To Noctilux or Summilux ASPH

[Rangefinder Man]

Hello All
I have a delemour which 50m lens to get. I generally like shotting under low light, so is it really worth the extra weight of a Noctilux f1? I was also wondering about the look of the ober all image on Noctilux (creamy is what some peole call it) compared to a Summilux ASPH would be like. I though about the summicron 50, but wanted a bit more light down the barrel.
Thanks all!

[Benjamin Marks]

You are going to get, I predict, a lot of different answers about this. The lenses are VERY different in terms of the images they make. Noct puts the premium on speed, Asph puts the premium on sharpness. I like the out of focus areas on the Asph better. Asph is small, Noct is large & heavy for a Leica lens. People will tell you that the Noct is less of a general purpose lens. I have not found this to be true -- it functions fine as a general purpose lens. I think that the question really comes down to how badly you need f1. If you really do, for how you make pictures, then the choice is simple. If you don't, I would buy the Asph and a tripod or monopod.

You can't really make a bad choice -- if you hate what you bought you can re-sell it and buy the other.

good luck

Ben Marks

[telenous]

What Ben said.

The Nocti is more impressionistic wide open. Some users make very potent images using it like that. The Lux 50 Asph. is the great scientist - in dim light it will preserve contrast and detail that your very eyes failed to register.

[rover]

Different lenses, different focal length, but similar discussion here.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...493#post466493

Reputation would say that the Noct is not as sure a general purpose lens, but you should here more from actual users before deciding if that reputation is justly earned.

I did speak to one user, but she is a special case as she only uses it wide open in an artistic way. She was very very happy with her Noct, but as I said, she may be a special case because of the purpose with which she uses it.

[Olsen]

What you are looking for is the Noctilux. I take it that it is hand held photography that you are going to perform. Then the marginally higher sharpness of a Aph is only theoretical anyway.

The Nochtilux is tremedously flexible. You can use it 'all the time'. From bright 'daylight to candlelight'. It produces excellent pictures under normal circumstances and can do things that no other lense can do.

Here on a ZI.

[sleepyhead]

Something I've been curious about: the vignetting with the Noctilux wide-open is well known, but does all/most of this vignetting disappear by f/1.4?

sleepyhead

[MikeL]

There are still some traces of vignetting at f1.4 in the one I used, but you should be able to remove it fairly easily. I think the vignetting is part of it's overall charm when shot wide open.

[sleepyhead]

Thanks Mike.

[kevin m]

If Magus chimes in and says the signatures of these two lenses are "totally different; worlds apart" I won't disagree with him.

[Todd.Hanz]

I know it's not a 50, but the VC 35/1.2 is a great low light performer and everyday lens. It has the "creamy" look wide open, is lighter and smaller than the Noct. and you could probably get it and a used 50/1.4 asph. for the same price as the Noct. IMHO the Noct has a swirly distracting OOF (bokeh, SOFA, whatever)

just a thought,
Todd

[peter_n]

The Noctilux can be used as a general purpose lens provided you are prepared to carry the weight. A grip helps with the camera balance. It is at it's best at f1.0 with those "impressionistic" images as Alkis so aptly puts it. If you are simply interested in speed get the Summilux and faster film, but if you love the way the Noctilux draws images wide-open there is only one choice.

[LeicaM3]

Originally Posted by kevin m

If Magus chimes in and says the signatures of these two lenses are "totally different; worlds apart" I won't disagree with him.

LOL

[Nachkebia]

Summilux ASPH for sure.......

[mw_uio]

Just from looking at one photographers work (moaan) with the Noctilux 50/F1., it has certainly delivers the goods!

http://flickr.com/photos/17958048@N00/

What is the price difference the Noctilux vs. Summilux?



Cheers

Mark
Quito, EC

[aizan]

the noctilux is gimmicky and calls too much attention to its quirkiness. it gets boring after a while.

[kevin m]

the noctilux is gimmicky and calls too much attention to its quirkiness. it gets boring after a while.

I agree. Many of the Noctilux shots I see say, 'Hey, look! I shot this with a Noctilux!'

[Rashomon]

It depends on your need and not what these lenses can do.



Character/Signature: Noct is more dream-like; while the Asph is more clinical.

F-stops: If you really need the F1, get the Noct. If not, go for the ASPH.

Size: If you don't want a big lens, get the ASPH. If you don't care about bulk, go for the Noct.



But first you gotta ask yourself: "what do I want from this lens?" And then find the lens that suits your style of shooting.

[enochRoot]

Originally Posted by aizan

the noctilux is gimmicky and calls too much attention to its quirkiness. it gets boring after a while.

what a load of rubbish. that's like saying "all surrealistic art is gimmicky", or "all of the impressionist paintings are gimmicky". a lens is only as successful as the photographer that is in command of it. the noctilux can produce fine images. so can the asph. personally, i prefer the noctilux. and from experience i can say it works fine as a general purpose lens (unless you are utterly week, and that extra 200 or so grams puts you over the edge).

[saxshooter]

Noctilux has very nice edge fall off if you are into that slight vignetting look. I've got one. Love it. But I would not call it a "walk around" lens. Big.

[aizan]

cuz pictures taken with the noctilux are "surrealistic" and "impressionistic", right?

[summaron]

the noctilux is gimmicky and calls too much attention to its quirkiness. it gets boring after a while.

Not gimmicky, but a little samey and restricting.

[NB23]

The noctilux is the only reason why I'm into Leica. It's such a good lens.

[Harry Lime]

I sold my Noct and bought a pre-asph Lux. This was before the Lux ASPH was available. Here's why I sold it.

- It's big by Leica M standards. It feels like you are running around with a 2/90 Summicron mounted. It's heavy. A Noct weighs about as much as the M body.
Both versions of the Lux are featherweights compared to the Noct, especially the pre-ASPH Lux.

- The focus throw is very long, which can make it difficult to follow action. The throw on the Lux is very short and crisp.

- The Noct will focus to 1 meter. The Lux will go as close as .7 m (70cm), which opens up a lot of possibilities.

- At f1 and focused at 1 meter you get about 1cm (1/2 inch) of DOF that is in focus. Forget about shooting anything but a static subject under these circumstances. DOF at f1 increases the further away the subject is that you are focusing on. Basically I would save f1 for subjects that were further than 5 meters away, unless they were static.

- f1 is sharp. The sharpest f1 you will see this side of something out of a spy satellite, but it's not THAT sharp. Also since the DOF is so shallow at f1, everything but the focus point is a blur. Of course this can look really cool.

- At f1 the Noct shows heavy vignetting. It clears up to a reasonable level by f1.4.

- At f1.4 the pre-ASPH Lux was sharper. The ASPH Lux will do even better.

- When shooting close-up the floating element in the Lux ASPH will blow away both lenses and even a 2/50 Summicron.

- The front element of the Noct is huge, so you always want to use a hood. The collapsible hood doesn't offer much protection, because it is rather shallow and doesn't lock into place. I had the second incarnation of the Noct, with the clip on hood. It offered plenty of protection, but made the lens even bigger.

- The Noct may be the most flare proof piece of glass ever made. It simply doesn't flare. Period. I shot mine straight into a 25,000 watt movie light and it simply sucked up the photons and spit them out the other side. Erwin Puts claims that there is zero scatter as light travels through the Noct and hits the film. Basically that means that the only image forming light that reaches the film, comes from the scene. In other words you see no blooming around specular points etc. This makes for amazingly clear pictures as night. It also means that the images the Noct produces look rather 'sterile'. This was one of the biggest reasons why I sold the Noct. I like a little glow in my pictures. For the record the pre-ASPH Lux is extremely flare proof. The ASPH Lux is supposed to be as good as the Noct (they share the same glass types)

- I wasn't too crazy about the Noct bokeh. It can vary from extremely smooth to down right bizzare and distracting. The pre-ASPH Lux is renowned for producing some of the smoothest bokeh in any lens and it draws with an amazingly wide tonal scale. For black and white photography you would be hard pressed to find a better lens.

So, there it is. The Noctilux or "The Queen of the Night" as I like to call her, is an amazing and special lens. But I would not buy it as my daily shooter. The Lux is a better choice for that. If I had money to burn I would buy both and take the Lux out for selective work, but mine ended up spending a lot of time on the shelf.

HL

[Simon Larbalestier]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I sold my Noct and bought a pre-asph Lux. This was before the Lux ASPH was available. Here's why I sold it.

- It's big by Leica M standards. It feels like you are running around with a 2/90 Summicron mounted. It's heavy. A Noct weighs about as much as the M body.
Both versions of the Lux are featherweights compared to the Noct, especially the pre-ASPH Lux.

- The focus throw is very long, which can make it difficult to follow action. The throw on the Lux is very short and crisp.

- The Noct will focus to 1 meter. The Lux will go as close as .7 m (70cm), which opens up a lot of possibilities.

- At f1 and focused at 1 meter you get about 1cm (1/2 inch) of DOF that is in focus. Forget about shooting anything but a static subject under these circumstances. DOF at f1 increases the further away the subject is that you are focusing on. Basically I would save f1 for subjects that were further than 5 meters away, unless they were static.

- f1 is sharp. The sharpest f1 you will see this side of something out of a spy satellite, but it's not THAT sharp. Also since the DOF is so shallow at f1, everything but the focus point is a blur. Of course this can look really cool.

- At f1 the Noct shows heavy vignetting. It clears up to a reasonable level by f1.4.

- At f1.4 the pre-ASPH Lux was sharper. The ASPH Lux will do even better.

- When shooting close-up the floating element in the Lux ASPH will blow away both lenses and even a 2/50 Summicron.

- The front element of the Noct is huge, so you always want to use a hood. The collapsible hood doesn't offer much protection, because it is rather shallow and doesn't lock into place. I had the second incarnation of the Noct, with the clip on hood. It offered plenty of protection, but made the lens even bigger.

- The Noct may be the most flare proof piece of glass ever made. It simply doesn't flare. Period. I shot mine straight into a 25,000 watt movie light and it simply sucked up the photons and spit them out the other side. Erwin Puts claims that there is zero scatter as light travels through the Noct and hits the film. Basically that means that the only image forming light that reaches the film, comes from the scene. In other words you see no blooming around specular points etc. This makes for amazingly clear pictures as night. It also means that the images the Noct produces look rather 'sterile'. This was one of the biggest reasons why I sold the Noct. I like a little glow in my pictures. For the record the pre-ASPH Lux is extremely flare proof. The ASPH Lux is supposed to be as good as the Noct (they share the same glass types)

- I wasn't too crazy about the Noct bokeh. It can vary from extremely smooth to down right bizzare and distracting. The pre-ASPH Lux is renowned for producing some of the smoothest bokeh in any lens and it draws with an amazingly wide tonal scale. For black and white photography you would be hard pressed to find a better lens.

So, there it is. The Noctilux or "The Queen of the Night" as I like to call her, is an amazing and special lens. But I would not buy it as my daily shooter. The Lux is a better choice for that. If I had money to burn I would buy both and take the Lux out for selective work, but mine ended up spending a lot of time on the shelf.

HL

I'd agree with Harry on this - i did exactly the same thing in 2002 sold the Noct and bought the 43 pre ASPH lux which, for me, matches very well with the 35/1.4 pre ASPH . I shot it almost exclusively at F1.0 it does render images with a unique look to them but i've found the 50/1.4 much more flexible as an allround shooter.
I'm still saving for the ASPH version as i'd like to keep both and not have to trade the early lux against the new model.

[NB23]

Let's face it: the 50mm focal length is ridiculed on all cameras, except the Leica. Why is that? Me, I don't see any sense in owning a 2000$ 50mm lens if it's not going to give me something real special. I'd rather use an AI Nikkor 50 1.4 for 100$, and so what if it's a little bigger then a 'lux. It's not like I'm a scorbutic 25 pound male in need of food an dying of some cancer. Even my grandma can carry a camera all day. Any 35mm camera.