Noctilux question

[drewflorida]

I currently have an M9 with a non-6-bit 50mm 1.4 Summilux and it works just fine. I know I want a Noctilux, and I know I want 6 bit, I'm trying to decide between an F/1.0 and F/0.95 and keep finding either very old outdated information, or mis-information, but can't find a true side-by-side comparison anywhere. Does anyone here know of one? I'm trading in a couple of little used Hsselblad lenses towards the Noctilux and am trying to figure out just how much difference there is FOR REAL between the f1 and f0.95.

Anyone here had the luxury of both in their hands at the same time and taken comparison pictures? I am trying to understand, other than bragging rights and .05 faster, what the extra $5k or so really buys? Is there a MASSIVE noticeable performance difference? I'm not sure my eyes are even good enough to focus so perfectly as to notice a minor difference, but could I be completely wrong?

Thanks in advance.

 

[35mmdelux]

I thought the 50 Noct pre-asph pretty awsome. The new .95 is supposedly sharper but in handheld lowlight work is it worth an additional $5 Grand. I doubt it. I've seen comp shots, but not lowlight where these lenses excel. Good luck -

 

[Livesteamer]

Look up Erwin Puts. He has a website. He has written comparisons of the two lenses. As I recall, the new Noctilux is improved some but not radically. I have an early Noctilux and it's wonderful. Joe

 

[maddoc]

From the few example photos that I have seen in web-size (mainly LUF members and some examples at flickr), my impression is that the new 50/0.95 ASPH is very close to the 50/1.4 ASPH while the old 50/1.0 is more similar to the 50/1.4 pre-ASPH. I had the pre-ASPH 50mm Summilux-M and now have the 50/1.0. I like the rendering of the old Noctilux a lot, having it used with M8 and various film M Leicas, so I would not opt for the new 50/0.95 ASPH.

 

[35mmdelux]

I was not a believer in the Noct pre-ASPH until I owned a copy recently. It is truly a distinctive and great performer. I took some remarkable portaits in my test of the lens; it handled color in a way I've not seen with other glass.

 

[bo_lorentzen]

Vic,

The first comparison is very interesting. the interesting thing is how the new 0.95 really is more clinical, for me the older is the choice for environmental portraits.

The second link... in my personal experience, that image is just not big enough to really tell me anything about the lens.


Bo

www.bophoto.typepad.com

 

[anorphirith]

the 0.95 is SO much sharper and the image quality is so much better

 

[Freakscene]

Anyone here had the luxury of both in their hands at the same time and taken comparison pictures? I am trying to understand, other than bragging rights and .05 faster, what the extra $5k or so really buys? Is there a MASSIVE noticeable performance difference? I'm not sure my eyes are even good enough to focus so perfectly as to notice a minor difference, but could I be completely wrong?

I have an f1.0 and used a 0.95 for several weeks for a review. My shots from the latter lens, however, are still under an NDA from the group that I reviewed the lens for. The 0.95 ASPH has much less focus shift, a flatter field and higher contrast wide open. This is probably a result of Leica designing the new lens to have imaging characteristics that match the rest of the ASPH lenses. The 0.95 does flare more than the older lens, however. There are plenty of shots from the 1.0 in my gallery: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/?g2_page=2 including a small gallery just of 1.0 Nocti photos: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Noctilux/.

>the 0.95 is SO much sharper and the image quality is so much better

There actually isn't much difference in the MTF charts for the two lenses at comparable apertures. On an M8 or M9 the lower focus shift of the 0.95 might make you think that you have a much sharper lens.

Marty