Summilux ASPH vs Noctilux

[thomasclarson]

I could use a little help. I am new to the Leica world and am wanting to do exclusive street night shots with my Leica m6. I will only be using natural light and am wondering if I should go with the Summilux ASPH and push the film if needed or go with the Noctilux for the extra stop -- I appreciate any advice.

 

[furcafe]

Depends on your shooting preferences. I don't have the latest Summilux,, but do have plenty of f/1.4 & f/1.5 50s for my Leicas & the Noctilux.

Ask yourself whether you really, really need or want f/1, because you pay a price in lens size & mass to get it (not insurmountable, but real). I need f/1 as an option because I often shoot in extremely "light challenged" (i.e., freakin' dark) conditions, so the extra stop (shooting @ ISO 1600) can mean the difference between a shutter speed of 1/8th sec., where subject motion is a pain in the ass, & 1/15th, where subject motion is slightly less of a problem. Others may want to get the super shallow DoF look that f/1 provides (e.g., a lot of medium & large format shooters get addicted to that look & want to carry it over to 35mm).

 

[35mmdelux]

easy answer: the best lens in your case would be the lux. Its faster to use and has better DOF. The Noct is generally considered (not my words) a "specialty" lens. With the noct you will miss many shots b/c of the DOF and because of the long throw. According to Erwin Puts, the big Leicaphile guru, the sweet spot in the 50mm range is the lux. Also, the Noct is heavy and protrudes deeply into the viewfinder.

 

[Chaser]

You may also look into a 35mm voightlander nokton, at f1.2 it is no slouch and i believe photo village has on eon special for $600 which along side a asph lux would probably still be a little cheaper than the noctilux and get you within 1/2 stop of f1.

 

[EricC]

I have succumbed to the lure of the Noctilux in the past, three times to be precise.

However, I have always ended up selling it after 6 months to a year as it is so large and heavy compared to the majority of other Leica M lenses, that for me totally defeats the object of using a Leica M.

Now i have the 50 f1.4 Summilux instead, only 1 stop slower and slightly larger than a 50 f2 Summicron. The best of both worlds.

Just my personal opinion though. 😉

 

[thomasclarson]

Much appreciated - this helps me a great deal. The shallow depth of field with the Noctilux may be an issue, but I believe that many of my shooting opportunities are going to have extremely poor light conditions. It seems that the Summilux ASPH may be the lens of choice, assuming I can push the film a stop or two. I normally use Fuji NPH 400 in daylight or strobe lighting situations, so this also begs the question of what is the best purpose color film for night shooting with "natural" light?

 

[furcafe]

For black & white, I would go w/Fuji Neopan 1600, for color Fuji NPZ or Press 800 (or the new Pro 800Z).

I normally use Fuji NPH 400 in daylight or strobe lighting situations, so this also begs the question of what is the best purpose color film for night shooting with "natural" light?

 

[Benjamin Marks]

The lenses are very different beasts. I'm not sure that I buy the argument about the razor-thin DOF on the Noct costing you pictures. If you are shooting at f1.4 instead of f1 you will be shooting at half the shutter speed, which may also cost you some keepers. The Summilux Asph is a fabulous lens; I can see the difference in contrast even wide open between it and my other lenses. As a general purpose lens that has a wide variety of uses it is great. The Noct is in another category. It draws in a softer way, it has more coma wide open, it has lower contrast. But by God, when you are shooting in the dark, that extra stop is just magic. I have both lenses and use them for different things. Which one do I use more? The Summilux. Which one would I sell last? the Noct. Logical? Nope.

 

[yossarian]

I had a Noctilux for a short period of time before I had to sell it to pay medical bills.
It's surprisingly sharp at f/1, but contrast is quite low, something you'd never read or hear about the new 1.4. Lens flare and ghosting were prominent and there was noticeable barrel distortion. I bought it just because it was exotic, and paid Don
Chatterton $1600 for it, new in the box (this was 1992). The current 1.4 is likely
the finest lens of its type yet made.

 

[HenningW]

I had a Noctilux for a short period of time before I had to sell it to pay medical bills.
It's surprisingly sharp at f/1, but contrast is quite low, something you'd never read or hear about the new 1.4. Lens flare and ghosting were prominent and there was noticeable barrel distortion. I bought it just because it was exotic, and paid Don
Chatterton $1600 for it, new in the box (this was 1992). The current 1.4 is likely
the finest lens of its type yet made.

I have both lenses, and have had the f/1 since it came out with the 58mm thread. Before that I had the f/1.2, and have had various 50/1.4's and now the ASPH. That's the background.

I would argue strenuously about the flare/ghosting statement above. The Noctilux is about the most flare resistant lens I have ever use; a very large amount better than the older 50/1.4's and Summicrons and even better than the ASPH. It does have lower contrast, but that is what makes it such a wonderful low light lens; that and the very low flare levels mean you get to see into shadows significantly better than with any other lens.

Distortion is about the same as with the older Summilux.

While some people say you should just keep it at f/1, it actually is very good at smaller apertures, and I know some people who use it for landscape work. Having both lenses means that I almost always use the Noctilux at f/1, and try to switch to the ASPH for anything else. The character of the lenses is quite different as others have noted, and the Noctilux is truly optimized for very low light work.

The severe vignetting at f/1 can be bothersome at times, and the long throw definitely makes it harder to handle, but other than that it is outstanding. The fact that it is not quite as sharp as the ASPH is fairly insignificant if you're shooting at 1600 EI at 1/15 sec. Getting a lens and specific body adjusted to each other is a really good idea; and using a .85 body or M3 is also adviseable.

Henning

 

[vizioneer]

Had the noct- no flare. Which one would I choose for low light? Probably the noct LOL. I'd certainly get the lux asph for all-around though and close-focus ability over the noct. The noct doubles your shutter speed and has a nice weight to steady the hand. Nuff said. 😀

 

[thomasclarson]

Are there any tricks to getting accurate focus on Noctilux at f1? I am using an m6 .72 body.

 

[furcafe]

Assuming your 0.72 body is working properly (RF calibrated, etc.), there are no real "tricks," you just have to be careful & be able to previsualize the DoF. When shooting @ f/1, it may help to treat it like you would a short fast telephoto @ f/2 or f/1.4 (there's a reason why it has a long focus throw).

Are there any tricks to getting accurate focus on Noctilux at f1? I am using an m6 .75 body.

 

[sunsworth]

I have to agree that the Nocti is the most flare resistant lens I have. This is the latest built in hood version - but I believe that all the f1 versions are the same optically, perhaps there are differences in the lens coatings.

Steve

 

[Ben Z]

I've got the pre-ASPH Summilux. It flares even less than my 1969 Summicron, which flared a lot less than the latest Summicron (which I sold). I had a chance to shoot my Summilux against the ASPH, and in the conditions I want such a lens for, there was no discernable difference between them. I can't imagine needing or wanting anything better, and for the $600 and change it cost me, it's definitely got bang-for-the-buck all sewed up.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Thomas
there's a very interesting thread on the Noctilux on the Leica Forum with quite a few pics
http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/2/2.html

scroll down till you get to the Noctilux thread


Simon

 

[sgy1962]

The safe bet is the Summilux ASPH. Outstanding picture quality in a fast, compact lens. The Noctilus is really a specialty lens -- its big and heavy for an M lens; the picture quality is not as good; and its only one stop faster. I would only go for the Noctilux if I really needed the extra stop -- if, for example, I anticipated shooting only night time photography. Otherwise go for the Summilux ASPH; its an outstanding lens.

 

[Harry Lime]

I traded my Noctilux for a Summilux pre-asph (this was before the asph was released) for the following reasons:

- The Nocts is big and heavy, by M standards. It weighs about as much as an M body, which was jsut too much for everyday use.

- The focus throw is very long, which made it difficult for me to track action

- The DOF at f1 and 1 meter is about 1 cm. Unless you are aiming at a static subject, good luck. I ended up shooting the lens mostly at f1.4, to make sure things were in focus. Beyond 5 meters you get more DOF, but up close it can get interesting.

- The lens is basically 100% flare proof. In this respect it is absolutely amazing and unmatched by anything else. But I like a little glow inmy shots and found the Noctilux fingerprint a little too sterile for my taste.

But those are my personal opinions. It is a stunning lens and I'm glad I owned it for a period.

 

[StuartR]

I think the people above have pretty much covered the issue, but I will be contrarian and recommend the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. The reason being that it is similar to the 50mm f/1.4 ASPH in its extraordinary performance wide open, and being a 35mm lens it will give you more depth of field and allow you to handhold at a lower shutter speed than the 50mm lenses. The Noctilux is a great lens, but it has a totally different character. If you want to have less literal images, it is a great tool, but if you just want a picture more faithful to the original scene go for a more normal lens like the summiluxes. The C/V f/1.2 is also a good option, but it is noticeably bigger and bulkier, and the 1/2 stop does not make a huge practical difference. I find that in dark situations the lens I reach for is often the 35mm just because it is easier to get sharp pictures with at low shutter speeds (1/8th, 1/4th if things are really dark and I am feeling lucky...of course at 1/4th shots that aren't blurry are soft...at 1/8th and above you can get pretty sharp shots with practice. 1/30th and up and they are razor sharp).

Here is one of the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH taken close to wide open:
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/crab-series8.jpg
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/crab-series4.jpg

Another shot around f/4 or so:
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/jietai-mae.jpg

I think you will appreciate its extra width, particularly for street photography.
And one at ISO 3200...an ISO I can never get good results with. But anyway
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/lauren-eric-pete.jpg


As for 800 speed color films, Fuji NPZ, now Pro800Z is a great film. I was really surprised with it. Here is an example or two taken on a Hexar AF...sorry, they are both from a college party so they feature beer and young women. I hope you will forgive me.
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/dakota.jpg
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/drink-more.jpg

 

[Honus]

Thomas,

Asking to choose between a Noctilux and a Summilux ASPH is like choosing between a Ferrari and an Aston Martin. The right side of the brain chooses the lux. The left side chooses the nocti. Or is it the other way around?

If I were you, I would buy both, take lots of pics, post them here and convince the rest of us to liquidate assets, brainwash spouses and join in on the fun.