Leica 50/0.95 Noctilux ASPH lens?

[kevin m]

Whether you regard that as dismissive is a matter of opinion. Most people with a reasonable understanding of the English language would, I suspect, take my side.

Sides? It's always a petty turf war over words with you, isn't it? You use words to heighten differences, rather than attempt to achieve any understanding, and that just leads to conflict and divisiveness on a forum.

Use "specialty" rather than "novelty" if you find it a more accurate term, and try to assume the best, rather than the worst, about your fellow forum members for once.

 

[cam]

The .95 is a good compromise IMO, if it is accurately focused.... Given your use of an RD1, I would also suggest a hard look at the CV 35/1.2.

thank you for all your tips on the f/.95. popsicle sticks, LOL!

i have a later version pre-asph 35 Lux that i love and am quite happy with. still, i will take a look at the CV when i get a chance. winter is a coming.

ADDENDUM (Edit): Once more, for the record, I do not maintain that the Noctilux is perfect, nor the answer to a maiden's prayer

(i hope you don't mind me highlighting) forget about the lens not being perfection, i want to know how you know what i do every night? is france really that small? 😛

The Noctilux is not immune to the laws of optics. All superspeed lenses lose the majority of their unique signatures when stopped down, as their aberrations are tamed a bit. I only tested the Noctilux briefly but found that to be the case. The sweet spot for the pre-asph. Summilux 50 that I shot with extensively was f4.0 and below, and I kept an 8x ND filter with me to keep it in its sweet spot. Above that, it was hard work to tell it apart from the Summicron 50.

tamed a bit, perhaps, but not forgotten....

and out of curiosity, which pre-asph version do (did) you have? i have the E43 (1962) and find it very distinctive, even past the sweet spot. i must admit that i haven't tested any Crons in this focal length, so i cannot say that the draw would or would not be different.

 

[kevin m]

Cam, I had the penultimate pre-asph. with 46mm filter, .7 meter focus and pull out hood. I owned the 35 Aspherical Summilux, the 24 Elmarit and the 90mm pre-asph Summicron at the same time, but the 'lux is the only one I regret selling. (you hear me, Dave!? 😀 ) It is the perfect people lens, IMO, and I see by the pics you posted in the 'lux thread that you're making great use of its qualities. 🙂

 

[cam]

Cam, I had the penultimate pre-asph. with 46mm filter, .7 meter focus and pull out hood. I owned the 35 Aspherical Summilux, the 24 Elmarit and the 90mm pre-asph Summicron at the same time, but the 'lux is the only one I regret selling. (you hear me, Dave!? 😀 ) It is the perfect people lens, IMO, and I see by the pics you posted in the 'lux thread that you're making great use of its qualities. 🙂

thank you, Kevin! i thought you were talking about the E46. that's not quite as "distinctive" as the older ones like i have. the E46 i can see come closer to the Cron stopped down. it has a more refined character. my old boy has a draw that i love to bits, right down to it's unexpected flare, and i know it so well i recognised it when a friend borrowed it on his M8 and put the pics up on flickr. sad, isn't it, that i can recognise things shot on that particular lens? but, see, i do notice those things. the little nuances make me happy. but they don't change the way i shoot (mostly because i am still learning my new lenses and do not have the experience of, say, Roger)...

i probably would have gotten the penultimate pre-asph (i can't believe you sold that!) had i understood about the closer focusing. but i didn't and doubt i'll ever trade my old flare gun 😀

 

[kevin m]

Fred, in my opinion, all the superspeed lenses are novelty lenses relative to their more normal brethren, and I say that as an owner of one. 😉 You really have to need what they offer - or think you do - to make their hefty penalties in weight, cost, clumsiness and idiosyncrasies worth the bother.

But by all means call them "specialty" lenses if that's the better term in your view.

 

[gdi]

thank you for all your tips on the f/.95. popsicle sticks, LOL!

i have a later version pre-asph 35 Lux that i love and am quite happy with. still, i will take a look at the CV when i get a chance. winter is a coming.

Well, I wouldn't have looked at the Nokton either, if I had a Summilux!

 

[gdi]

We hope we dont need throw out pictures as weapons. I suggest that you learn to read texts better. To see pictures proves nothing. It was not my intention to throwing a picture as a weapon neither.

Exactly, how could pictures have any bearing on the topic! 🙂

 

[kevin m]

...my old boy has a draw that i love to bits, right down to it's unexpected flare...

The e46, your wallet will be sad to hear, is nearly flare-proof. 😀

 

[cam]

The e46, your wallet will be sad to hear, is nearly flare-proof. 😀

thank you, dearheart 😀 but i've grown quite fond of my flare and learned, for the most part, how to avoid it. my friend has not. besides, i need to save my pennies for a novelty/specialty lens that everyone can bash but still won't give me closer focusing :bang:

btw, what's your poison? the Canon from the excellent pic you posted?

 

[cam]

Well, I wouldn't have looked at the Nokton either, if I had a Summilux!

oh, phew!

Exactly, how could pictures have any bearing on the topic! 🙂

ROFLMAO!

 

[sepiareverb]

Did I "dismiss" anything? I said if you're not going to use it wide open, then you might as well own a slower lens.

Well not exactly. You stated that: "If you need the speed, or simply like the signature, then you should be shooting them near full-aperture, because once you stop down past the f2.8-f4.0 range, most 50mm lenses look more alike than not. It doesn't make much sense to live with the bulk, the slow focusing and - particularly in the case of the Noctilux - the expense of a superspeed lens to shoot it stoppped down, because as general purpose lenses, all superspeed 50's lose one of the chief advantages of the RF world, compact size." This is an opinion not a fact, as has been stated elsewhere in the thread some folks disagree with you on this. The bulk bothers you- fine, but others are not going to agree, especially if they want the option of f0.95.

And towards the fanning of flames:

Did you actually read what I wrote, or do you just automatically disagree with everyone who holds a viewpoint contrary to your own? Nice that you finish with a bit of the old straw man, too. What a lazy rhetorical device that is.

...try to assume the best, rather than the worst, about your fellow forum members for once.

...It would be nice if we could actually exchange something besides snide comments for once. 🙂

Might you please take some of your own advice and find a way to agree to disagree? You are getting pretty tiresome.

 

[kevin m]

btw, what's your poison? the Canon from the excellent pic you posted?

Yes, that's likely the only superspeed 50 I'll own at today's prices. The effect is more important to me than ultimate quality, especially in light of the price difference. 🙂

 

[Keith]

Well if Roger had stated this:

"I tried the lens; I liked it. I am not sure there is a great deal more to it than that."

about four or five pages ago maybe I wouldn't feel so ......angry?

This thread has ruined my whole evening.

An internet thread ruined your entire evening (this thread of all threads) ... !!!!????

I thought you had far more sense than that! 😛

 

[sepiareverb]

Well I guess a bunch of you also got the email, but the press release states:

The characteristic rendering of the previous 50 mm f/1, valued by many users as a means of creative photography, has been retained with extremely shallow depth of field at full aperture. What is new is that when stopped down, the lens performs comparably with the LEICA SUMMILUX-M 50 mm f/1.4 ASPH.

 

[Keith]

Hi Keith,
As usual on a Sunday evening, I've been going through the gallery, preparing my picks of the week, trying to make sure I haven't missed a masterpiece.

Normally I get a lot of pleasure from doing this, but not with Ned's replacement preaching from the holy book of Nocti. (And the guy doesn't even own one! Maybe it's something like "penis-envy".)

I feel your pain Richard! I think forum management should update the database to include automatic censorship of the word 'Noctilux'

Then of course the diehards would come up with alternate spellings like we have to with; 'sh1t' ... fu[k ... and recently ph0t0p00!

Hmm ... let me think! no[t1lux 😛

 

[sepiareverb]

Oh cm0n KE1tH, there's occasional real discussion amid the [r@p. Just whenever the Noctilux comes up the b@shers start throwing it like monkeys in the zoo. 😀

 

[Keith]

At least Ned (god bless him) used to back up his arguments with some pretty good pics. This is just a sh1t fight and not much about photography!

Do they fight like this in the pinhole forum ... "my pinhole's bigger than yours!" 😛

 

[Turtle]

I fully see your argument, but what is the dividing line between a 'lame justification' and a reason?

If you are constantly running out of light -- as I do, quite often -- then a Noctilux may make eminent sense. If you can afford it. Alas, I cannot.

Cheers,

R.

...this is an example of the lens is being used because it is the tool for the job! As for the first question, I suppose it can only ever be a matter of opinion. I suppose the creative reason/technical need comes first leading one to select the appropriate tool whereas the lame justification comes after deciding to use that particular tool and creating conditions to justify its use. Just thoughs. Maybe the signature of the Nocti is such that even past 1.4 it is the preferred lens of some, but heck, at what price does that signature come? I guess what I am saying is that unless one needs the Nocti for what only the Nocti can do, it sems fairly daft to spend all that money. If one has the money to spend thats wonderful, but it seems wealthy hobbyists have more of a 'need' than pros or earning photographers. I don't have anything against the lens or its owners, but at least car collectors or even camera collectors are often honest about owning something because they love the sense of ownership. They don't pretend that they need the 1968 Ferrari whatever because its the only way they can go shopping 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

...this is an example of the lens is being used because it is the tool for the job! . . . I guess what I am saying is that unless one needs the Nocti for what only the Nocti can do, it sems fairly daft to spend all that money. If one has the money to spend thats wonderful. . .

We are of one mind on this. Certes, I agree very substantially with many of the 'bashers' who despise the vast majority of (extremely dull) f/1 still lifes or static street scenes with 1/8000 sec. or an N.D. filter or both -- though of course, there must be a few people who can use even this to advantage.

What p's me off is the assertion -- not widespread, but equally, far from unknown -- that the ONLY reason that ANYONE buys a Noctilux is so they can boast about it.

As I have said elsewhere, normally most people have no idea of (or interest in) what lens was used for a given picture. Either it's a good pic or it isn't. Or at least, it's better than you could have got any other way. For me, the Noctilux delivered far more pictures that I liked than I expected. So I'd buy one if I could afford it...

Incidentally, a belated apology. You said a few weeks ago, "I am in a high-risk area." I had not realized you were in Kabul when I asked, "Where are you?" Absolutely honestly, I have known people to ask whether English pubs are safe! (Well, maybe at the height of Noraid and the IRA the answer would have been different, but even then, you were not taking your life in your hands in the average boozer.) Differing expectations, and not knowing your correspondent's background, are the norm on the internet.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kevin m]

What p's me off is the assertion -- not widespread, but equally, far from unknown -- that the ONLY reason that ANYONE buys a Noctilux is so they can boast about it.

Has anyone on this forum said such a thing? You often cite these "others" who say inflammatory things, but are you sure it's not just an overly-sensitive reading between the lines? :angel: