The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nocti 1.0 verses 0.95 test

fotografz

Well-known member
I had the good fortune to get my hands on the last E60 version of the f/1.0 Noctilux AND a new Noctilux 0.95 ASPH. ... in my studio, together at the same time, thanks to my dealer Sam @ The Classic Connection.

Now this is some pretty stratospheric glass in terms of cost as well as low light performance. Not for the faint of heart, nor the thin of wallet.

(Please note that this was for me and my needs, and may not fit anyone else's idea of a scientific test. It was just to make the decision on which of these two lenses to keep).

Since my whole business model has shifted in the past year, and Leica finally cracked the FF rangefinder barrier, I've refocused my gear closet more toward the M like it was for me some years ago. MFD equipment sales have funded the trek back to seriously expensive Leica M photography.

So, I wanted to REALLY know if the 0.95 was better or not ... which will be partly science, and partly subjective to be sure.

I set up a still life and hunkered the little M9 down on a monster Gitzo G500 ... shot a manual white balance frame, then proceeded to shoot at nearly the closest focusing distance (which is 1 meter on both lenses) all at max aperture. I did three shots per lens without changing anything except the lenses, and always refocusing each time for all three shots per lens. Then selected the best of the three from each lens.

I did the test, and then repeated it to be sure.

Attached are 2 of the shots @ ISO 320 and detail crops from each. Processed in C1 to 16 bit tiffs @ 360 ppi ... then methodically prepared for web with no sharpening ... I only hit the auto contrast in PS on each file.

At first I thought that the 1.0 was back focusing ... but on closer inspection found that nothing in front or in back of the focus point (the Leica Key fob) was really as crisp as the 0.95.

A couple of other observations ...

Without anything moved at all, the 0.95 image was slightly larger than the 1.0, which suggests that either one or neither of them is exactly 50mm.

Without changing the manual WB setting, the 0.95 was consistently warmer in cast than the 1.0. Now this may be because the 1.0 isn't 6 bit coded and the 0.95 is ... and C1 did something to the color cast (?????)

The 0.95 is a bigger lens and weighs in at approx. 4.5 oz. more than the 1.0

I was surprised to note that the 0.95 focus fall off was slightly greater (0.95 verses 1.0?), yet more gradual than the 1.0 ... in general, the subject matter pops off the background a bit more. There was slightly less halation on OOF edges with the 0.95 as well as less squiggly Bokeh ... in fact very little if any.

In short, IMHO I think the folks at Leica have done a remarkable job with this new Noctilux.

Actually, I was hoping there wouldn't be much difference ... but to my eye there was. Worth it? For me and what I do ... yes! Every tiny edge is worth it in the long run.

Hell, for the sake of my art, I don't mind skipping a meal now and then ... for the rest of my life :ROTFL:

-Marc
 

stevem8

New member
Thanks for this test. The new Noct is a dream lens for me and I will never own one, but it looks great here. Like a 50 Lux ASPH but you get the benefit of 0.95. Amazing lens. I have seen other samples from this lens that were beautiful. I still love the old Noct though for its dreaminess. But lucky you! Enjoy that new lens just don't lose too much weight due to all of those skipped meals!

Steve
 

fotoism

Member
fotografz:
Thank you for a simple, straightforward, and illustrative comparison of the two lenses without going into too much technical data. The 0.95 certainly shows more details than the 1.0. I guess the 1.0 is still the choice when it comes to female portraits?;)
 

cmb_

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Without anything moved at all, the 0.95 image was slightly larger than the 1.0, which suggests that either one or neither of them is exactly 50mm.
Marc - on the 50mm's there is a small number engraved just beyond the infinity mark (not sure if this appears on the Nocti). This number is a code to the actual focal length.
How to decipher:
Examples For 50 mm
00 = 50.0 mm
10 = 51.0 mm
11 = 51.1 mm
16 = 51.6 mm
22 = 52.2 mm

Do they appear on your Noctiluxes?
 

carstenw

Active member
Leica 50mm lenses are traditionally about 52mm. They may have abandoned this practice, I am not sure.

I haven't tried the new lens, but the old lens does really well at slightly greater distances, and suits portraiture. Did you try portraits as well?
 
T

thinkfloyd

Guest
Nice comparison Marc... but with my current financial status, as much as I'd love to own the 0.95 nocti, I'm sticking with a Canon 1.2 for low light...:) Maybe before I retire I might get a chance to own one, but that's 35 years away so I better start saving up now :D
 

gero

New member
Leica 50mm lenses are traditionally about 52mm. They may have abandoned this practice, I am not sure.

I haven't tried the new lens, but the old lens does really well at slightly greater distances, and suits portraiture. Did you try portraits as well?
thanks for that test, it does show a lot with very simple ways but there is something missing that Carsten noted: How about at ¨not closest focusing distance¨? since the new lens has a floating element.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc - on the 50mm's there is a small number engraved just beyond the infinity mark (not sure if this appears on the Nocti). This number is a code to the actual focal length.
How to decipher:
Examples For 50 mm
00 = 50.0 mm
10 = 51.0 mm
11 = 51.1 mm
16 = 51.6 mm
22 = 52.2 mm

Do they appear on your Noctiluxes?
Nothing on the 0.95 ... 00 on the 1.0 ... so I'd guess the 0.95 is slightly longer than 50mm (???)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Leica 50mm lenses are traditionally about 52mm. They may have abandoned this practice, I am not sure.

I haven't tried the new lens, but the old lens does really well at slightly greater distances, and suits portraiture. Did you try portraits as well?
I've had the 1.0 for about two weeks and shot quite a few portraits and more distant shots with it. The 0.95 is still nice and dreamy ... especially the Bokeh, but the in-focus areas are a bit crisper ... which is what I want. I've done a few distant shots with the 0.95 also and it still has enough of the Nocti character :thumbup:

I shot these close ups to make sure the new lens was calibrated.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Marc
Great test . . .
For you that looks like one expensive test . . . for me, you've saved me a lot of money.
I was thinking of getting another e60 (sold one last year:()
However, your test has shown is that what I really want is a 0.95, and that's simply out of the question . . . so I'll do without!

Thank you (I think).
 

fotografz

Well-known member
HI Marc
Great test . . .
For you that looks like one expensive test . . . for me, you've saved me a lot of money.
I was thinking of getting another e60 (sold one last year:()
However, your test has shown is that what I really want is a 0.95, and that's simply out of the question . . . so I'll do without!

Thank you (I think).
So buy my 50/1.4 ASPH 6 bit ...:LOL:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc - Did you compare the two lenses for focus shift?
How does one do that John? I have both lenses here until Monday and can try to do other tests.

I know I've read about focus shift on the 35/1.4 ASPH, but have never experienced it with my 35/1.4 ASPH in practical use after I sent it to Leica for calibration ... but like the Nocti I tend to use it wide open or just stopped down a stop or two.

-Marc
 

cam

Active member
all i can say is that i have an old E58 and i think it is sharper than what you show here in the E60... so unless i have some amazing gem of a lens, i don't think you were getting proper focus.

that's not to say that the .95 is not amazing and, yes, amazingly sharp like the 50 Lux Asph.... but i don't feel you represented what the original Nocti is capable of in your test.

am i biased? of course! but even as i prefer the look of the old to new, i know that others like the .95 better. still, i don't think your shots were a fair representation of the f/1 lens.

i recently sent mine in to Solms because my 1975 lens wasn't focusing correctly. they sent it back, no charge because the lens was perfect, suggesting my either my camera was out of whack or my focusing was. neither was true -- the lens had been very loose and they obviously took it apart and put it back together tightly and everything works beautifully (without a miserable glitch in focusing i had i might add or me fearing the lens would fall off the camera).

since i've gotten it back, i've put it through it's paces... is it as sharp wide open as my 35 or 75 Lux? no. but it's definitely sharp enough for what i use it for, with amazing separation of what is or is not in focus. things pop!

i'm not saying that the .95 isn't the correct lens for you. you obviously had a properly calibrated one and it worked for you with ease, as well as having a sharpness you desired.... i just hate to see people passing up the amazing f/1 (knowing that they'll never afford the .95) because of your test.

i also disagree that the newer one has the same magic. IMO, it doesn't.

for the price of the f/.95, i would buy an f/1 again in a heartbeat and the 50 Lux Asph for when i wanted razor sharpness, closer focus, and a lighter package... but that's just me.

and the Noctilux f/1 is truly my favourite lens on any of my cameras -- M8, R-D1, M2. it is the last lens i would let go.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The easiest way to test for focus shift is with a ruler . I have also used a line of books staggered or my favorite a line of small shampoo bottles from a hotel . Focus shift is always back from the initial focus point.

Focus on the ruler wide open ...and the make a series stopping down slowly. On the 35 1.4 you normally see the point of optimum focus move back at f2 thru f4 ..by f5.6 the depth of field usually covers the shift. This is why you can tolerate a very slight front focus at 1.4 . This pulls the range of acceptable focus forward until the DOF covers it.

This is one thats hard to determine without the test as the depth of field is so small that most photographers have to bracket to truly nail the exact point.

Leica significantly upgraded there focus calibration testing since the M8 was introduced and appear to be using the Lens Align product as a target.
 

John Black

Active member
Roger did a good job explaining it. I've heard of the 50 Lux ASPH having focus shift, but I'd swear my ASPH dead-on accurate at all apertures. I've wanted a Nocti E60 w/ the sliding hood for a long time, but the reports of focus shift have scared me into the fetal position :)

I did experience awful focus shift on the Canon 50L F1.2. It was quite accurate @ wide open at 10 feet. At F2.8 focus was around 2-3 feet behind the subject. I tried three 50L F1.2's and they all had focus shift to varying degrees. I didn't have a set test perse, just focused on a object wide open and then a second shot at F2.8 to see if the focus shifted.
 
Top