Bill V
Newbie
Of the three lenses you are looking at, I believe the Summilux is the best. The worst is the Canon .95. For a good low light compromise, I suggest the Noctilux.
Noctilux or Summilux
- Thread starter washy21
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 48
- Views 5K
sunsworth
Well-known
Olsen said:
Not my experience. Sure it's difficult to focus at f1 and anyone will get a number of soft shots, but flat and dull isn't my opinion.
palec
Well-known
There's also another disadvantage of Noctilux, it will clutter lower right corner of viewfinder. However it's great, razor sharp at f1 if you compose clever (the DOF is too shallow at f1). Stepped down it's an outstanding performer, the throw is same as vintage Elmar 50/2.8, but the larger diameter makes focusing slower albeit more precise. It's the ultimate tool and the disadvantages are here to balance the advantages.
Summilux ASPH is nearly twice that lighter, one centimeter shorter and nearly two centimeters thinner and is said to be the best 50/1.4 lens ever if not best 50mm (if I don't consider QC problems recently reported here).
If I was going to buy new lens, I'd choose Summilux ASPH without thinking too much. But Noctilux has lower price on second-hand market and that's what counts for me due to my budget limit.
Summilux ASPH is nearly twice that lighter, one centimeter shorter and nearly two centimeters thinner and is said to be the best 50/1.4 lens ever if not best 50mm (if I don't consider QC problems recently reported here).
If I was going to buy new lens, I'd choose Summilux ASPH without thinking too much. But Noctilux has lower price on second-hand market and that's what counts for me due to my budget limit.
newyorkone
Established
Olsen said:
My M8 and Noct also backfocuses a little so yes it isn't "perfectly" in focus, but please indulge me by explaining how MY photo is "dull, flat and without contrast?"
Perhaps you would care to show us an example of one of YOUR pictures that isn't so flat and dull.
peter_n
Veteran
Nice pic Steve and I hope that's crown green bowling you're shooting there... 😉
sunsworth
Well-known
peter_n said:
Yes it is, I'd be betraying my northern heritage if it wasn't <grin>
peter_n
Veteran
Yes indeed. 🙂 OT but it was the large white dot in front of the bowler on the right that made me wonder, I thought it might be a white jack. When I played the jacks in the north were black/brown and essentially miniature versions of the regular woods with a bias on one side. The softy southerners used to play with a white jack with no bias.
Olsen
Well-known
Steve,newyorkone said:
My point is that Summilux is a better lense (Wish I had one) than the technically 'exclusive' Noctilux. It was not a critique of your photography, - which I think is excellent. Although this particular photo was not such a good example.
Attached is a picture I have taken with my Noctilux. According to the Exif the exposure time is 1/45. I can only guess at the aparture. Possibly a little smaller than 1.0. Nor is this a good example showing that the Summilux is a better (sharper, more contrasty) lense, but it is good at what it is intended for; portraits.
Attachments
Fin
Member
Nocti for me,
With respect to Olsen - the pictures posted on here are quite lovely and demonstrate the Noctilux qualities.
It is a "difficult" lens for sure and requires effort to get the best out of it. That, combined with it's size and weight, puts a lot of people off.
The Noctilux polarises opinion - some love the look - some hate it. Personally, it is the last lens in my line up that I would sell. The lens that stays on my M8 the most is the 24/ 2.8 but I do love nighttime photography (especially nightlife people shots) and for that (and as a standard portrait lens) it's a winner. I think the beauty of the lens for the M8 is that the results can still surprise you, both negatively and positively - like film used to do! and that keeps you on your toes
With respect to Olsen - the pictures posted on here are quite lovely and demonstrate the Noctilux qualities.
It is a "difficult" lens for sure and requires effort to get the best out of it. That, combined with it's size and weight, puts a lot of people off.
The Noctilux polarises opinion - some love the look - some hate it. Personally, it is the last lens in my line up that I would sell. The lens that stays on my M8 the most is the 24/ 2.8 but I do love nighttime photography (especially nightlife people shots) and for that (and as a standard portrait lens) it's a winner. I think the beauty of the lens for the M8 is that the results can still surprise you, both negatively and positively - like film used to do! and that keeps you on your toes
Ororaro
Well-known
Olsen,
That is your own opinion. I don't really feel like debating over this but if you insist, please post your samples and prove your lens is not a dud.
The Noctilux is the lens that probably exhibits the highest contrast wide open out of all the lenses on the planet except a very few.
I shoot the noctilux on a daily basis. Here's a wide open shot. The contrast and sharpness are incredible. No focus shift at any range on my sample. If your lens is differnt then my perfect sample, it's a dud and I stand by that.
That is your own opinion. I don't really feel like debating over this but if you insist, please post your samples and prove your lens is not a dud.
The Noctilux is the lens that probably exhibits the highest contrast wide open out of all the lenses on the planet except a very few.
I shoot the noctilux on a daily basis. Here's a wide open shot. The contrast and sharpness are incredible. No focus shift at any range on my sample. If your lens is differnt then my perfect sample, it's a dud and I stand by that.
Last edited:
newyorkone
Established
Olsen said:
I quite like your photo actually...great moment captured. Not every shot has to be museum material 🙂
I think what this boils down to is different strokes for different folks. Some people prefer the lower contrast pre ASPH Leica designs and others love the ASPH glass which is more contrasty. For me, I am of the former. Is either lens type better than the other? Well, better is so subjective so I will leave that distinction up to the eyes of the beholder.
Anyway, Instead of saying that the Noct is flat, dull and without contrast it might have been better to have said that the Noct is not as punchy and contrasty as the 50 lux ASPH. I couldn't argue with the latter but the former is sure to insight arguments and flaming. No offense taken and hopefully none by you as well.
Happy shooting...
P.S. The photo I posted was straight out of the camera with only a JPEG conversion. I figured it wouldn't be fair to argue my point if I had touched it up.
washy21
Established
I'm just been reading all the comments and can I thank you for all the posts. I had a conversation today with a UK Leica store who had in stock both lenses.
The shop owner seemed adament that the Summi was by far the better lens. He said that in his opinion the ASPH Summi is arguably the best 50mm ever made.
Of course he did go onto say that the Nocti does however produce an image which is perhaps one of a kind.
I must admit that at the moment I'm leaning towards the Summilux. I'm going to make a decison soon and spend some money.
The shop owner seemed adament that the Summi was by far the better lens. He said that in his opinion the ASPH Summi is arguably the best 50mm ever made.
Of course he did go onto say that the Nocti does however produce an image which is perhaps one of a kind.
I must admit that at the moment I'm leaning towards the Summilux. I'm going to make a decison soon and spend some money.
Honus
carpe diem
Washy,
Take a look at this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23690
Both lenses have a lot to offer. I've never regretted going for the Summilux.
Take a look at this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23690
Both lenses have a lot to offer. I've never regretted going for the Summilux.
Olsen
Well-known
newyorkone said:
Sure, it boils down to taste and what you intend to use the lense for. 'Punchy and contrasty' is about the words that Sean Reid uses about the Summilux. I rarely do child portraits, or portraits at all. I do more landscape and 'cityscapes'.
Tony C.
Established
As others have suggested, there really is no correct answer, as they are both superb lenses with different qualities. The Noctilux is more limited (i.e. specialized), but at the same time has a unique signature which many (myself included) love.
Also, as Steve has shown beautifully with some of his work, the Noctilux is hardly limited to low light excellence. In fact, I've used it most often in daylight.
Here are a couple of recent examples:
http://mtanga.com/singleimage7.htm
http://mtanga.com/singleimage9.htm
http://mtanga.com/singleimage11.htm
Regards,
Tony C.
Also, as Steve has shown beautifully with some of his work, the Noctilux is hardly limited to low light excellence. In fact, I've used it most often in daylight.
Here are a couple of recent examples:
http://mtanga.com/singleimage7.htm
http://mtanga.com/singleimage9.htm
http://mtanga.com/singleimage11.htm
Regards,
Tony C.
Fin
Member
Tony C. said:
And there it is - a wonderful portrait and a couple of isolation shots - all in good light. The lens is capable of this - with work, like I said. It's also capable of taking shots that no other lens can - if you can see it, you can shoot it - being a good maxim for this lens
Hacker
黑客
Olsen said:
I have to agree with Olsen on this one. Just looking at the picture alone, it tells me OOF is beautifully rendered with the Nocti, but the foucs on the eyes are out and the colors are more pastel like than contrasty. Maybe a different example would be better?
Can someone post a color shot? The B&W pix of the bus is nice though.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
jackal2513
richbroadbent
foto_fool
Well-known
I traded a very nice Canon 50/0.95 for a Type 1 Summilux (plus some cold hard cash! 😉) and have been very satisfied. I am going to miss the extra stop for about one shot in 100, and get five times as many shots to work with because the Summilux is so much easier to carry around casually. I have kept my 75mm Summilux but admit I don't carry it that much because it is big (as you might expect I'm no fan of the prosumer digi's with their big zooms). I envy Ned the ability to shoot all day with the big Noctilux.
I love the look of the 50/1.4 Summilux wide open:
...or maybe it's just the model.
I also am a fan of the Summarit:
I just don't miss the extra stop. John - maybe you really need it, but convince yourself you REALLY need it.
- John
I love the look of the 50/1.4 Summilux wide open:
...or maybe it's just the model.
I also am a fan of the Summarit:
I just don't miss the extra stop. John - maybe you really need it, but convince yourself you REALLY need it.
- John
