New 50mm F-1.0, a good "standard lens" or a special case?

Yeah, slow shutter speed, and I think she had *just* jerked her arm- handing us the menus. It was pretty dark in there. Most shots were 1/15 or 1/30 and WFO (wide... open).

My lens is sharp enough that it's making me think about sending my 35mm in to Leica to make sure all is well with it... The 'lux just doesn't seem sharp. We'll see.
 
The Noctilux is the oldest LEICA lens design for 50mm's now.. unchanged from 1976... quite an eternity... And I doubt they will change it ever... things have changed a lot since then... Probably the Noctilux is nearer to vintage LEICA lenses than to newer APO/ ASPH. Summicron/ Summilux 50's or 35's glasses swith their tack sharpness.

I have a Canon 0.95/50. It makes pictures at f/0.95 - quite good. Kind of "impressionistic" - nice for portraits. Sharp enough, but not for technical use. I beg the Noctilux isn't either. If using a lens at f/1, I assume more or less "total darkness". Otherwise it would be wiser to take an f/1.4 lens with double-ASA film... once I did some shots (2 or 3) with this lens at f/2.8. Here it's very sharp and contrasty... but hell: if light enough for f/2.8 why take an f/1-lens?? Poor guy, can only afford one standard lens? And carry it's immense weight?
If you close the f/1-lens to f/8 or 11, you getn't the performance a modern, compact f/2-lens delivers at f/4. Sorry to say. But no reason to blame the designers for, this isn't what they aspired, and always told you. These are designed for speed.. get light on film *at all* wide-open - sacrificing universal use...

cheers Frank
 
Part of the story is that I wanted a fast lens that I could trade gear for- and nobody had a 'lux of any flavor locally (Cleveland, I could almost be on the moon as far as Leica gear goes!) so I found a Lux, an involved trade we made, and I walked away with a Lux, a 135 Elmarit, and strangely enough, a Contax IIIa. I lost 4 or 5 cameras, 9 or 10 lenses, and ended up with something that works well enough.
I agree that the purpose of an f/1 lens is probably more often best used at f/1, and it's fun to do so! Would have I taken a Lux? Yeah, I would have. Then again, this got me the most for all of that pesky gear hanging around collecting dust...

I'd LOVE a Summilux ASPH!

Note too that much of my picture taking is with Tri-X pushed in Diafine to 1200- a bit grainy, but more importantly, if I'm hand-holding at 1/15 wide open, goin' to 1/8 is hardly an option with a stop darker lens- I'm certain to get worse shots.

And about the 35mm Lux... It was "new," but a store demo. Old style (mid 90's) box, it's been in use as a demo for a long time. It does indeed take "nice" pictures, but the Noctilux does seem to have a better bite. Sadly, that's all I can compare it to- I'll have to throw the J-12 on the Contax, and if IT'S sharper scanned, the Lux goes back to the factory!
 
I use a Noctilux all time. Yes, it's big & heavy for an RF lens, but certainly not overwhelming for me & I'm hardly athletic. A couple years ago I used it w/a 50/2 Zeiss-Opton Sonnar (mounted via a Contax RF-LTM adapter) on a trip to London (UK) to nice effect for both daylight & night shooting--now that was a big disparity in size & weight between 2 lenses! [Bodies were an M6 TTL 0.85 & a Contax IIa]. I also think it's just a damn fine lens, whether I'm shooting @ f/1 (http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=1071&full=1 or http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=1003&full=1), f/1.4 (http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=1300&full=1 or http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=1217&full=1 or http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=1291&full=1), or even "stopped down" to f/2 (http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=1181&full=1) or f/2.8 (http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=1221&full=1). The swirly boke has never bothered me, nor has it been apparent in many of my pix. Most of all, I like the Noct's resistance to flare. Load some Neopan 1600 in the M & there's almost no place too dark for me to shoot!

Of course, if the 50/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH had been available in 2002, I might have been tempted to get that instead, but no such thing existed, so I got a used Noct' off eBay.
 
Last edited:
The weight of the Noctilux doesn't bother me. 50mm is not my favorite focal length, so if I could use only one lens that would not be it. However, if I had to use only one 50mm as a standard lens, I could see using the Noctilux because of the extraordinary speed. Indoor lamplit exposure--with dim lamps--is often 1/30 at f/1, whereas it'd be 1/8 at f/2. You get a lot more photographs when you can shoot at 1/30, I find. The design, as advertised, seems to have no flare at all, so you don't worry about direct light sources in the field of view or just off axis, either, which is a pretty common situation in available light situations.

I think the zero depth of field of the Noctilux also creates lovely indoor portraits: well lit subject with creamy-looking out of focus backgrounds.

I have no complaints about the Noctilux at smaller apertures, although I agree with others here that if I had to pick an all-around 50mm, were doing it over again, and could find and afford it, I would probably choose the new Summilux ASPH, which clearly has the best all around performance of the Leica 50mm lenses. I think the one advantage the Noctilux might have is its absence of flare, although I have not been able to try the Summilux so am just basing that on reviews.
 
Ditto re: the speed issue. This is 1 thing that some folks who don't do a lot of lowlight (non-flash) shooting may not appreciate. The difference between 1/8th & 1/30th sec. can be huge, not just for the shooter's ability to handhold, but also to reduce subject motion blur (which can be a problem if you're shooting musicians, performers, or fidgety children/adults).

Tom Diaz said:
50mm is not my favorite focal length, so if I could use only one lens that would not be it. However, if I had to use only one 50mm as a standard lens, I could see using the Noctilux because of the extraordinary speed. Indoor lamplit exposure--with dim lamps--is often 1/30 at f/1, whereas it'd be 1/8 at f/2. You get a lot more photographs when you can shoot at 1/30, I find.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom