Noctilux discontinued

I was looking for a Canon 1.2 over a year ago, and i thought $300 was too much. I've wanted a Noctilux as well. But I really can't justify dropping the money for such a thing. I would hardly use it.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Or more likely German-built ZM, as Zeiss is interested in 'landmark' lenses. And why only f/0.95? Canon has already done that. I'd back even faster. The fact that d-o-f will be zero and the lens will need to be calibrated to the body will only worry those 10-20% who buy it to use; the rest will buy it because it exists...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

CV likes to recreate the legendary lenses of the past, like the famous pre asph 35mm Summilux and do it with their own pinache and style.
The gigantic 50mm f.95 Canon is in the limelight at the moment.
 
xayraa33 said:
CV likes to recreate the legendary lenses of the past, like the famous pre asph 35mm Summilux and do it with their own pinache and style.
The gigantic 50mm f.95 Canon is in the limelight at the moment.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely convinced of that. Yes, there have been some classic recreations or homages, such as the C-Sonnar (which I suspect may have been as much German in inspiration as Japanese -- Dr. Nasse loves classic lenses) but the great majority of CV lenses have no antecedents and are either marked improvements on whatever did go before or (more usually) complete novelties: 12, 15, 25 'snapshot', 28 Ultron, all 35s, most 50s, the 75 and 90...

The 50/0.95 Canon was not really a very good lens, so why would anyone re-create it? I sure as hell wouldn't want one (I've tried a couple belonging to friends), but I might buy a significantly better lens. And there's an enormous collector market for the fastest lens ever -- much bigger than there is for the second rangefinder lens at f/0.95.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I'm not entirely convinced of that. Yes, there have been some classic recreations or homages, such as the C-Sonnar (which I suspect may have been as much German in inspiration as Japanese -- Dr. Nasse loves classic lenses) but the great majority of CV lenses have no antecedents and are either marked improvements on whatever did go before or (more usually) complete novelties: 12, 15, 25 'snapshot', 28 Ultron, all 35s, most 50s, the 75 and 90...

The 50/0.95 Canon was not really a very good lens, so why would anyone re-create it? I sure as hell wouldn't want one (I've tried a couple belonging to friends), but I might buy a significantly better lens. And there's an enormous collector market for the fastest lens ever -- much bigger than there is for the second rangefinder lens at f/0.95.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yes the f.95, the 50/f1.2, the 35/f1.8 and the 28/f2.8 where not considered great lenses in their time, but one would never know that by reading the gushing rave ups found on the RFF.
There is the lemmings syndrome at work here big time.
 
I have seen enough!

Leica will announce a limited-run special edition Noctilux f/0.95 at Photokina. Price will be ~10,000 Euros.

Now all of you can stop speculating.
 
I don't blame them for discontinuing, too small of a market who are willing to shell out the high price, not enough demand because of a competitive used market and they were probably struggling to make a profit from production costs. To many shooters, f1.4 or f2 with faster film will satisfy, also is a great deal cheaper ans more compact. Higher speed films have come a long way.
 
It's a bummer, but I don't blame them for discontinuing it. What with most people complaining about big focus problems on the M8 and what likely has resulted in a lot of warrenty repairs, it must have been losing them money. The glass was made in Canada and they charged massive money to produce it. It would be great if they made a new f1 version in Germany, but I doubt it would be smaller or cheaper. I bet it would be sharper, though. Which is either a good or bad thing depending where you sit.

It's a long shot, but they might make a true f1 lens, 35mm maybe, for crop sensor only? Would result in smaller size etc. That would get a few people talking.
 
They'd have to get the price of something like that down enough to convince people to pay a little more than the CV 35 f1.2. At $800 those are a bargain. I think in the end (unfortunately) it's all going to be decided on who can make the products at a more reasonable production cost to turn a higher profit margin. Looks like outsourcing is the solution to that problem. It's all comparative advantage, look at the ZM lenses.....
 
Honestly, who cares. If anyone wants one and the have the funds, its really not any kind of a challenge to procure a lens for your bad self. What will always remain a mystery to me is why this lens' popularity is so linked to the M8. Did every single person who bought an M8 decide they had to have a noct? That one always made me wonder.

As to the comment about RF photography being dead, myself and probably hundreds of thousands like myself could never be bothered to strap something that large to a rangefinder regardless of the results. Seems to defeat the whole purpose of what a rangefinder does for me...

Would be delightful if zeiss could produce a 50 that is maybe 1.2 and much much smaller. That Id gladly pay a small fortune for.
 
WoolenMammoth said:
As to the comment about RF photography being dead, myself and probably hundreds of thousands like myself could never be bothered to strap something that large to a rangefinder regardless of the results. Seems to defeat the whole purpose of what a rangefinder does for me...
Click to expand...
Looks like Wooly beat me to the punch here. Wild and crazy light-gatherer that it is, the 'lux pretty much went at right angles in terms of the M-cameras' principal strengths in an attempt to go mano y mano with crazy-fast SLR glass over the last few decades. Never mind the RF's intrinsic advantage in low-light shooting (no mirror-slap-and-tickle stuff).

Would be delightful if zeiss could produce a 50 that is maybe 1.2 and much much smaller. That Id gladly pay a small fortune for.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind a sanely-sized f/1.2 lens myself, but given that Konica was the only outfit to offer one in recent times, and that lens wasn't exactly svelte, I think that f/1.4 is pretty much the practical limit. And why not? The Noctilux was born in an age when ISO/ASA 400 was considered wicked-fast (b/w only, of course), and absolute lens speed meant a bit more than it does now. We've enjoyed massive advances in high-speed film emulsions over the last decade and a half, and alongside this we have sensors in upper-end digital cameras that can cruise at ISO 800 all damn day, and be cranked up to 3200 or so (at least with Nikon's D3), without too much wincing. Also recall that Canon stopped making their hyperspace-class EF 50mm lens a while back. These lenses are great as technical exercises, as well as deep-pockets bragging rights, but even for those occasional edge-of-night photographic forays, why do we kill ourselves over that last fraction of an f/stop?

Yes, back in my SLR days I had something of a fast-glass-slow-film bug up my own butt, because (1) I was mostly shooting color, and (2) I knew just how much high-speed color emulsions of the day (such as they were), truly sucked. Give Me Kodachrome or Give Me Death...could've had a tattoo on my shoulder with that one. I was thought a bit of a nut by a few of my peers at the time, but I knew what counted to me. Technology, and a bit of attitude adjustment, changed things a lot: SLRs left for RFs, a closetful of chunky glass became a trio of small jewels, and film speeds jumped well into the triple digits with gusto; the first time I came back with results from shooting Fuji Pro 800, I was pleasantly astounded with how fine-grained and detailed the results were, even printed to 11x17. I wondered aloud whether my 50mm f/2, now the fastest lens of my trio (the other two being f/2.8, no slouches either), was going to do the deed for me. These days, I don't dwell on the matter too much.

If Ferrari stopped making the Enzo tomorrow morning, would that be it for the Prancing Horse set, let alone The High-Performance Sports Car as a species? I doubt it, highly. Same for RFs. And thanks to modern film (and, gradually, sensor) technology, the rangefinder camera can once again play to its strengths of compactness/non-obtrusiveness, rather than engage in SLR envy with big-assed glass with positively Freudian diameters.

Or, put more-genteely, I come here not to bury the Noctilux (and others of its ilk), but to praise the fast, fine-grained emulsions at our disposal today, for they make our nights more interesting, and our camera bags lighter. :)


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
I suspect this lens was discontinued because Leica is about to announce the M9 which has 1 stop better noise performance than the Nikon D3.
 
willie_901 said:
I suspect this lens was discontinued because Leica is about to announce the M9 which has 1 stop better noise performance than the Nikon D3.
Click to expand...

yes, but if you put the Nocti on the M9 you can shoot in lower light than if you placed a lux on it.
It is the Spinal Tap thing.
their Marshall amp goes to eleven, not ten.
"one higher ain' it. "
 
That was a great movie, it inspired me to get a fine point sharpie and write "11" next to "10" on my tiny marshall practice amp.
 
You've all missed the boat. The lens was undoubtedly discontinued because the poor old Canadian guy they dragged out of retirement to make the last few has had enough. :)
 
amateriat said:
I wouldn't mind a sanely-sized f/1.2 lens myself, but given that Konica was the only outfit to offer one in recent times, and that lens wasn't exactly svelte, I think that f/1.4 is pretty much the practical limit.
Click to expand...

My own experience with the M-Hexanon 50mm f1.2 tells me that it is a very good lens. In fact, better than the 60mm f1.2 who many find outstanding.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom