Leica 50/0.95 Noctilux ASPH lens?

[rolleistef]

hmm... How much did the Canon 0.95 and the original Noct 1.2 cost when they were released?
And to answer the question, the French in the article is completely right. I'm afraid it was even written by French journalists. "Nous" stands for "us", "they will bring us smthing smthing". "Une photokina" is right too since you're talking about a Photokina in particular. We can make a French grammar workshop if you want, since it now seems to be the new common language for photographic actualities....😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

We can make a French grammar workshop if you want, since it now seems to be the new common language for photographic actualities....😀

Not sure 'actualités' translates.

Amitiés,

R.

 

[Turtle]

$11,000...Hmmmmmm

I think I will use DDX and uprate my film instead LOL! Letting it stand 2 mins between agitations and developing for a wee bit longer gives a surprising amount of help to film speed with Xtol 1+1 ...prob the same with DDX. DDX might be expensive, but....

The Canon 50 1.2L is about $1200. It is supposed to be a superb performer. I am surprised at this move by Leica, assuming it is true. Good value, compact performers that will find their way out onto the street capturing images across the globe would have been more exciting. I can imagine this lens appealing to lens fetishists and hobbyists but would be surprised if more than a handful get used in earnest because they are the only tool for the job. Its not like it is a light carry about lens you throw in with your other kit or that handles like a normal lens on your little M body. I would bet an EOS 3 with 50 1.2 on it handles better than an M with 1kg of noctilux on the end!

 

[maddoc]

... Its not like it is a light carry about lens you throw in with your other kit or that handles like a normal lens on your little M body. I would bet an EOS 3 with 50 1.2 on it handles better than an M with 1kg of noctilux on the end!

Is this from your own experience with the Noctilux ? The 75mm Summilux weights 700 g and the actual Noctilux (50/1.0) is 630g but I haven't seen any threads bashing the 75mm Summilux for its weight and size. Also the long focus travel of the Noctilux makes it easier to focus at 1m compared to the 50mm Summilux at the same distance (from my experience with both lenses and different M bodies). Stopped down, the Noctilux is as good as any other 50mm lens from Leica stopped down, and that most of the photos shown in the web are taken at f/1.0 doesn't mean it is unusable at let's say f/5.6...

 

[awilder]

I'm surprised at that pricetag it's minimum focus is still only 1 meter instead of 0.7 meters since a few stops down dof would be as managable as their other 50's. Obviously at f/0.95 it would be ridiculously thin, but why not reserve that option for shooting f/2 or smaller?

 

[maddoc]

I'm surprised at that pricetag it's minimum focus is still only 1 meter instead of 0.7 meters since a few stops down dof would be as managable as their other 50's. Obviously at f/0.95 it would be ridiculously thin, but why not reserve that option for shooting f/2 or smaller?

The focus travel would become to long, now it is 170 degrees (90mm Summicron pre-ASPH has 180 degrees, I just checked with both lenses) and since at short distances the focus travel increases rapidly, 0.95 at 0.7m would require a focus travel of beyond 190 degrees.

 

[gdi]

Dear Ray,

Shooting at longer distances?

Sure, narrow d-o-f at 1 metre is a concern. But I comparatively rarely use a Noctilux at 1 metre. Nor, I suspect, do most others. It's great for theatre photography, for example, at 3 to 10 metres. I can think of a number of other times I'd love to have had one for 3-5 metres: Losar (Tibetan New Year) ceremonies in Dharamsala, for example, which start before dawn. Next year is of course the 50th anniversary of the Lhasa uprising against Chinese occupation, and the escape of HH Dalai Lama to India.

Just because you don't have a need for one, it doesn't mean that no-one does.

Cheers,

R.

Absolutely, .95 is of great value in low light.

While I neglected to buy a Noctilux at a price I could rationalize, and can never see myself buying one now, I have used a Canon .95 and it is great to be able to shoot night street scenes at 1/250 or 1/500 at 400ISO. The closeup, boke craze (which I admit to submitting to on occasion!) was never the objective of the original Noctilux (or Canon) design.

An example:

 

[Gipsy]

How much difference are you going to see in the density of the negative between f1 and f.95? Other than the M7 and M8 what Leica Rangefinder shutter is accurate enough to take advantage of any increase in the speed? I met someone who was acutely proud of the fact that he paid to have the aperture blades removed from a Noctalux to increase the speed of the lens.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The 75mm Summilux weights 700 g and the actual Noctilux (50/1.0) is 630g but I haven't seen any threads bashing the 75mm Summilux for its weight and size.

Dear Gabor,

Oh, I can do that for you...

I've never had the slightest desire to own the 75 Summilux, because I find it far too big and heavy and difficult to focus -- and yes, I have tried one.

What I don't do, though, is say "I don't want one of these; they're no use; only a fool with more money than sense would buy one; therefore Leica should never have made it; and even if they did make it, they shouldn't charge so much for it" -- which is pretty much what some people seem to say of the Noctilux.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, most photos I've seen shot with the Noct at f1 that are posted and everyone oohs and ahs over have impossibly narrow depth of field or are completely out of focus (likely because either the camera wasn't up to the task of focusing such a fast lens or the photographer wasn't). I'm sure the Noctilux is fine at a distance as well as at other apertures, but that doesn't seem to be why people buy the Noctilux, if posted photos are representative at all.

Dear Ray,

Perhaps 'posted photos' may be misleading...

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/images/equipment/noctilux/finale.jpg

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

How much difference are you going to see in the density of the negative between f1 and f.95?

None to speak of; 1/6 stop is neither here nor there.

The only reason I can see for f/0.95 was so that the fastest lens ever is no longer the Canon. I'd have been inclined to go for an honest f/1, or f/0.9, which would set a new record.

Though in all fairness, it was probably very little more trouble to make the f/0.95 than to make an f/1, while f/0.9 (= + 1/3 stop) might have been a LOT more expensive than f/1.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kevin m]

What I don't do, though, is say "I don't want one of these; they're no use; only a fool with more money than sense would buy one; therefore Leica should never have made it; and even if they did make it, they shouldn't charge so much for it" -- which is pretty much what some people seem to say of the Noctilux.

And nobody else is saying that, either.

These 'special' lenses - the Noctilux and the 75 Summilux - used to be quite affordable, and many people had the chance to try them out and decide if they worked for them or not. Most kept them for awhile - put on a Lutz "steer," maybe - then decided the size and weight and handling difficulties spoiled their use. So they changed hands quite often.

Now, since their prices have gone thru the roof, people can no longer readily afford them, and they have become objects of desire. People imagine that if only they could afford one, their photography would magically improve.

There's nothing magical about the Noctilux. It's a compromise design, as all lenses are, with an emphasis towards on-center sharpness (sharper on-center than its superspeed contemporaries) but with soft corners and heavy vignetting wide-open in some circumstances. Those characteristics either work for you or they don't; you either learn to work with the lens (as the departed Ned has) or you let IT dominate your vision, which, sadly, seems to happen more often than not. In those cases, the gigantic gap between the hyperbole used to describe the lens, and the results posted, can't help but make people wonder if there's some "emporer's new clothes" factor at work.

 

[Turtle]

...the actual Noctilux (50/1.0) is 630g but I haven't seen any threads bashing the 75mm Summilux for its weight and size. ...

There are plenty, and on the 90 f2 asph. Plenty complain about how big the ZM 35 biogon is!!! I personally think that once the handling of an RF is compromised then the game is largely up and I would use an SLR instead. personal view of course. No I don't own a 50 Noct, but I owned a 50 lux asph LHSA, which was made of brass and heavy. I felt it had a serious affect on the handling compared to my 50 planar and the Noct is another 200g heavier still. Just my view of course, but a MP and Noctilux weighs the same as Mamiya 7 and 80mm lens. some might not mind this, but when I think M I think compact, good balance/handling etc.

I guess if your job is to photograph orchestras then a M with Noctilux asph might make sense but my gut feeling is that few will be used in such a manner and most will be used by people who fixate with the narrow DOF and make otherwise pointless images. If I was really wanting to photograph orchestras, the ultra narrow DOF (which I know is less of an issue at distance) would very possibly be a problem. In such cases, fast film is the only choice if one wishes to get decent DOF regardless of the light levels. I wonder how many people would use a M and Noct in such a scenario and not use some sort of brace/Monopod plus soft release to reduce shake. What I am getting at is that I think a lot of people use the Noct because they want to rather than because they need that 1.0. Fair enough.

Trawling through forums for a couple of years shows plenty of images that support this case. Some people make great use of the lens, but seeing as the price has gone thru the roof compared to a regular Noct a few years back, there is a strong chance the lenses will be used by an even greater percentage of fetishists. Just speculating....

 

[jke]

Rumors seem to suggest that the camera that f0.95 lens is mounted on is a Leica M8.2, which includes the changes Leica charges M8 owners $1200 to do as stock.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/13/leica-trots-out-d-lux-4-c-lux-3-and-m8-2-digital-cameras/

If the price on that camera is not the current price of an M8 +$1200, then perhaps people considering the upgrade will buy a new camera and sell off their old M8?

If of course any of this is real.

 

[enochRoot]

I guess if your job is to photograph orchestras then a M with Noctilux asph might make sense but my gut feeling is that few will be used in such a manner and most will be used by people who fixate with the narrow DOF and make otherwise pointless images.

and who's job is it exactly to determine what constitutes a "pointless" image? you?

 

[Matthew Allen]

The only reason I can see for f/0.95 was so that the fastest lens ever is no longer the Canon. I'd have been inclined to go for an honest f/1, or f/0.9, which would set a new record.

Although the relative aperture may be approximately the same, wouldn't a modern f/0.95 be effectively faster than the old Canon anyway? I would have thought that with the latest multi-coatings (and not just on the front and rear elements) the newer lens could potentially transmit a measurably larger amount of light. Of course, people will always cling to the nominal specs when it comes to willy waving.

Matthew

 

[deepwhite]

...but my gut feeling is that few will be used in such a manner and most will be used by people who fixate with the narrow DOF and make otherwise pointless images.

I guess it makes sense to use a 2nd-hand Olympus mju2 and make pointless images then? 😉

In a local forum, there's a guy that bought a 1DmkII and took shots of his newborn son from day 1. Those pictures will never be shown in an exhibition, printed in "serious magazines", or taken for example as "art of the 21th century". So?

Please, stop worrying about what OTHER people do with THEIR lenses. I'm a Noctilux user, but I don't get upset when I see people saying why they don't like this lens. What I don't like is people who don't know me, but think they do, and say they do.

Last but not least, please also go tell the Ferrari drivers that they should not drive their cars on "ordinary roads". Sunset Boulevard or Champs-Elysees only, please. 😉

 

[Keith]

I can understand a pro photographer shelling out $11000 for a piece of glass that may allow him/her to shoot in an environment that would otherwise be near impossible for normal photography but the majority of these lenses will finish up in the hands of well heeled enthusiasts ... and good luck to them I guess! For a lot of the potental buyers of this optical marvel $11000.00 is loose change I suspect!

This is way past my tolerance level and a lot of other people's too I'm sure.

 

[awilder]

It looks like Leica slightly reduced focus throw on the new lens compared to the f/1 version to facilitate faster focus without compromising accuracy. Given that the aspheric design should improve performance, I fail to see why the minimum focus is still at 1 m vs. 0.7 m with an 11,000 prictag.

 

[kevin m]

I fail to see why the minimum focus is still at 1 m vs. 0.7 m with an 11,000 prictag.

I'm guessing they didn't want to compromise optical performance at all, even at the expense of denying their customer's a desirable feature.