charjohncarter
Veteran
Roger, thank you for the obit. I'm a sucker for French music, here is a good one by Lombric:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jNaocu6Iyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jNaocu6Iyw
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
Don't forget that the Noctilux is Leica's poster product on the M Camera part of their website right now(that along with the M8). It features in their flash intro to their camera division of their company. I agree with mr_phillip that the Noctilux is a speacial draw to the whole system in general. Even if they discontinue this lens they will replace it just for the mystique it creates in the line. (Even if they only sell a few hundred every year.)
I have no plan or desire to ever own a Noctilux, but i would still be disappointed if Leica didn't come up with a replacement version.
I have no plan or desire to ever own a Noctilux, but i would still be disappointed if Leica didn't come up with a replacement version.
sockeyed
Well-known
This is the case, as I understand it. Tom Abrahamsson mentioned over coffee this weekend that Leica had purchased a certain amount of this very special glass from Elcan and that they only have enough for a few more lenses. The contract has not been renewed. If I have the details wrong, maybe Tom can jump in and correct me.
RIVI1969
Established
Totally agree with Matthew, it is a matter of branding. Just like Audi has its 135000usd R8, is not like will be plenty on the streets like A3s, is about the imagery they built around it. Is being able to offer what no one else can. But...
I wish I could have one for my RD1, at least i will go find the CV 35mm 1.2.
Ricardo
I wish I could have one for my RD1, at least i will go find the CV 35mm 1.2.
Ricardo
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And thank you for the Lombric link. They really are nice people, as well as good musicians.
I've been using the Noctilux a bit more lately, in case the owner suddenly asks for it back (though as his wife had a baby last month he may be a bit distracted for the next, oh, 17 years or so) and it's growing on me. I hope I don't get too fond of it or I may have to offer to buy it off him.
But I still don't care for it much as an everyday 50mm. It's so big and heavy, and at middling apertures the quality is good but not outstanding.
Cheers,
R.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I'm sure I made the right decision (for me) buying a 75 Summilux rather than a Noctilux, back when both were way more affordable. But your article did induce some pangs of regret. Thanks, Roger, (um ... I think) for a very good article.
...Mike
...Mike
F456
Tom H
Thanks, Roger, for the Noctilux obituary. But I really wish you hadn't written it at all, because the quality (in the sense of the look as much as the standard) of a couple of your pictures is giving me a compulsive urge to buy a Noctilux. I've even tracked one down since you posted the article - mint, recent, second-hand.. and financial suicide. Only 36 hours to get a grip on myself till the shop opens on Tuesday and I hear myself say down the 'phone 'Ok, I'll get it!'
To me it's not the dreamy portrait of the girl; it's the group in yellow waiting to go on stage that wins me over to this lens, together with some of Ned's shots (especially the blue car in an orange twilight).
You can help me avert disaster by telling me that my Noct Nikkor is just as good; the trouble is that though it IS wonderful, it is noisier to use (SLR & mirror), less steady at slow speeds (SLR & mirror), and not quite as fast. I suspect that in line with a general Nikon/Leica comparison it doesn't quite achieve that 3-dimensional plastic (i.e. giving modelling) look either. It is very hard to focus exactly at f/1.2 on the Nikon digital bodies, but neither is it much fun on them anyway. It feels most at home on a high-eyepoint F3.
Is this the right place to ask (1) if you find your Noctilux focusing success rate much better with the Leica M film bodies than the M8 and (2) if you encounter any back-focus problems with the Noctilux on the M8 or even the film bodies? (2) is not too serious for me: I'd just stick to f/1 and f/1.4 (and anything between), assuming it's true that back-focus only occurs stopped down. My M7 is the x0.85 v/f version, so the rangefinder base length is on our side. For the narrower apertures I have another M-series 50mm that I like.
Elsewhere you mention cars: I almost wish they WERE my interest - they would almost certainly have saved me money over a period of years!
Best wishes and in hope of some timely wisdom,
Tom
To me it's not the dreamy portrait of the girl; it's the group in yellow waiting to go on stage that wins me over to this lens, together with some of Ned's shots (especially the blue car in an orange twilight).
You can help me avert disaster by telling me that my Noct Nikkor is just as good; the trouble is that though it IS wonderful, it is noisier to use (SLR & mirror), less steady at slow speeds (SLR & mirror), and not quite as fast. I suspect that in line with a general Nikon/Leica comparison it doesn't quite achieve that 3-dimensional plastic (i.e. giving modelling) look either. It is very hard to focus exactly at f/1.2 on the Nikon digital bodies, but neither is it much fun on them anyway. It feels most at home on a high-eyepoint F3.
Is this the right place to ask (1) if you find your Noctilux focusing success rate much better with the Leica M film bodies than the M8 and (2) if you encounter any back-focus problems with the Noctilux on the M8 or even the film bodies? (2) is not too serious for me: I'd just stick to f/1 and f/1.4 (and anything between), assuming it's true that back-focus only occurs stopped down. My M7 is the x0.85 v/f version, so the rangefinder base length is on our side. For the narrower apertures I have another M-series 50mm that I like.
Elsewhere you mention cars: I almost wish they WERE my interest - they would almost certainly have saved me money over a period of years!
Best wishes and in hope of some timely wisdom,
Tom
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tom,
The bad news is that I can't tell you that your Noct-Nikkor is just as good; the good news is that this is because I don't know, because I've never taken a picture with a Noct-Nikkor in my life, so I can't compare them.
Yes, I have found the Noctilux fractionally easier to focus with film, but mostly, what loses ultimate sharpness in both cases is camera shake in 'available darkness' photography.
No, I've not found any focus shift problems, but then, I tend to shoot either wide open or at f/5.6 to f/11, and I'm rarely if ever shooting at the closest focus distance. I'll see if I can do a quick test before Tuesday, when you start playing Russian Roulette with your credit card...
Thanks for the kind words about the pictures. I have no illusions about their sharpness, but as you say, the look is somewhat captivating.
Cheers,
Roger
The bad news is that I can't tell you that your Noct-Nikkor is just as good; the good news is that this is because I don't know, because I've never taken a picture with a Noct-Nikkor in my life, so I can't compare them.
Yes, I have found the Noctilux fractionally easier to focus with film, but mostly, what loses ultimate sharpness in both cases is camera shake in 'available darkness' photography.
No, I've not found any focus shift problems, but then, I tend to shoot either wide open or at f/5.6 to f/11, and I'm rarely if ever shooting at the closest focus distance. I'll see if I can do a quick test before Tuesday, when you start playing Russian Roulette with your credit card...
Thanks for the kind words about the pictures. I have no illusions about their sharpness, but as you say, the look is somewhat captivating.
Cheers,
Roger
F456
Tom H
Dear Roger,
Thank you for your reply - and for trying out the lens again if you have time. Please don't worry if you haven't!
I had a look in two of your books since reading your post. When asking your views on the Noct Nikkor 58/1.2 I realize now I confused two lenses that you had used, merging them into the Noct Nikkor, which I do have. Yours were the old and briefly produced 58/1.4 Nikkor (never made in Ai versions?) and what you described as the 'cooking' f/1.2 - the 50/1.2.
Maybe it's worth asking how you found the cooking f/1.2 compared with the Noctilux. The Noct Nikkor and cooking Nikkor look internally and externally quite similar apart from the all important and expensive hand-ground aspherical lens surface. Maybe it's an unfair comparison as you may have used the 50/1.2 Nikkor and the 50/1 Noctilux for quite different sorts of picture.
Cheers,
Tom
Thank you for your reply - and for trying out the lens again if you have time. Please don't worry if you haven't!
I had a look in two of your books since reading your post. When asking your views on the Noct Nikkor 58/1.2 I realize now I confused two lenses that you had used, merging them into the Noct Nikkor, which I do have. Yours were the old and briefly produced 58/1.4 Nikkor (never made in Ai versions?) and what you described as the 'cooking' f/1.2 - the 50/1.2.
Maybe it's worth asking how you found the cooking f/1.2 compared with the Noctilux. The Noct Nikkor and cooking Nikkor look internally and externally quite similar apart from the all important and expensive hand-ground aspherical lens surface. Maybe it's an unfair comparison as you may have used the 50/1.2 Nikkor and the 50/1 Noctilux for quite different sorts of picture.
Cheers,
Tom
Roger Hicks
Veteran
OK:
Test conditions 1.2 m. from books at 45 degrees (OED), lens on M8. Sharpest focus across several tries was:
f/1 Approx 15-20mm behind focused point
f/1.4 Approx 20-30mm behind focused point
f/2 Approx 30-40mm behind focused point -- very marked because of d-o-f and increased sharpness/contrast at point of sharpest focus
f/2.8 Approx 75mm behind focused point
f/4 Approx 100mm behind focused point
f/5.6 Much the same as f/4 but d-o-f is now covering a fair amount -- though d-o-f behind is much more than d-o-f in front.
The basic disagreement of about 20mm is not unusual and indicates a need to have the body fitted to the lens. After that, the focus shift is about 5-10mm at f/1.4, 10-20mm at f/2, 60mm at f/2.8 and 80mm at f/4.
Results at 2m were surprisingly similar, though of course, d-o-f grew faster. As with the C-Sonnar 50/1.5, d-o-f grew much faster behind the subject than in front of it; Dr. Nasse's advice to 'treat all the d-o-f as being behind the point of focus' seems useful.
Discrepamcies are all small enough to correct by moving your head backwards a fraction (1-4 inches) after focusing.
Hope this helps. Please DON'T turn this into a Leica-bashing contest as I have merely done this to help Tom and give him an idea of the scale of the problem.
Cheers,
R.
Test conditions 1.2 m. from books at 45 degrees (OED), lens on M8. Sharpest focus across several tries was:
f/1 Approx 15-20mm behind focused point
f/1.4 Approx 20-30mm behind focused point
f/2 Approx 30-40mm behind focused point -- very marked because of d-o-f and increased sharpness/contrast at point of sharpest focus
f/2.8 Approx 75mm behind focused point
f/4 Approx 100mm behind focused point
f/5.6 Much the same as f/4 but d-o-f is now covering a fair amount -- though d-o-f behind is much more than d-o-f in front.
The basic disagreement of about 20mm is not unusual and indicates a need to have the body fitted to the lens. After that, the focus shift is about 5-10mm at f/1.4, 10-20mm at f/2, 60mm at f/2.8 and 80mm at f/4.
Results at 2m were surprisingly similar, though of course, d-o-f grew faster. As with the C-Sonnar 50/1.5, d-o-f grew much faster behind the subject than in front of it; Dr. Nasse's advice to 'treat all the d-o-f as being behind the point of focus' seems useful.
Discrepamcies are all small enough to correct by moving your head backwards a fraction (1-4 inches) after focusing.
Hope this helps. Please DON'T turn this into a Leica-bashing contest as I have merely done this to help Tom and give him an idea of the scale of the problem.
Cheers,
R.
F456
Tom H
Roger,
Many thanks for taking time to run this test and tabulate the findings. I'll let you know which way I go tomorrow! Hope the info is useful to other readers as well.
By the way, is it fair to say that only bodies go out of adjustment: i.e. if you get a body matched to the Noctilux, will it necessarily make your other lenses better-focusing as well, or could they see a downturn? My other lenses are all current generation types.
Cheers,
Tom
Many thanks for taking time to run this test and tabulate the findings. I'll let you know which way I go tomorrow! Hope the info is useful to other readers as well.
By the way, is it fair to say that only bodies go out of adjustment: i.e. if you get a body matched to the Noctilux, will it necessarily make your other lenses better-focusing as well, or could they see a downturn? My other lenses are all current generation types.
Cheers,
Tom
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tom,
Probably, but I've never tried it. It's only in the last few years that people have started expecting mechanical perfection. Formerly, people just got used to their cameras and lenses -- and the small differences that are shown up in testing seldom matter anyway.
I do however know that the cams on lenses that were slightly out (to Leitz specs) were sometimes 'kissed' with a very mild stone to bring them into line.
Cheers,
Roger
boilerdoc2
Well-known
Roger, i was up until 12 AM reading 'the Rangefinder' last night. Wow! You and Frances did a great job.
The scuttlebutt on Leica User Forum is that prices on used Noctis are skyrocketing to as much as $10K. Scary. The much rumoured new 0.95 Nocti is fueling this no doubt. This makes it difficult to hang onto my beloved lens - even tho I use it a lot.
Steve W.
The scuttlebutt on Leica User Forum is that prices on used Noctis are skyrocketing to as much as $10K. Scary. The much rumoured new 0.95 Nocti is fueling this no doubt. This makes it difficult to hang onto my beloved lens - even tho I use it a lot.
Steve W.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Steve,
Think of it as Monopoly money.
You didn't pay that for it; you paid what it is worth to you.
You're using it, so it's still worth the same money to you.
Thanks for the kind words, and HANG ON TO YOUR NOCTILUX (Frances's advice in caps).
Cheers,
R.
Think of it as Monopoly money.
You didn't pay that for it; you paid what it is worth to you.
You're using it, so it's still worth the same money to you.
Thanks for the kind words, and HANG ON TO YOUR NOCTILUX (Frances's advice in caps).
Cheers,
R.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I take full credit for this. About six months ago I was trolling on APUG and I PM'ed Roger and told to get his butt over here where he belongs.
Thanks for the great article.
Thanks for the great article.
kevin m
Veteran
An honest appraisal of the true worth of the Noctilux: A lens so valuable that it has become worthless. Any object for which you have "reverance" has lost all value as a working tool.
Ororaro
Well-known
Funny what the Noctilux does to people. Makes them become philosophers, anarchists and even economists.
gb hill
Veteran
Ororaro
Well-known
No CatIgory 
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Eh?
I completely agree that if you can't afford to use it, you shouldn't.
I completely agree that it is not the lens for everyone.
But if you can afford it, and want to use it, what's the problem?
(This tends to affront a lot of people, who come over all hoity-toity and say, "I could afford if if I wanted it," but the simple truth is is unless you are comfortable using it, and are not too worried about the resale/replacement value, you can't really afford it. I know I can't).
Cheers,
R.