough to meet the demend. So it is fit for them to raise the price. However, if Noctilux becomes made-to-order item, the price for new Noctilux will remain high regardless of demend.
 
The Noctilux epitomizes the RF experience. No RF user should not own one at some point. Even if you have to sell it for a massive profit later ...
 
Hi Ed

Hi Ed

Some folks don't want to hear about the Leica rumors until they materialize and are facts. I think many prices changed or will change on items besides the Noctilux.

edhohoho said:
It doesn't seem right to have to pay the new price for a new Noctilux before January 1, 2008. But then again, many on this forum think it's not right to pay the current or even previous prices for this lens.

My original intention was to make those who were thinking about a Noctilux aware that the price increase is real and coming fast, and not to generate contention. Now I know why some people have said they try to avoid Noctilux threads on this forum. Yikes!
Click to expand...
 
Hi Ted,

yes, you would have to be closer, and the DOF of the 35/1.2 at .7m is
similar to that of the 50/1 at 1m. The picture coverage, too. Relation
between fore and background will be different of course.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
ampguy said:
Some folks don't want to hear about the Leica rumors until they materialize and are facts. I think many prices changed or will change on items besides the Noctilux.
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry if I committed a faux pas. Last year I remember thinking about a Noctilux but figured that since it's still in production and at the time was not in as high demand that I would probably be able to get a used one at about the same price at a later date. I couldn't have been more wrong!
 
Ah, I see Roger's trotted out his "sour grapes" defense of the Noctilux again. 😉

Roger, I could write a check for the thing, but I choose not to. Like most mortals, I have a house to maintain, a child's education to fund, and, frankly, a blue-collar sensibility regarding performance v. cost. My wife's buying an M3 BMW in the spring with my blessing. It's expensive, but there's not a dull moment to be had behind the wheel. It sets every nerve ending alight without wearing you out physically. It seems like magic, somehow, and it seems worth every penny.

I had a chance to trade my Summilux 50 plus $1k for a Noctilux a little over a year ago. I tried out the Noctilux and gave it back. Performance wise, it's a Summilux pre-asph with an extra stop, IMO. Too heavy, too slow to focus; one loses the light, quick handling of an RF to gain that extra stop. And its signature look has to be used carefully, lest one's subject get lost in a swirl of weird bokeh artifacts. By f4.0, it looks like damned near any other 50 you could mount to an M body. Those who claim its "special" look is visible at all apertures are just being silly.

Roger, at what price would the Noctilux stop being a "bargain" to you? $25,000? $1,000,000? Is there any price point at which Leica could offer a lens that would make you simply recoil in horror?

Honestly, the worst thing about the Noctilux, and many of the other, over-priced Leica lenses, is that they put a photographer's head in the wrong place: concentrated on 'magic' gear rather than imagination, craft and daring. Even though the Noctilux does have a unique look wide-open, to this date, I have yet to see one wide-open image made with it that was anything more that a demonstration of shallow dof, vignetting and wacky bokeh.

IMO, of course. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Hi Ed

Hi Ed

No problem with me on speculation, especially if there's some sound basis behind it. I was just mentioning that it seems to get others whacked out easily, not sure why.

edhohoho said:
Oops, sorry if I committed a faux pas. Last year I remember thinking about a Noctilux but figured that since it's still in production and at the time was not in as high demand that I would probably be able to get a used one at about the same price at a later date. I couldn't have been more wrong!
Click to expand...
 
Kevin

Kevin

What's better for the environment our kids will be raised in and inherit from us? One ravished with ozone depletion by exotic sports cars? or an expensive lens that produces wacky bokeh? 😛

kevin m said:
Ah, I see Roger's trotted out his "sour grapes" defense of the Noctilux again. 😉

Roger, I could write a check for the thing, but I choose not to. Like most mortals, I have a house to maintain, a child's education to fund, and, frankly, a blue-collar sensibility regarding performance v. cost. My wife's buying an M3 BMW in the spring with my blessing. It's expensive, but there's not a dull moment to be had behind the wheel. It sets every nerve ending alight without wearing you out physically. It seems like magic, somehow, and it seems worth every penny.

I had a chance to trade my Summilux 50 plus $1k for a Noctilux a little over a year ago. I tried out the Noctilux and gave it back. Performance wise, it's a Summilux pre-asph with an extra stop, IMO. Too heavy, too slow to focus; one loses the light, quick handling of an RF to gain that extra stop. And its signature look has to be used carefully, lest one's subject get lost in a swirl of weird bokeh artifacts. By f4.0, it looks like damned near any other 50 you could mount to an M body. Those who claim its "special" look is visible at all apertures are just being silly.

Roger, at what price would the Noctilux stop being a "bargain" to you? $25,000? $1,000,000? Is there any price point at which Leica could offer a lens that would make you simply recoil in horror?

Honestly, the worst thing about the Noctilux, and many of the other, over-priced Leica lenses, is that they put a photographer's head in the wrong place: concentrated on 'magic' gear rather than imagination, craft and daring. Even though the Noctilux does have a unique look wide-open, to this date, I have yet to see one wide-open image made with it that was anything more that a demonstration of shallow dof, vignetting and wacky bokeh.

IMO, of course. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
ampguy said:
What's better for the environment our kids will be raised in and inherit from us? One ravished with ozone depletion by exotic sports cars? or an expensive lens that produces wacky bokeh? 😛
Click to expand...

Unless you consider buying a Tesla 🙂 Save our kids, buy Noctilux'es 🙂 🙂

Funny how Noctilux threads invariably turn out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom