Nocti 1.0 verses 0.95 test

[fotografz]

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.

Perhaps all you say is true. Perhaps not. I am relatively sure ... not ... but that's just me .

The f/1.0 wasn't as sharp "looking" as the 0.95 anywhere in the frame ... so even if the 1.0 was miss-calibrated and was back focusing, something would be at the point of critical focus. I know it isn't the camera calibration because all my other "calibrated" M lenses are spot on including a 50/1.4 ASPH.

I've used the f/1.0 for a couple of weeks now ... at a wedding, and on a trip to Chicago ... and many of the shots I did were just fine and looked sharp enough when adjusted, sharpened and printed. Since this is the 4th Nocti 1.0 I've shot with, it isn't my first trip to the rodeo

I think it has nothing to do with whether the lens is focusing right or not ... it has more to do with contrast differences between the two lens designs. However, I do not want to add contrast and sharping when shooting the M9 at ISO 1000 because it irritates the noise issue. I don't want a Nocti to shoot it in bright light, so high ISO performance is the real criteria for my work.

I've now shot a boat load of other stuff ... like real world shooting ... with the 0.95. I never said the Magic was the same ... what I see is its own form of "magic" not like any other M lens ... so "magic" is a relative term. The 3D pop from this lens is even greater than any of the four Nocti 1.0s I've used ... an attribute that lens was already famous for.

Some like one look, some like another, which is why many older, lower contrast lenses are prized by some folks. So, use what you like :thumbup: and I'll do the same :thumbup:

-Marc

 

[John Black]

How would you compare the Noctilux's to your 50 Lux ASPH? Do you see a time when you would favor the 50 Lux ASPH over the Noctilux?

 

[glenerrolrd]

The Noctilux 1.0 has always been known to be soft wide open and at its closest focusing distance. I have seen this everytime I tested the lens for focus accuracy. It was particularly noticeable at higher ISO s because the lens contrast wasn t sufficient to even identify the point of focus. But for most uses at 10 ft or greater the lens is sharp enough wide open to produce great results . So it depends on how you might typically use the lens as to whether you would call the lens soft wide open.

I have only used the .95 for a few dozen shots on an M8 ...but its similar to the 50/1.4asph ....perfect at every distance. From the images I have seen in this and other tests ...I think the bokeh of the .95 is pretty great ...with a smooth gradual falloff.

This is a lens that should be used at night or in very low available light ..then I think we will start to see the real capabilities and differences from the original version.

How many 50 s is too many?

 

[fotografz]

How would you compare the Noctilux's to your 50 Lux ASPH? Do you see a time when you would favor the 50 Lux ASPH over the Noctilux?

Good question. It's one I was just discussing with my dealer.

Obviously, there is the issue of size ... for travel the 50/1.4 would be preferred. But now it may be a wiser move to sell the 1.4 and get a cron for smaller kit use. That would be my only reason to have two 50mm lenses.

I really haven't used the 0.95 enough in varying conditions to comment on how it compares to the 1.4. My sole purpose for the 0.95 is for shooting available light work at weddings ... in some pretty crappy light levels. Between the faster aperture and better high ISO of the M9 I may be able to lessen subject movement blur with a bit higher shutter speeds. That's what I meant by "every little bit helps" in my original post. Same reason I sprung for the M24/1.4 ASPH. I have the need, the need for speed

-Marc

 

[cam]

okay, Marc, i get where you're coming from now... low contrast lens do suck in high noise situations.

i have an old v.1 8 element 35 Cron that is exquisite -- but only at low ISO's. when the noise level rises, all those wonderful shades start to look muddy and if i try to sharpen/add contrast, they look blotchy... for your application, you made the right decision -- blotchy brides are not happy campers!

as for focus shift on the f/1, if there is any, i've found the lens to be a little bit of a front focuser wide open up close -- which is to my liking because i can get a touch closer than the 1m limit. it is ever so slight and i really don't find it much of an issue -- just mentioning it in regards to your picture/tests.

in actual use, it really is not an issue and i don't think it should dissuade those who are interested. i shoot at all apertures and am always thrilled, my favourites being wide open and f/2.8.

for you, a professional, and all that are pixel peepers -- yes, the f/.95 is a better lens as are many of the Asphs over their pre-asph brethren -- in terms of contrast and absolute sharpness. the feel and character are quite different, though, and for me (way down on the photographer totem pole) i feel the original is enough and desirable. i like the look.

i totally get your need for speed! i was asked to help at a party where the photographer didn't show and found f/1.4 to not be enough for reasons you stated. (that said, i can also admit that i suck at these shooting situations and could never in a million years do what you do. total and complete respect!)

you made the right decision here as well as with the 21/1.4 -- how is it on the M9, btw?

i was just questioning whether it was a necessary decision for most of the people on this thread.... but, hey, everyone here seems to have already been able to afford the M9 (which i cannot) so i guess it stands to reason they should hold out for the f/.95.

for those who don't have the money and are not using it in paying client situations, i still think the f/1 version of the Nocti is a very special lens.

 

[fotografz]

okay, Marc, i get where you're coming from now... low contrast lens do suck in high noise situations.

i have an old v.1 8 element 35 Cron that is exquisite -- but only at low ISO's. when the noise level rises, all those wonderful shades start to look muddy and if i try to sharpen/add contrast, they look blotchy... for your application, you made the right decision -- blotchy brides are not happy campers!

as for focus shift on the f/1, if there is any, i've found the lens to be a little bit of a front focuser wide open up close -- which is to my liking because i can get a touch closer than the 1m limit. it is ever so slight and i really don't find it much of an issue -- just mentioning it in regards to your picture/tests.

in actual use, it really is not an issue and i don't think it should dissuade those who are interested. i shoot at all apertures and am always thrilled, my favourites being wide open and f/2.8.

for you, a professional, and all that are pixel peepers -- yes, the f/.95 is a better lens as are many of the Asphs over their pre-asph brethren -- in terms of contrast and absolute sharpness. the feel and character are quite different, though, and for me (way down on the photographer totem pole) i feel the original is enough and desirable. i like the look.

i totally get your need for speed! i was asked to help at a party where the photographer didn't show and found f/1.4 to not be enough for reasons you stated. (that said, i can also admit that i suck at these shooting situations and could never in a million years do what you do. total and complete respect!)

you made the right decision here as well as with the 21/1.4 -- how is it on the M9, btw?

i was just questioning whether it was a necessary decision for most of the people on this thread.... but, hey, everyone here seems to have already been able to afford the M9 (which i cannot) so i guess it stands to reason they should hold out for the f/.95.

for those who don't have the money and are not using it in paying client situations, i still think the f/1 version of the Nocti is a very special lens.

Absolute total agreement here. The 1.0 IS a very special lens and one I have loved throughout my M trek. Even after this test I STILL gave the 1.0 serious consideration verses the 0.95 ... how much do I really want to pay for a little bit better performance in the stuff I shoot? In the end, I am opting for the 0.95 since switching to using the M digital for more of my work.

The 24/1.4 ASPH is amazing. It produced a bit of purple fringing in strongly backlit situations on the M8 and M9, but as Guy and Jack pointed out C1 eliminates that.
The wedding I recently shot using the 24/1.4 was a goof up ... since the Nocti 1.0 was not coded, I set the M9 manually for the 50mm and forgot to set it back to auto lens detection for all the 6 bit lenses ... so I ended up with some cyan vignetting in the corners from the 24/1.4 ASPH. Live and learn. :banghead:

 

[cam]

Absolute total agreement here. The 1.0 IS a very special lens and one I have loved throughout my M trek. Even after this test I STILL gave the 1.0 serious consideration verses the 0.95 ... how much do I really want to pay for a little bit better performance in the stuff I shoot? In the end, I am opting for the 0.95 since switching to using the M digital for more of my work.

The 24/1.4 ASPH is amazing. It produced a bit of purple fringing in strongly backlit situations on the M8 and M9, but as Guy and Jack pointed out C1 eliminates that.
The wedding I recently shot using the 24/1.4 was a goof up ... since the Nocti 1.0 was not coded, I set the M9 manually for the 50mm and forgot to set it back to auto lens detection for all the 6 bit lenses ... so I ended up with some cyan vignetting in the corners from the 24/1.4 ASPH. Live and learn. :banghead:

ouch! can it be revived in C1 or cornerfix or are you screwed? or can you ust make them b/w with a romantic vignette? (i'm teasing here because i overheard a demo of Nik software at a photo fair here yesterday and the woman who was doing was actually apologising that they even had a vignette setting -- saying that some people find it "romantic." truly bad salesman ship here!) i'm actually not bothered by vignettes -- but b/w only. the cyan can be appalling!

i do feel for you, though. i only own one coded lens and even that i manage to f*** up on occasion. life was much easier on the R-D1 where you selected the framelines up-top and cleaned vignetting, etc., in the RAW program later. made for much quicker shooting and a lot less mistakes.

my bad about saying 21/1.4 when you have the 24mm. regardless, both lenses made me drool when i tried them (i prefer to shoot low available light as well). they were just gorgeous (most definitely on my lust list)! i cracked everyone up when i disappeared with them under the table to check them out... i've not seen shots with them on the M9 to see the full effect of the draw, but then i haven't been trolling through all the M9 pics posted either...

i find 24mm an interesting focal length at full frame, having never shot it before. 21 and 28, yes, but never 24mm. other than your slight goof, are you enjoying it? is it too wide on the M9? not wide enough? do you use an external finder or just wing it?

 

[fotografz]

... I find 24mm an interesting focal length at full frame, having never shot it before. 21 and 28, yes, but never 24mm. other than your slight goof, are you enjoying it? is it too wide on the M9? not wide enough? do you use an external finder or just wing it?

I got the 24 before anyone knew a FF M digital was so close. I was using it on the M8 prior to that ... which can be used without an aux finder on the M8.

I previously had both a 21/2.8 and 24/2.8 ASPH that I used on a M7, and came to like the 24 FOV more than the 21. If I need to go wider I may get the new 18mm.

Yeah, I just converted some of the 24mm shots into B&W. I actually have a great darken edges CS4 action in my PS actions palette. It does work to place attention on the central subject for formals and portraits.

Marc

 

[cam]

thank you, Marc (and sorry to hijack your thread).

i have both a 21/2.8 (pre-asph an not that stunning) and the 21/3.4 (which i love -- though the vignette is lost on the M8 and i prefer it on my M2). i only played with my friend's 24/2.8 on the M8 briefly and was actually frustrated as it felt too short or too long -- that's why i was wondering about it FF.... the new 18 is amazing but isn't it too slow for your needs?

glad you got the shots to work for you in b/w! which actions, btw? separate layers so you can adjust density to taste?

and back to a question about the new Noctilux. does the new one's bokeh (wide open but especially stopped down) remind you more of a Cron or Lux in feel? i am very much a Lux girl (i love speed!), but i find myself particularly loving the bokeh of the f/1 which seems to be more Cronish in look... does this make sense? sometimes i find the Luxes can be a bit harsh in this regard.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Question Marc, how is the focus after recompose on that fast a lens?

 

[AGeoJO]

Marc, thanks for the comparison. As some already mentioned, my lowly Nocti f/1.0 performs indeed better if focused further away from the MFD.

I was wondering whether you can throw in the CV 50mm f/1.1 into the equation? I realize that it is not a genuine Leica lens but the specs are fairly close...

 

[fotografz]

Marc, thanks for the comparison. As some already mentioned, my lowly Nocti f/1.0 performs indeed better if focused further away from the MFD.

I was wondering whether you can throw in the CV 50mm f/1.1 into the equation? I realize that it is not a genuine Leica lens but the specs are fairly close...

Sure, just buy one for me and I'll be glad to do a comparison ... I'm all out of fast 50mm money rightnow ...

 

[fotografz]

Question Marc, how is the focus after recompose on that fast a lens?

Close up it's an issue Ben ... less so when doing normal shots ... the further away, the less of a problem it is ... as indicated by users of the f/1.0 version in previous posts.

I use a lens like this for full length and waist up bridal portraits where the key focus area tends to be close to the center ... as well as shots like the first dance shots using available light ... where the distance masks any DOF/focus issues, but the increased shutter speed helps with subject motion. Not unlike the slower Canon 50/1.2, which is a snail like aperture compared to this pup :ROTFL:

 

[LJL]

Marc,
I enjoyed seeing your comparisons and reading your thoughts on these Nocti lenses, but have not commented yet. My first impression is that the f1.0 is not delivering somehow. I have one of the last E60 versions of that lens, and I know it produces sharper images up close than what you have gotten from the one you tested. Knowing that you have had and shot several of these over the years, I hesitated to offer my thoughts. The f0.95 does look to hold more contrast and it is looking a bit sharper in your test for sure. It is a stunning lens for sure, but I would not dismiss the f1.0 at this point. I have found the f1.0 to have a less micro-contrast, and that tends to make it look softer. The roll-on and roll-off of focus wide open is more gradual, and that tends to also make it look softer, especially at minimum focus distance, hence the much more "dreamy glow" that many describe. At normal shooting distances of say 3-10m, it holds its own quite well, and with less contrast, it does tend to impart a more gently soft look, I think. Can still be quite sharp, but does not look as crisp, like some other lenses. That becomes a matter of taste. I carry a CV 50mm f1.5 Nokton along with my Nocti when I want something a bit more crisp, but honestly, just stopping the Nocti down to f2 or so achieves the same results, I think. If you want the more crisp look, but still the insanely shallow DOF, this new f0.95 looks to deliver more of that than the f1.0 version. However, I still think the f1.0 you used in these tests was not performing at its best somehow. Just my thoughts.

LJ

 

[fotografz]

Just as a reminder, these are just about straight out of the camera ... no sharpening applied, and some of the detail crops are pretty huge enlargements. I also mentioned that I only hit auto contrast in PS. The 1.0 is pretty consistent with with all the other 1.0s I've used in the past.

Full screen on a 30" monitor, both files look pretty darned good ... I showed both files to my pal Irakly and his first impression was that the 0.95 had more 3D feel ... but he didn't mention sharpness until I revealed the crops. His take was that the 0.95 had more micro contrast at work giving the impression of a bit more clarity.

 

[Double Negative]

Holy crap that's impressive. Brighter AND sharper - darn good lookin' wide open.

I don't think I'm going to be dropping that kind of coin on a lens ANY time soon though.

 

[Y.B.Hudson III]

I only hit auto contrast in PS... huh...that will warp the test...how about unaltered files?

 

[fotografz]

I only hit auto contrast in PS... huh...that will warp the test...how about unaltered files?

How will that "warp" the test? Do tell.

EVERYTHING was exactly the same including the slight contrast adjustment.

Unaltered files? ... well that would be possible only if I uploaded the RAW files which can't be done here. Downsizing a 18 meg RAW file and converting it to to a sub 1 meg Jpg is an "altered file". :deadhorse:

 

[Vivek]

How will that "warp" the test? Do tell.

It does things to the transition/gradation of OOF areas to an extent that the lens' characteristics are lost. This is especially the case when super fast lenses with slim DoF are used.

 

[KurtKamka]

Hi Marc, glad to see this comparison. As a big fan of the 50mm focal length and wide open shooting, it looks to be an intoxicating option. I can't believe I'm asking, but have you tried it stopped down? If it's an excellent normal lens (equal or nearly equal to the 50lux) it'd be awfully tempting down the road. A perfect all-around, 1-lens dark to light wrecking crew.

Kurt