The curse of expensive equipment?

[YYV_146]

I've never owned a Noctilux so this is just based on what I've read online. However, reviews I've seen say it is decent in the centre wide open but soft at the edges. Bokeh is OK in the centre and strange at the edges. It's obviously fast but I don't see where the high-performance (speed aside) comes in. The lens blocks around a fifth of the field in the viewfinder. It may be excellent stopped down but so are many lenses!

You can get much the same optical performance from, say, a 50mm (same focal length) f1.2 Zuiko for around £300 as opposed to what a Noctilux costs so about 5% rather than 2.5%. OK, you're around a half-stop slower but you get not far off 100% viewfinder coverage as compensation. I would certainly expect the Noctilux to perform a little better than the Zuiko (don't know, just guessing) but I'm sure the Zuiko would deliver around the same overall performance in terms of sharpness and bokeh (the Olympus has better bokeh) and DoF.

Please don't think I'm knocking the Noctilux: it's a magnificent beast. I'm just saying that those of us on a more restricted budget needn't feel like we have to miss out on anything.

Performance degrades significantly only at the outermost 20% of the frame, which IMO wouldn't be in focus anyways. The lens is very nearly as good as the 50lux ASPH at F1.4, with similar Bokeh and overall sharpness. The Bokeh argument may be true, as I can see many pre-asph lenses with better bokeh than modern designs (Mandler 90mm f2 verses 90 Apo ASPH).

I can't see the point of using super-fast lenses on an M. The RF mechanism can get knocked out of alignment, and with my glasses I find it very difficult to judge precise focus with the RF patch. If I am using an M I would have stayed with a slower 50 - I use EVF cameras, which allow precise focus and free composition by zooming in on any part of the frame. There are, of course, also no blockage issues.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Just think what fantastic places you could travel to for the cost of that lens...

Chris

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Rikenon will produce better photos in the hands of a good photographer than the Noctilux will in the hands of an "also ran" photographer. The Rikenon basically amounts to as much as the photographer.

Much to my chagrin (otherwise I'd be using a lovely Leica M film camera of some description) I don't get on with rangefinders so the Noctilux wouldn't figure in any camera outfit I'd have even if I could afford one.

However, consider its cons: blocks the viewfinder, weighs a ton, hopeless edges until f2.8, loads of vignetting at wide apertures. Now consider it's main pro against that of a cheaper lens:

DoF 50mm Noctilux f1 @ 3 metres 21.3cm
DoF 58mm Rokkor f1.2 @ 3 metres 18.7cm

I'm a libertarian and believe people should be able to make their own choices so good luck to the OP with the Noctilux. However, if you can't afford one then don't think that you can't produce around the same results for approximately 2.5% of the price.

Highlight 1: Does anyone dispute this?

Highlight 2: "around the same results" are not the same as "the same results" with a different lens and a different camera. I do not say I would take better pictures with a Noctilux on an M. I would however strongly maintain that they'd be different pictures.

The DoF figures are completely meaningless unless they are predicated on the same circle of confusion. If they are, then they are only substantially meaningless.

Cheers,

R

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Highlight 1: Does anyone dispute this?

Highlight 2: "around the same results" are not the same as "the same results" with a different lens and a different camera. I do not say I would take better pictures with a Noctilux on an M. I would however strongly maintain that they'd be different pictures.

The DoF figures are completely meaningless unless they are predicated on the same circle of confusion. If they are, then they are only substantially meaningless.

Cheers,

R

Highlight 2: you would probably take different pictures using the same Noctilux on different M cameras unless both had been set up carefully for it. Unless your rangefinder is spot on and hasn't yet had a knock you'll be lucky to get what you think you've focused on at f1 or f0.9 actually in focus.

Clearly, there would be differences between the Noctilux and an f1.2 Zuiko but no more than and probably less than, say, images taken on an OM1 and 50mm f1.8 and an XD7 and 50mm f2. In other words, not identical but around the same.

The DoF figures can be looked up on any online DoF calculator. They are calculations based on optical laws and, being numbers, have only the meaning you care to attach to them. You can dismiss them if you want but they wont go away. 🙂

 

[michaelwj]

Hi,

I never realised, until I read all the advice offered, just how many of you were single...

Regards, David

Ahh, the days when my money was mine are long gone.
Saving for a zeiss 50 at the moment, should be able to afford it next year some time, $50 a fortnight limit, including film and chems. But I have other priorities, so I don't begrudge it.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Kwesi]

Victor! Don't let the haters bog you down with numbers and charts and justifications and all that nonsense. You own a freakin' Noctilux man! Get out there and suck every ounce of light out of the night. Right there in Durham. If you need any inspiration pick up a copy of Roy de Carava's " The Sound I saw". And oh by the way congratulations!

 

[hepcat]

I can't see the point of using super-fast lenses on an M. The RF mechanism can get knocked out of alignment, and with my glasses I find it very difficult to judge precise focus with the RF patch. If I am using an M I would have stayed with a slower 50 - I use EVF cameras, which allow precise focus and free composition by zooming in on any part of the frame. There are, of course, also no blockage issues.

I use the Nokton 50 f/1.1 and 35 f/1.2 with my M9P with some success. I shot a wedding reception in a very dimly lit hall without flash last weekend. I couldn't have done it with the VC Nokton f/1.5 or a Summilux. The point of using super-fast lenses on an M is the same as having high-iso on cameras that don't have super-fast lenses available. They're both ways of accomplishing the same thing.

 

[Monochrom]

I´ve got rid of all my expensive gear....now i only keep my M9 because it has already payed almost 80% of it´s price...

And now i have a redscale elmar and waiting for an orion15 to go wide.

I see no use for lenses over 400 usd,

In fact all my best pictures are made with collapsible and small lenses.

Noctiluxes are made to shoot hydrants and benches in parks at night.

What´s the point of having a leica if you cannot put it in a pocket.

 

[noisycheese]

It's called jealousy...

Some folks can't understand that personal choice is just that...

the only "curse" of owning and shooting with costly cameras and lenses that I know of is the haters that the equipment seems to attract like moths to a flame and their remarks they feel compelled to make. Fortunately most of them lurk about the interweb forums; few make their remarks face to face.

I drive a Toyota; I like high end cars. It would be great to have a Mercedes-Benz - but I can't afford one. So what?? My happiness and contentment is not contingent upon owning a Mercedes.

I am intelligent and mature enough to understand that hating the Mercedes-Benz company, Mercedes automobiles and/or those who can afford them is a pointless exercise in futility which will result in nothing other than my living a life of self-inflicted misery.

It is unfortunate that those who hate Leica cameras (or Hasselblad, or Alpa, or Phase One or Ebony) and those who own them based solely on the fact that they want a Leica but can't afford one at the moment cannot grasp that reality.

 

[Lauffray]

I am a PRC citizen with resident status in Hong Kong (but no Hong Kong citizenship), so I will need a EU travel visa, which (knowing from the last time I was in the EU, France to be exact) is a pain to get. There is definitely some kind of proof of affordability (bank statement up to $50k) involved just in case you want to be an illegal immigrant, and people as young as me usually don't have that much spare money lying around.

In the US I have a work visa - which itself is enough hassle for any person to live with.

Visas of any kind are a massive pain, I hear you man.

When I was a student, I scraped a little bit off internships and small jobs, saved and gave up some things until I could buy my first (second hand) Leica. I was so proud at the end I showed it to some of my friends, I remember one guy in particular noting how I must be rich, asking if my parents bought it for me or something.

Forget people, there's always going to be someone to tell you that what you're doing is a terrible idea. Did I feel a pang of guilt taking that money away from other "more useful" things in a student's life ? A little bit, but I was so happy anyway none of it mattered

 

[Phil_F_NM]

One thing good about buying expensive gear is that when you need to eat and pay the bills and the economy has tanked, gear has been stolen, bureau has closed, you can sell the gear to feed and shelter yourself.

As for a high performance superspeed lens other than the various Noctili, there are a bunch. Any of the Canon 50mm L lenses. The 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor is great in both Ai and AiS versions. The 58mm Noct Nikkor is quite possibly better than the Noctilux. As for it being a 58mm, it's just under that and the Noctilux is a 51.6mm lens. Splitting hairs, yes but the variation in nominal focal length between manufacturers' 50mm offerings is over about a 5mm spread. The Noctilux of any vintage is not the definition of high performance or technical perfection. That is all subjective according to the eye of the user. For example, there are many technically better 21mm lenses but I prefer the pure non-retrofocal Biogon formulations. It's just the way I prefer to shoot. I don't bother with trying to tell people why I prefer it, I just go out and make photos with my gear.

Phil Forrest

 

[farlymac]

I don't envy, pity, or think the OP is an idiot for wanting such a lens. More power to him. Maybe we can get together for an RFf Mid-Atlantic meet-up some day, and he can show me his rig. I'll show off my Leidolf gear, and someone else will bring their Canon LTM, or Nikon RF. And we'll all be happy for each other. Gear is great.

PF

 

[michaelwj]

I don't envy, pity, or think the OP is an idiot for wanting such a lens. More power to him. Maybe we can get together for an RFf Mid-Atlantic meet-up some day, and he can show me his rig. I'll show off my Leidolf gear, and someone else will bring their Canon LTM, or Nikon RF. And we'll all be happy for each other. Gear is great.

PF

Amen. So are people. Just like gear, there is a huge variety of them, and they all have their place.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[YYV_146]

I really love large aperture glass. Back in '93 or '94 I had a Canon USM 50mm f/1 L lens. It was absolutely the most gorgeous thing I'd ever seen. And I used it twice in the two years I owned it 'cause it weighed over two pounds itself. Attached to an EOS1 with battery grip, the whole camera was like carrying a five pound bag of flour around... not pleasant, and certainly was not a neck-camera. I bought it for a couple of thousand dollars and made about $500 on it when I sold it. I'm sure if I'd kept it I could have doubled my money today. But it still wouldn't have gotten used.

These two quotes hit it on the head. I have the Voigtlander f/1.1 rather than a Noctilux because every nickel I spend on equipment is a nickel that isn't income. I look for the best buys in equipment that will do the jobs I need to do. It would take a LOT of paid work to make up the <roughly> $8,000 difference between the Nokton and Noctilux; and for me, the Nokton's performance is perfectly acceptable and brings home the images. Actually I have several CV lenses rather than the "official" lenses for that reason.

I'd rather pour my money into a 21' long hole in the water surrounded by fiberglass that I own. Or on bikes.

That doesn't mean that anyone else should share my perspective about either lenses or boats, nor would I ever tell anyone that their choices are bad because I declare it to be. Frankly I really don't give a sh*t what anyone else thinks about my gear. I'm happy with my gear and how it performs and that's all that matters to me. If your gear works for you, more power to you!

The Canon F1 is a great lens. I have seconds thoughts about any motor-driven MF system, so maybe its a very good thing you sold it - these days that lens along with the 200mm F1.8 are practically unserviceable.

Thanks. We all have our soft spots- I like very good chairs, headphones and gaming keyboards. Of course these three put together is still a lot cheaper than Leica...

I use the Nokton 50 f/1.1 and 35 f/1.2 with my M9P with some success. I shot a wedding reception in a very dimly lit hall without flash last weekend. I couldn't have done it with the VC Nokton f/1.5 or a Summilux. The point of using super-fast lenses on an M is the same as having high-iso on cameras that don't have super-fast lenses available. They're both ways of accomplishing the same thing.

I suppose it could be done - I see excellent work made with M cameras and very fast lenses, some that are probably even harder to focus than the Noct. Maybe I'm just not a very good rangefinder user - I don't own any Leica RFs, and only occasionally shoot with a Bessa. But more light is always good; less noise, more processing latitude, and with EVFs the refresh rate doesn't tank so easily.

 

[YYV_146]

I´ve got rid of all my expensive gear....now i only keep my M9 because it has already payed almost 80% of it´s price...

And now i have a redscale elmar and waiting for an orion15 to go wide.

I see no use for lenses over 400 usd,

In fact all my best pictures are made with collapsible and small lenses.

Noctiluxes are made to shoot hydrants and benches in parks at night.

What´s the point of having a leica if you cannot put it in a pocket.

My GM1 kit is pretty good in daylight and is actually pocketable, which can't be said for any Leica system since the screw mount days.

For me Leica is but one of the very good lensmakers, and I like to explore unique lenses with interesting results. Size is relevant if I want to be discreet, but for the most part I don't mind an extra pound or two.

 

[thegman]

I doubt being 'noble' has much to do with it, but I'd rather have $9k worth of traveling than a Noctilux.

That's just me of course.

I do find it hard to believe that anyone has purchased one for practical reasons though. However I also believe that buying one simply because you want one is reason enough.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Victor! Don't let the haters bog you down with numbers and charts and justifications and all that nonsense. You own a freakin' Noctilux man! Get out there and suck every ounce of light out of the night. Right there in Durham. If you need any inspiration pick up a copy of Roy de Carava's " The Sound I saw". And oh by the way congratulations!

Please stop labelling people who have a different opinion from you as "haters". We're talking about cameras and lenses for Pete's sake. The OP actually invited opinions and I'm sure he [can] take any dissenting voices in his stride.

 

[Ansel]

If you have the money and want to spend it on expensive camera gear then who really cares?

My issue with the Notctilux (and similar lenses) is the images it produces: DOF is so narrow that images just look OOF.

Show one to the average person on the street and their reaction would most likely be, hey dude, get a better camera your images are out of focus!

Edit: And yes I have used one.

 

[jimmyp]

Maybe a Nocti is an investment, too. I stretched and got one around 1999 for USD 1600 brand new grey market. I like it, couldn't replace it if it went missing. I still shoot film though , because I don't see digital cameras as long term investments.

 

[apostasiometritis]

I am a PRC citizen with resident status in Hong Kong (but no Hong Kong citizenship), so I will need a EU travel visa, which (knowing from the last time I was in the EU, France to be exact) is a pain to get. There is definitely some kind of proof of affordability (bank statement up to $50k) involved just in case you want to be an illegal immigrant, and people as young as me usually don't have that much spare money lying around.

In the US I have a work visa - which itself is enough hassle for any person to live with.

You will not have a problem, at least not in any of the club med countries. They get boatloads of PRC tourists every year. What I know you cannot do is hop around, i.e. visit Greece, then Italy, then Spain, then France. They will be viewing this with extreme suspicion.

Other categories may suffer... times are funny at the moment in Europe.