P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
I am going to purchase this lens at some point, mostly likely when I have saved enough money from my 'lunch money' each week.
I know there are several variations and versions. I would like to know the differences and pros and cons of each.
Please, no replies about why this lens is stupid, ridiculous, over-priced, etc. I do not view the Noctilux and its price any different from buying a $10,000 Nikkor 600mm f4.0, which no one blinks twice about buying if you need or want one.
Thanks,
I know there are several variations and versions. I would like to know the differences and pros and cons of each.
Please, no replies about why this lens is stupid, ridiculous, over-priced, etc. I do not view the Noctilux and its price any different from buying a $10,000 Nikkor 600mm f4.0, which no one blinks twice about buying if you need or want one.
Thanks,
Jungle Jim
Leica Fat Old Men's Club
The first version has a removable plastic slotted hood. Same hood as on the 75mm Summilux. Hard to find and expensive if you lose this. First version Nocti also has a 58mm diamerter lens which makes filters much cheaper and easier to get. I think all the versions use the exact same glass formula, just different lens coatings over the years, as technology progressed.
BTW, the Leica M5 has an Effective Base Length of 49.32 mm, according to Gandy's website. I do not know what the Zeiss Ikon ZM is, but this will affect your critical close focusing with either the Noctilux or 75mm summilux. Maybe someone who has a Zeiss ZM can chime in.
Best Wishes.
BTW, the Leica M5 has an Effective Base Length of 49.32 mm, according to Gandy's website. I do not know what the Zeiss Ikon ZM is, but this will affect your critical close focusing with either the Noctilux or 75mm summilux. Maybe someone who has a Zeiss ZM can chime in.
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
Livesteamer
Well-known
I have the first version Noctilux with the removeable lens shade. I like it very much and suspect the removeable shade is more effective than the built in one on later versions. I had also heard that all versions were the same optically. I have only used this first version. Joe
Freakscene
Obscure member
The first version is f1.2 and has an aspherical element - it is less useful as a general purpose lens than the later f1 versions. You can consider all the f1 versions optically equivalent although the newer they are, the more up-to-date the coating technology is likely to be (Leica seems to change this without any fanfare or advertising). If you have lenses with 58 or 60 mm filters this may influence your choice.
Any Leica M or the Zeiss Ikon will focus a Nocti fine: the M3, 0.85 viewfinder versions and the Zeiss Ikon tend to work better because the effective RF base length is longer, but a lot of this also depends on your eyesight.
Marty
Any Leica M or the Zeiss Ikon will focus a Nocti fine: the M3, 0.85 viewfinder versions and the Zeiss Ikon tend to work better because the effective RF base length is longer, but a lot of this also depends on your eyesight.
Marty
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
My apologies, I should have clarified that I want to compare the various versions of the f1,0.
Since the Noctilux f1,0 has the same optical formula, we can assume that there is little difference in optical quality. But is there a practical difference in the various coatings, such as better flare control, different color renditions, higher or lower contrast, etc.
I have no other lenses with either 58mm or 60mm filters, so that is not a factor in my choice.
Just a note of interest. I shoot mostly very low speed B&W, such as Efke KB25, Rollei Pan 25, etc. When I do shoot color, I use either Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50 when I have to.
Thanks
Since the Noctilux f1,0 has the same optical formula, we can assume that there is little difference in optical quality. But is there a practical difference in the various coatings, such as better flare control, different color renditions, higher or lower contrast, etc.
I have no other lenses with either 58mm or 60mm filters, so that is not a factor in my choice.
Just a note of interest. I shoot mostly very low speed B&W, such as Efke KB25, Rollei Pan 25, etc. When I do shoot color, I use either Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50 when I have to.
Thanks
furcafe
Veteran
I was in your position many years ago & opted for the 3rd version (2nd f/1 version) because I preferred the clip-on 12544 hood (same as the contemporaneous 75/1.4 Summilux) to the prior bayonet & the subsequent built-in.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
That is almost hilarious that you buy a $5000 lens and grab the hacksaw to remove the hood!! Seems that was a bit of a design blunder...
As for a M body, I am looking at getting a M5 specifically to use with the Noctilux 50/1 and the Nokton 35/1.2. The slightly larger body size seems to handle better with large, heavy lenses. The ZI would be a good option also.
How many versions of the Noctilux f1 were there?
As for a M body, I am looking at getting a M5 specifically to use with the Noctilux 50/1 and the Nokton 35/1.2. The slightly larger body size seems to handle better with large, heavy lenses. The ZI would be a good option also.
How many versions of the Noctilux f1 were there?
MikeL
Go Fish
Gutsy Mr. Miller, starting a Noctilux thread. 
My understanding of the f1.0 lens:
First version had a removable hood with slots for the pegs on the lens sides, E58.
Second version had a removable hood with slots for the pegs, with E60.
Third version was still E60, but no pegs and the hood could be reversed to snap on inverted.
Fourth version with built-in hood, E60.
Formula was the same, but, as always, there's lore about 'coating changes'. I doubt anyone's shot enough images from early and later types to tell a difference. That's too crazy even for Leica folks!
Edit: P.S. Hephaestus, I hope you are still enjoying the one I sold you!
My understanding of the f1.0 lens:
First version had a removable hood with slots for the pegs on the lens sides, E58.
Second version had a removable hood with slots for the pegs, with E60.
Third version was still E60, but no pegs and the hood could be reversed to snap on inverted.
Fourth version with built-in hood, E60.
Formula was the same, but, as always, there's lore about 'coating changes'. I doubt anyone's shot enough images from early and later types to tell a difference. That's too crazy even for Leica folks!
Edit: P.S. Hephaestus, I hope you are still enjoying the one I sold you!
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
The version before the current built-in hood version can take the same clip-on hood as the 21mm Elmarit non asph. This is what I am using now. With the shorter hood on it is about the same size as the current version with the hood fully extended. With the Noctilux so flare resistant I feel the large standard hood is not necessary. The smaller hood can also protect the lens from impact.
furcafe
Veteran
I did not know about 2 different slot/bayonet versions, so I guess mine is the 3rd f/1!
Gutsy Mr. Miller, starting a Noctilux thread.
My understanding of the f1.0 lens:
First version had a removable hood with slots for the pegs on the lens sides, E58.
Second version had a removable hood with slots for the pegs, with E60.
Third version was still E60, but no pegs and the hood could be reversed to snap on inverted.
Fourth version with built-in hood, E60.
. . .
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Over the decades I have "cycled" through all the versions of the Noctilux. The f1.2 is a collectors item - not that good and sample variations between individual lenses.
Version 1 with the sep. hood ( I tend to lump the three versions of sep. hoods as one version). This is a better ergonomic design, though the hood is fragile and expensive to replace. The small chome pins on the lens barrel also has a tendency to unscrew themseves and get lost. The hood cracks and chips if banged against something. The Noctilux is surprisingly flare resistant though and shooting without a hood is Ok in most situations.
The last version with the collapsible hood is simply stupid! The hood does not stay extended and even the slightest bump will push it in and expose the front element! I drilled three holes and tapped them and locked the hood in extended position on that one.
There was really no changes to the Noctlux over the decades - some minor upgrade to coating, but no significant change in performance. Since 1995 the glass was made by Elcan/Rayethon almost under duress. The contract with Leica stipulated that they had to supply them with it.
The good thing with Noctiluxes is that they were always permium priced and the owners tended to take care of them, even to the point of using UV filters on them!!
It is actually a very long production run - almost 35 years with virtually only cosmetic changes to the barrel and hood.
I would wait to buy one for another 3-6 month as Leica is most likely going to introduce a 50mm f0.9 at Photokina and that will drive the used prices down as many "must have the latest" will flog off the f1.0 for the f0.9's and flood the market.
Version 1 with the sep. hood ( I tend to lump the three versions of sep. hoods as one version). This is a better ergonomic design, though the hood is fragile and expensive to replace. The small chome pins on the lens barrel also has a tendency to unscrew themseves and get lost. The hood cracks and chips if banged against something. The Noctilux is surprisingly flare resistant though and shooting without a hood is Ok in most situations.
The last version with the collapsible hood is simply stupid! The hood does not stay extended and even the slightest bump will push it in and expose the front element! I drilled three holes and tapped them and locked the hood in extended position on that one.
There was really no changes to the Noctlux over the decades - some minor upgrade to coating, but no significant change in performance. Since 1995 the glass was made by Elcan/Rayethon almost under duress. The contract with Leica stipulated that they had to supply them with it.
The good thing with Noctiluxes is that they were always permium priced and the owners tended to take care of them, even to the point of using UV filters on them!!
It is actually a very long production run - almost 35 years with virtually only cosmetic changes to the barrel and hood.
I would wait to buy one for another 3-6 month as Leica is most likely going to introduce a 50mm f0.9 at Photokina and that will drive the used prices down as many "must have the latest" will flog off the f1.0 for the f0.9's and flood the market.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I have the E60 version with the slotted bayonet hood. When buying this version, checking locking springs inside the hood is advisable. In my case they were missing and the hood became loose at slightly higher temperatures.
The Noctilux is nearly free from flare but not anymore with a protecting filter mounted ... (I use a Leica E60 UVa filter).
The Noctilux is nearly free from flare but not anymore with a protecting filter mounted ... (I use a Leica E60 UVa filter).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If there are coating variations -- and I am not sure there are -- then the biggest single difference would be that the later coatings are even tougher, a side benefit of a change in coating technology that was brought in mainly for speed of coating. I do not think that either this or any change in coating efficiency would be significant.
As for a new Noctilux -- be it f/1, f/0.95, f/0.9, according to which story you believe -- I'm not sure it would drive down prices of the old one, simply because of the unique look of the original.
Can't see what all the fuss is about on the late retractable-hood version: works fine for me.
Cheers,
R.
As for a new Noctilux -- be it f/1, f/0.95, f/0.9, according to which story you believe -- I'm not sure it would drive down prices of the old one, simply because of the unique look of the original.
Can't see what all the fuss is about on the late retractable-hood version: works fine for me.
Cheers,
R.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
MikeL,
Yes, I am well aware of the punishment of Noctilux thread starters...
TomA,
Thanks for your insights. I still have to fund the purchase of the Noctilux, which will take at least 6 months or so, it would be nice as buyer to see the price to come down within my reach... we will see.
Roger,
I will hopefully have the opportunity to handle a few different variations and be able to decide which works better for me. Somehow I doubt, because at the going price of the Noctilux, I will buy the lens that I can afford at the time regardless of the version.
Thanks to all for the comments and advice...
Yes, I am well aware of the punishment of Noctilux thread starters...
TomA,
Thanks for your insights. I still have to fund the purchase of the Noctilux, which will take at least 6 months or so, it would be nice as buyer to see the price to come down within my reach... we will see.
Roger,
I will hopefully have the opportunity to handle a few different variations and be able to decide which works better for me. Somehow I doubt, because at the going price of the Noctilux, I will buy the lens that I can afford at the time regardless of the version.
Thanks to all for the comments and advice...
edhohoho
Established
I personally don't like using hoods because on fast lenses they tend to be large and even more obtrusive than the lens itself. For me, the removable hood is just another thing to lose or break...or rather, another thing to keep at home. And good luck trying to find a genuine replacement hood as time goes on. Sure, the built-in hood does not look all that useful, but it's there if you need it and is a neglible hindrance if you don't.
I wouldn't think that the recently discontinued Noctilux will decrease that much in price. The demand is still there, it's just there aren't many out there to begin with, let alone ones at reasonable prices. Once the Noctilux successor comes out, there may be more of the older lenses changing hands, but the demand will still be high because most likely not everyone will be able to get their hands on the latest and greatest for a while, let alone afford the surely heftier price of the new lens. And as mentioned above, there's no guarantee that the new lens will have the same or dramatically better signature than the old one.
Regardless, the thought of a new, ultra-fast Leica lens is very exciting!
I wouldn't think that the recently discontinued Noctilux will decrease that much in price. The demand is still there, it's just there aren't many out there to begin with, let alone ones at reasonable prices. Once the Noctilux successor comes out, there may be more of the older lenses changing hands, but the demand will still be high because most likely not everyone will be able to get their hands on the latest and greatest for a while, let alone afford the surely heftier price of the new lens. And as mentioned above, there's no guarantee that the new lens will have the same or dramatically better signature than the old one.
Regardless, the thought of a new, ultra-fast Leica lens is very exciting!
Freakscene
Obscure member
Since the Noctilux f1,0 has the same optical formula, we can assume that there is little difference in optical quality. But is there a practical difference in the various coatings, such as better flare control, different color renditions, higher or lower contrast, etc.
I agree with Roger - the only difference is likely to be in hardness - I have shot with both the detachable hood E58 and the newest E60 versions extensively and can perceive no practical differences. If you experience flare you are either using a filter or the lens is dirty. A clean, unfiltered Nocti is incredibly difficult to induce flare from.
Just a note of interest. I shoot mostly very low speed B&W, such as Efke KB25, Rollei Pan 25, etc. When I do shoot color, I use either Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50 when I have to.
The old E58 Nocti I have has a slightly warmer (more red) transmission spectrum than the E60 I tested, but this could be individual samples or changes in the glass with time. It is most likely due to coating changes. I should also point out that it would be unlikely that you could see this difference on transparencies. The difference was by measured transmission spectrum using a reversion spectroscope.
I doubt anyone's shot enough images from early and later types to tell a difference. That's too crazy even for Leica folks!
I have. I compared M8 and monochrome film images from an E58 and the latest E60 in a number of ways. That makes me crazier than all of you. Excellent. I knew I deserved my forum name.
Marty
I agree with Roger - the only difference is likely to be in hardness - I have shot with both the detachable hood E58 and the newest E60 versions extensively and can perceive no practical differences. If you experience flare you are either using a filter or the lens is dirty. A clean, unfiltered Nocti is incredibly difficult to induce flare from.
Just a note of interest. I shoot mostly very low speed B&W, such as Efke KB25, Rollei Pan 25, etc. When I do shoot color, I use either Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50 when I have to.
The old E58 Nocti I have has a slightly warmer (more red) transmission spectrum than the E60 I tested, but this could be individual samples or changes in the glass with time. It is most likely due to coating changes. I should also point out that it would be unlikely that you could see this difference on transparencies. The difference was by measured transmission spectrum using a reversion spectroscope.
I doubt anyone's shot enough images from early and later types to tell a difference. That's too crazy even for Leica folks!
I have. I compared M8 and monochrome film images from an E58 and the latest E60 in a number of ways. That makes me crazier than all of you. Excellent. I knew I deserved my forum name.
Marty
Last edited:
pfoto
Well-known
I have an E58 v1 that I waited a long time for 2 or 3 years ago. They didn't come on the market too often even then. I sent it and my 0.85x MP to DAG for the lens to be CLA'd and matched with the cam and I just love the combination. I bought the E58 for what I perceive as perhaps better build quality back then, slightly smaller diameter and a more convenient filter size. I got this particular lens in an estate sale and it seemed to be unused and with a UV filter on the front. I was very lucky. I use mine with a small B+H lens hood on the front for protection.
I use mine with a small B+H lens hood on the front for protection.Vickko
Veteran
No comment about the Noctilux, but I notice your choice of using it with the M5. That is my favourite M combination, as the larger size of the M5 balances perfectly with the Noctilux.
The smaller M's are dwarfed by the Noctilux, even worse with the CL.
My other super-fast combo is the Nikon SP with 50/1.1 External Mount.
Vick
The smaller M's are dwarfed by the Noctilux, even worse with the CL.
My other super-fast combo is the Nikon SP with 50/1.1 External Mount.
Vick
Prosaic
Well-known
Well, if there was a $1,000 Nikkor 600mm f5.6 people would...
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Sorry for the silence, been travelling and taking photos for a few days.
Thanks for the advice and opinions from everyone. I am guessing that I would be prefer an older Noctilux if I have a choise. But the in reality, I will buy the lens I can afford.
Now the hard part... being patient while the saving account grows!
Marty, thanks for your experience with the different versions. I will definitely not notice the difference between the variations according to your findings.
Vick, the SP with the 50/1.1 is a enviable low-light kit. And glad to hear your experience with the M5 is favourable.
Thanks for the advice and opinions from everyone. I am guessing that I would be prefer an older Noctilux if I have a choise. But the in reality, I will buy the lens I can afford.
Now the hard part... being patient while the saving account grows!
Marty, thanks for your experience with the different versions. I will definitely not notice the difference between the variations according to your findings.
Vick, the SP with the 50/1.1 is a enviable low-light kit. And glad to hear your experience with the M5 is favourable.