M9/Summilux OR M8/Noctilux

[seakayaker1]

M9 with the Summilux

M9 with the Summilux

I went with the M9 along with a 35 cron, 24 Elmar, and a 50/1.5 Nokton as the starter kit.

I have since added the Summilux ASPH.

Cost of the tools and availability drive the decision, I just do not see myself own a Noctilux.

. . . . . then again I did not see myself owning a M9 either.


It's good to have choices.

. . . . . just need the money to fund them.

Life is Grand!

Dan

 

[Dwayneb9584]

Get the M9 and keep the Nokton 50/1.1. With the savings you can buy a reasonably priced sports car.

I'd go with this.

 

[rodl]

I'd go with this.

Get the M9 and keep the Nokton 50/1.1. With the savings you can buy a reasonably priced sports car.

The caveat here is getting a good Nokton. A number of the CV lenses have a pretty wide range of sample variation. I've had both the Nokton 1.1 and 1.5 and wasn't impressed with either. I've seen shots by others that appeared to be much better samples. However, even the best Nokton 1.1 won't come within a mile of either the Noctilux or the Summilux unless of course all you're going to do is post tiny samples such as we're limited to on this and other forums. That, to use RAID's analogy, is like going 35MPH and I've seen posts on another forum declaring that a P&S would do as well. Note that I don't subscribe to that last theory.

 

[rodl]

Continuing the car analogy - other than at high speed, cars like Ferraris can be less pleasant to drive than a 'normal' car, and personally I find the Noctilux far far less pleasant to operate than a pre-asph 50 Lux.

In some cases more is better - but with the Nocti 'more' comes at a price (and not just a financial one).

I fully agree that the Noct is harder to use than the Lux. That doesn't mean it's not the right lens if it fulfills your purpose.

 

[menos]

Logical decision:

Noctilux prices still hiking upwards.
M9 prices coming down.

Buy Noctilux now, pick up M9 later, when fundings and price is ready for you.

Heart decision:
Buy Noctilux now, sell whatever goes in the way of the process and shoot it, whatever camera it is on.
If you are a Noctilux man (and I do not mean the cat shot @f1 and wide open hydrant shot in summer at noon with NDs as thick as ashtrays), you will already know, what you MUST do.

I use a Noctilux f1 mainly on my M8.2.
I use a 35mm on a second body with pushed film.

I looove my Noctilux - everything else either pales by comparison or is really just hot for a short time, until I pick up the Noct again.

If you should by a Noctilux, the most important things of all is, to make sure, that the lens and your camera is properly adjusted to each other and your major intended shooting style (close up, stopped down to f2 or wide open @ ∞ or f1.2 @ 1.5 meter?).

Only, if they are set to each other, you will find full enjoyment and can close your ears to the internet crowd of sauer talking "stinkin' fat lens!" people.

Oh and if you are certain, the Noct is for you, buy a nice beaten user v2 or v3, which saves you a heap of money upfront, but will perform as a new in box last edition v4 - the wooden box won't make you take better pictures ;-)

Noctilux on M8.2:

"the godfather"

"racing with hot food"

"98 years"

 

[Mister E]

The Noctilux certainly won't get any cheaper.

 

[rodl]

I actually like the V3 better than the V4 that I had previously.

 

[StenSture]

In danger of committing heresy. I wouldn't go for the Noctilux anyway. I love my M8. Why not M8 and the Lux and then some nice glass?
Cheers

 

[menos]

…
The Noctilux is very much an acquired taste. The insanely slow, heavy focussing (on the copies I've tried) make it, for me, a non-starter. Many buy one and many end up selling it later. For *some* it's a lens for life, but I doubt for many.

This is interesting …
I love my Noctilux v4 (I guess, I would love a v3 more as of the better user hood and actually plan, to pick up a nice beaten v3 the first occasion someone offers me one at a good price).

I love the the perfectly silky smooth and easy to focus focus ring.

I love the balance on the Leica digital bodies.
I love it with or without grip, with Motor-M on film or with Leicavit or just plain bottom plate and manual advance.

I love it close up, I love it at medium distances, can't say that I love it at infinity, as that is rarely my distance to shoot - more the 1.5 − 5m distance.

I love how perfectly straight every shot with my sample seems to fall in focus - even wide open - it is just so quick and precise to focus, absolutely the opposite of the quick and jerky focus of the 50 Lux ASPH (which I also have, but rarely use for its mediocre handling compared to the Noctilux).

I love the Noctilux for its unreached character (not the slim DOF, vignetting and crazy bokeh, but it's absolutely unreached natural but very very sharp fine detail rendering).

I smile about people complaining and digging on the "soft shots" and endless rangefinder issues one gets from this overpriced junk lens.
I wish more people would complain and kick the lens around, so second hand prices and availability would be more friendly for actual users.

You won't make technically good or meaningful pictures with it on an instant - you have to grow to the lens and really learn how to use it.

Did I mention, I love mine?
it is indeed the last photographic gear I would be willing to part with.
All other stuff is completely unimportant by comparison.

Interestingly, the new 0.95 Noctilux photographs I saw so far (many, as I am curious about this lens as well, although it is very very far out of financial reach) leave me absolutely cold.
The 0.95 might be the optically, technically more refined lens, but it somehow looks very different form its grandpa.

I might change my thinking about it, when shooting one for a while (nobody can make his own opinion by just using one for a few days - you need some weeks I guess).

 

[rodl]

This is interesting …
I love my Noctilux v4 (I guess, I would love a v3 more as of the better user hood and actually plan, to pick up a nice beaten v3 the first occasion someone offers me one at a good price).

I love the the perfectly silky smooth and easy to focus focus ring.

I love the balance on the Leica digital bodies.
I love it with or without grip, with Motor-M on film or with Leicavit or just plain bottom plate and manual advance.

I love it close up, I love it at medium distances, can't say that I love it at infinity, as that is rarely my distance to shoot - more the 1.5 − 5m distance.

I love how perfectly straight every shot with my sample seems to fall in focus - even wide open - it is just so quick and precise to focus, absolutely the opposite of the quick and jerky focus of the 50 Lux ASPH (which I also have, but rarely use for its mediocre handling compared to the Noctilux).

I love the Noctilux for its unreached character (not the slim DOF, vignetting and crazy bokeh, but it's absolutely unreached natural but very very sharp fine detail rendering).

I smile about people complaining and digging on the "soft shots" and endless rangefinder issues one gets from this overpriced junk lens.
I wish more people would complain and kick the lens around, so second hand prices and availability would be more friendly for actual users.

You won't make technically good or meaningful pictures with it on an instant - you have to grow to the lens and really learn how to use it.

Did I mention, I love mine?
it is indeed the last photographic gear I would be willing to part with.
All other stuff is completely unimportant by comparison.

Interestingly, the new 0.95 Noctilux photographs I saw so far (many, as I am curious about this lens as well, although it is very very far out of financial reach) leave me absolutely cold.
The 0.95 might be the optically, technically more refined lens, but it somehow looks very different form its grandpa.

I might change my thinking about it, when shooting one for a while (nobody can make his own opinion by just using one for a few days - you need some weeks I guess).

I agree with menos. After getting my V3 CLA'd, it's a thing of beauty. The Noct gives you the best of both worlds. A lot is made about its speed as if that was all it's good for but stop it down to f/2 or smaller and it produces the best IQ I've ever seen. And you still have the speed which allows you to shoot in ridiculously low light even with the M8.

My first one was a V4 and I freaked out over the price before I gave it a decent chance. I won't make that mistake with this one. I'll sell a lot, maybe even most other stuff before I let go of it. Those of you who haven't tried it but are on here kicking it should either try it or just admit that the price is the sticking point rather than trying to condemn the lens because you don't want to spend the money on it. Everybody has their preferences and I'm good with that but bad mouthing something you haven't tried is foolish. That's about like condemning sex because it's messy when you haven't actually done it. Once you've tried it, you may just change your mind. 😀

 

[menos]

… Everybody has their preferences and I'm good with that but bad mouthing something you haven't tried is foolish. That's about like condemning sex because it's messy when you haven't actually done it. Once you've tried it, you may just change your mind. 😀

Haha … truly written ;-)

I have my Noctilux always with me.
Two of a lot at the Le Mans 24h during the night:

"taking pictures"

"night watch"

I love my Noctilux - You either love it or not, but with this lens, there can't be an argument in between the extremes ;-)
And don't tell, it's difficult or slow to focus - these were no wax figures.

What amazes me again and again about the Noctilux, is how finished the photos come out, projected by this wonderful glass - very, very little processing needs to be done (dirty sensor blobbing, sharpening, framing, watermarking) - no other lens I shot (maybe the Noct-Nikkor), shows this quality.

 

[Lord Fluff]

And don't tell, it's difficult or slow to focus - these were no wax figures.

I've tried two examples and both were very hard work to focus (unless you have the grip of a gorilla) since the focussing ring was so stiff. On the upside, after a while using it, you'd probably be very good at opening jars with stuck lids.....

Perhaps they're not all like this. Again, it's personal preference - my black paint pre-asph lux is a joy to focus - quick, ultra-smooth, light, precise.

 

[menos]

Yes, this is partly correct - the Noctilux is more heavily damped than most wide angle and probably the 50 Lux pre ASPH.

My and the other samples, I have tried are extremely smooth without any bump, grittiness, stickiness or alike.
It is less heavily damped than the 90 Cron with a longer focus throw, which makes it very quick and precise, to focus.

People, please don't confuse "quick focussing" with short focus throw!
I focus my short focus throw 50 Lux ASPH actually slower and less precise than the Noctilux wide open, as a short focus throw in fact makes for less precision, where it counts: around your chosen focus point!

You make up for the longer focus throw with deeper anticipation and constant pre focussing just by feel without raising the camera.

The Noctilux is an extremely fast to use lens this way. Only wide angle lenses do operate quicker for me (35 Lux and down), as they really demand less precision for good focus (only exception being the CV 35/1.2, which unluckily pairs a wide f1.2 aperture with an extremely short focus throw and slight sticky feel, leading to overall s l o w focussing).

The often praised (for it's optical achievements rightly so) 50 Lux ASPH is in fact a very crummy lens in operation.
Really, practical usage wise, the new 50 ASPH is not all sunshine.
I would love, to lay my hands on a nice pre ASPH Lux for some time, I think, I would quite like it ;-)

 

[markgay]

...the M8's files process well and with less work than the M9's files. Sharper and closer to "finish" shape out of the camera (better WB for example), sweet-spot size (quicker to process), print really well (surprisingly so at higher iso's).

One lone vote for the M8 and Noctilux. I'd shoot that combo in a heartbeat.

The evidence backs you. Clearly the M8 uses the sweet spot and avoids the problematic peripheral vision of many fast lenses, not just the Noctilux.

The M8 images are sharper because the IR filter over the sensor is thinner. If you shoot B+W, the M8 is undoubtedly superior. As a user, the M8 is faster. And the resolution is the same, the M9's sensor is simply larger.

But if you have the original M8, it does suffer from a boxy sound and, at really low shutter speeds, below 1/15, the shutter's vibration can compromise the shot. I do now concede that the M8's 1/8000 shutter speed is not worth the vibration vs the 1/4000 of the M8.2 or M9 - the slower max. shutter speed is moot as you'll probably need at least a 3-stop ND filter anyway.

I would really advise anyone to base their decision on the lens. Lenses are chosen according to your style of photography. If you want the Noctilux f/1, then it will be as good, or even better, on the M8.2 than on the M9.

If the 50mm Summilux is your preference, as the previous post shows, don't assume it's easier to use.

Those who put camera before lens are confusing "investment in the latest" when five years hence, both cameras will be the best part of a decade old, with two years between them. And then you'll buy your M10.. and, hopefully, you'll still have your Noctilux.

I use the 50mm f/1 on both the original M8, and the M9.

Best regards,
Mark

 

[ramosa]

Man, I wrestled this one ... Pondering it a while back, too. But it's clear now, as my thoughts about the Nocti and M9 have settled. Definitely, I'd go with the M9 option.

 

[HenningW]

I can't really offer any advice, even though I have most of what's been discussed. I went from a couple of M8's to an M8 and an M9. I still use the M8 quite a bit, as I really like it with the MATE and the 28 Summicron and also IR. I actually prefer the Noctilux (f/1) on the M8 to the M9. I'm not shelling out for something like the 0.95 until its mfd is less than 1m. The Summilux's are great, but make sure you're looking at a late pre-ASPH so that it's mfd is 0.7m and not 1m like the ealier ones. The look of the two lenses is obviously different, so if it's either/or, make sure you like the look of the one you choose.

The 'better high ISO performance' of the M9 is over rated. Crop factors are only really a problem if there is no lens in the FL, speed, size you want; otherwise it's really no big deal. 10Mp is enough for 11x14's, so that's not generally a problem. Some menu items are an improvement, and it's that that is the real benefit of the M9 over the M8. Speed certainly isn't, as there is no difference.

In any case, I use my M9 about twice as much as my M8 now but that is mostly because I shoot lots of wide stuff and that's easier with the M9.

Henning

 

[HenningW]

I've tried two examples and both were very hard work to focus (unless you have the grip of a gorilla) since the focussing ring was so stiff. On the upside, after a while using it, you'd probably be very good at opening jars with stuck lids.....

Perhaps they're not all like this. Again, it's personal preference - my black paint pre-asph lux is a joy to focus - quick, ultra-smooth, light, precise.

A lot of the Noctilux out there have had little use. Many have had multiple owners, but few shots taken with them. I too have had a couple since the first one came out. My current one, bought used mint in the mid-90's was very stiff at first but after about 3 months of use was as smooth and easy as any lens. Same with my 75 Summilux; bought NIB about 15 years ago from a dealer who had it on his shelf for 10 years. Stiff and lumpy at first, which helped with the price, and now as smooth as you could wish.

Henning

 

[menos]

I second Henning on this one - when I bought my 50/1 version 4 second hand from a dealer, it looked like new, with not one single mark (still does due to my attention).

It felt similar to my latest pre ASPH 90/2, rather stiff, but smooth in focus.
After a few weeks of use, the "stiffness" has gone away and the lens is the absolute smoothest of them all.

It is the only lens, I have ever used, that works without ANY perceivable play whatsoever.
It is the only one, I can turn the focus ring with a touch of a (strong) finger with precisely the same amount of force needed close up and at infinity.
There is not one single point in between, that feels different.

My sample is wide open at f1 spot on sharp at 1m AND at infinity.

It indeed is the nicest lens of them all.
The only niggle, one can have with the version 4 is, that as a user lens, the lens hood of the version 4 is less practical, than the bayonet hood.

The version 4 fetches higher prices as being the last f1, but the version 3 is an all together more practical shooter.
The moment, a nice deal on a second Noctilux (v3) comes up, I have to think twice I guess.

 

[rHytHm]

The 'better high ISO performance' of the M9 is over rated. Crop factors are only really a problem if there is no lens in the FL, speed, size you want; otherwise it's really no big deal. 10Mp is enough for 11x14's, so that's not generally a problem. Some menu items are an improvement, and it's that that is the real benefit of the M9 over the M8. Speed certainly isn't, as there is no difference.

Henning

I fully agree with this! I am one of the 35 who picked nocti+m8. I have the nocti and used it with my M8 and other M bodies and just recently upgraded to the M9. I miss the 1/8000th on the M8 that the M9 doesn't have but it isn't a deal breaker. Another thing is I got use to having the picture count reading on the top plate of the M8 also lacking on the M9. Looking back with an unbias'd opinion on my experiences, I would choose M8 + nocti if its either or.

M8 is a fine camera although limited. Then again what camera isn't? The M10 will likely not have all the features I want as well. In the mean time I love my nocti, I love my M9, and I love photography.

One of my M8 shots with the nocti... 🙂

[URL="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4198706943_13e93bd7d6_z.jpg?zz=1"]

 

[2eleven]

I also vote for the M8 + 50/1. If I was never going to own another camera or lens, I'd go with the M9 + 50/1.4. I will own more cameras. My M8 is something I use for now, but I probably won't have it in 5 years. My 50/1 will probably be with me for as long as I enjoy taking pictures.

I have both of the lenses you mention, and both are exceptional and quite different from each other. I couldn't imagine parting with either, but I won't bat an eye the day I sell my M8.

John