Noctilux discontinued

I'm still using an Industar , it cost me $35. Sharp but the bokeh sux. I can live without the bokeh for the $1,000.00 difference and buy some decent scotch which subsequently gives some images a wonderful bokeh.

(I posted this just to lighten up this religious argument about "the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin")
 
jan normandale said:
and buy some decent scotch which subsequently gives some images a wonderful bokeh.
Click to expand...

What do you have against un-decent scotch? Won't the bokeh end up just as "wonderful"?

I only make X dollars so I can't ever afford decent scotch (sidebar: I still don't know when it became okay to discuss one's finances amongst others, but I guess this is the internet and I've entered into the age of fuddy-duddy) but in 'real world' situations the bokeh will look just the same with 5 decent scotches and 5 un-decent scotches.

Heck, you probably use decent scotch in your Rusty Nails, when kerosene and Drambuie will get the job done and in a blind 'real world' (I just like saying that a lot) test you couldn't tell the difference.

I bet you have a half-case for your so-called 'decent' scotch bottle?

;)
 
I have predicting this for about three to five years. After the Leica glass lab was closed, there is no way to get more Noctilux glass. It is very special glass with the density of lead.

So now we saw the demise of the 75 1.4 which also used the glass. The 85 1.4 will come next as the stock is sold out.

There are also enviromental issues in europe with lead glass, so even if they could get someone to make it, it could not be ground.

Nocti glass is made in platinum crucibles and has a ten year cooling period to keep the interiors from getting stress. It is gone.

The lenes need to be reformulated.
 
...I am therefore inclined to say that when there is a difference between the results of the optical lab and the popular press and popular opinions, the lab results have priority.
Click to expand...

Puts routinely confuses the fields of lens design and photography. Just because the lens designer has achieved a goal in the lab doesn't necessarily mean anything to a photographer.
 
Ultimately, the only test of a lens is whether it does what you want. Otherwise you could never sell (for example) Lensbabies or Dreamagons.

For most of us, 'what you want' comes down to:

Specification (speed and focal length).

Image quality (to a large extent subjective)

Handling

Affordability

The Noctilux falls down (for me) on affordability. Otherwise I'd cheerfully buy one. I've got one at the moment (and a Canon f/1.2) and I've tried (casually) the Canon f/0.95.

As it is, I keep the Canon because it's hardly worth enough to bother selling, but otherwise, my standard fast 50 is a current Sonnar, scoring very high on spec., image quality, handling and affordability.

Many people who hold strong opinions about Noctiluxes have never handled one, for the same reason I've never bought one, viz., I can't afford it. Fortunately a kind friend lent me his (and his Thambar, which I covet even more). But no lens is a 'magic bullet' or the be-all and end-all of photography; earlier comments about fashion and the 'lemming effect' are certainly apposite.

Cheers,

Roger
 
kevin m said:
If anything, the lemming syndrome is working in the other direction. There's an unstated assumption on this forum than anything with "Leica" stamped on it is automatically "the best," and worth a premium many multiples of the very good, affordable alternatives. Having owned a few of the "ultimate" Leica lenses, including the 35 Aspherical Summilux, and the 24 Elmarit, I'd have to say that the performance advantages of those lenses are largely offset by the very nature of RF shooting: handheld, low-light, low shutter speed photography largely eliminates the small performance advantages that Leica lenses have, when they have them. And they don't always have them.

I heard nothing but negative comments about the Canon 50/1.2, but I bought one anyway, a nice minty copy, just to satisfy my curiosity. To my surprise, I find the lens to be equal to the pre-asph Summilux 50, particularly in the way it renders OOF areas.

The attached pic has some slight sharpening applied to the subject, but is otherwise unmodified. XP2, 1/30, f4.0

2427729541_78b605459e_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Kevin I agree that the 50/1.2 Canon is a fine lens for the price, and I've used it under normal and extreme conditions. I recommend it as either a user or collectible. They are getting harder to find in good shape now, which is partly the cause of the price rise. I've owned three or four, and they were all user grade in some sense, but nice shooters. My current one falls into that category. I expect the best ones will punch through the $1000 before too long unless Leica or CV remedy this "fast-fifty gap".

I also have no doubt the Noctilux is a superior lens and it if production does not continue on another model it's second-hand price will put it out of reach of nearly every phtographer in the world.
 
Last edited:
MikeL said:
What do you have against un-decent scotch? Won't the bokeh end up just as "wonderful"?

I only make X dollars so I can't ever afford decent scotch (sidebar: I still don't know when it became okay to discuss one's finances amongst others, but I guess this is the internet and I've entered into the age of fuddy-duddy) but in 'real world' situations the bokeh will look just the same with 5 decent scotches and 5 un-decent scotches.

Heck, you probably use decent scotch in your Rusty Nails, when kerosene and Drambuie will get the job done and in a blind 'real world' (I just like saying that a lot) test you couldn't tell the difference.

I bet you have a half-case for your so-called 'decent' scotch bottle?

;)
Click to expand...

Mike, I have been know to drink Black and White out of a melmac cup sitting on a tailgate... Don't be hating on the good stuff tho because it's nice when you can get it! ;- )

BTW : LaL, Rusty Nails! Yikes.. call in the medics now someone is going to crash and burn
 
The Mercedes 540K is out of production. Almost nobody could afford one then - and they only live in museums now. . . So the Noctilux is no longer made. So what? Does this affect me in any way whatsoever? Nope.

Paul
 
I also have no doubt the Noctilux is a superior lens ...
Click to expand...

Me either. And in the hands of a diligent photographer, it can produce unique results. It damn well should, for the price.

But the rub is that at its current, inflated, price it's become an item of gear-lust that makes the undisciplined believe that their photography 'problems' can be solved by purchasing a bit of unobtanium.
 
kevin m said:
Me either. And in the hands of a diligent photographer, it can produce unique results. It damn well should, for the price.

But the rub is that at its current, inflated, price it's become an item of gear-lust that makes the undisciplined believe that their photography 'problems' can be solved by purchasing a bit of unobtanium.
Click to expand...

Dear Kevin,

A lot depends on what you mean by 'inflated'. Do you believe that Leica is demanding an unrealistically higher profit margin? My own suspicion is more that it's a limited-appeal, rather old-fashioned lens that is damnably expensive to make and therefore costs a fortune.

I took my first pic with a Noctilux decades ago, and my most recent, yesterday. It was originally sold as a specialist solution to a specialist problem, in the days of much slower films: the fastest colour film in 1967, when the f/1 was released, was High Speed Ektachrome at 160 ASA (Ansco/Gaf 200 and 500 did not appear until afterwards, and colour print films were ASA 32-64).

When I first tried the Noctilux, no-one regarded it as a general-purpose lens, and the current vapourings over 'bokeh' and the fashion for shooting ultra-fast lenses wide open with ND filters did not exist. I have the unkind suspicion that Leica is not too keen on the spotlight that has been focused on this lens by its more overheated advocates.

I genuinely do expect another ultra-fast lens, probably either f/1 or faster than f/0.95 -- maybe even f/0.85 -- but I don't know whether it will come from Leica or Zeiss. I'd be surprised if it were Voigtländer because the market is too small and the price would have to be too high: fantasies of $1000 (or even $2000) f/1 lenses are, I think, unrealistic, the more so in light of the fact that the dollar has fallen by over 40% against the euro and hasn't done much better against the yen. Of course I could be wrong but I do talk from time to time with lens designers and manufacturers.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
I can not for the life of me think of one famous photo in the fields of photojournalism, fine art or documentation that was made with a Noctilux.

Can anyone here? (not a sarcastic question)
 
I had been tempted to think that some of sander veeneman No Colors was shot with a notcilux, but Im just guessing.

I havent met too many PJ's that could afford that lens when it was half the price of what it is now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom