So without trying to incite a riot - I would say that people paying multiple thousands of dollars for this lens really need a reality check. There are so many lenses that offer the same level of quality, special qualities, DOF effects, etc. that I see absolutely zero reason to ever consider a Noctilux. I also find it amazing that people are dismissing the obvious softness as a positive trait they've been looking for.
Let's get real: it's an antiquated lens design with serious optical design flaws. Yes it goes to f/1.0, but that's not a huge amount of light next to f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses from other manufacturers which beat it down in almost every way.
Ultra shallow DOF shots are a photographic cop-out. Some, dare I say a lot of us, are actually fairly tired of looking at them. When used as the predominant "feature", it's eye candy at best.
There is a wast difference between aparture 1,0 and 1,2. The difference is 1)in the ability to hand hold the camera by using the right exposure time, or 2)seperating an object from the background and foreground by applying a super narrow DOF.
So, the Noctilux is for special applications. It is also a curiosity. That's why I have one. Is it good?
Depends what you call 'good', - which is vital to define, but generally; not really. Depending on application.
I have at least two 50 mm lenses that are far better at doing 'general applications'. Like the brilliant Carl Zeiss Planar 50 mm 2,0 which excells with it's combination of resolution and contrast, - and microcontrast, - often misunderstood as 'sharpness'. It draws streight lines and reproduces the world in true color, sharpness and contrast beond most lenses you can buy. Compared the Noctilux stands out as contrastless.
- It is the Planar which is a really old design of the two. 'Old', when it comes to lense design is a sign of high quality. 'New' is typically computer designed zoom lenses with a lot of compomises. Mostly bent lines.
I also have a Canon EF 50 mm 1,0L (also a curiosity and a collectors item) - which is the only competitor to the Noctilux. But the Leica is far better in reproducing constrasts. It says a lot that Canon gives up the 1,0-position and goes for a far less demanding 1,2 construction - far less demanding on tollerances. While Leica goes the other way by launching a 0,95 version.
These 1,0 lenses are expensive to make. The Canon version cost NOK 25.000 here in Norway when it was made, while the Noctilux cost more than NOK 30.000 - excluding AF and wiring telling the camera what it is doing, like on the Canon. The reason is first of all the small scale production, but also the complicating factors of large glas surfaces and critical precision.
When you well have one, you will find out that 'focus is not just focus', it is moving backwards when stopping down - and getting wider, ofcause. And that it is vital that the lense and camera - particularly the M8, is both tuned to work together. Otherwise the combo will not focus correctly together.
But folks here love to bash the Noctilux, - and the WATE.
