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