Please discuss ad nauseam, 50mm Noct vs Lux

[C_R]

....Let me ask you this, if you are shooting a portrait off center, can you for purposes of framing center frame focal point, then shift camera back to original framing, how close are you at that point to correct focus? I've tried this approach a little bit..

Sometimes I switch to continuous, and go back slowly while bracketing, kind of "focus bracketing", for a better chance to get the focus right.

 

[robsteve]

Let me ask you this, if you are shooting a portrait off center, can you for purposes of framing center frame focal point, then shift camera back to original framing, how close are you at that point to correct focus? I've tried this approach a little bit.

.

The simple answer is no and it is not just because of the curvature of filed. Fast lenses such as the Noctilux, and 75mm Summilux, have such shallow DOF when shot wide open that just the movement of you or your subject between framing and focusing will cause focus errors. The only successful way I have found to shoot a Noctilux and nail the focus is to fire the shutter when the two images align. In the case of the two portraits of my sons posted above, I focused with the rangefinder then stopped moving the focus ring and just swayed my body in or out and fired when their iris came together as a single image on the focus patch. At further distances you can just use the focus ring and focus and recompose, but up close, you need to get the focus with the ring and then move your body to keep it and fire when you think you have it.

Robert

 

[jonoslack]

And some folks like the look of the Noct.
Me, I strongly prefer the look of the Lux.
-bob

Hi Bob
Depends on the Noctilux . . . and it depends on the Lux too.

If you're talking of a new 50 lux Asph, and a new 0.95 nocti, the look is pretty much the same at equivalent apertures (at least that's how it seems to me).

The f1 Noct is quite different from the new 'lux - but then, you know all of this.

I have the 0.95 and the latest 'lux - I use the Nocti when I want that look, and when I don't want to focus so close, and when I don't mind the weight . . . and the 'lux under other situations.

 

[Photojazz]

Rob, I have a 35 ASPH, but not current generation of it. I bought what I could get started with, and I felt that a 35 ASPH Cron was a excellent first choice. It has not disappointed me at all. My Nifty Ninety is a Version 3, last version before ASPH APO with pull out hood. Please document that in the great lens book someone.

My dialogue is open on any lens. Obviously, I have so far sought the biggest bang for the buck with my lens purchases, and I don't think I have done to badly with a grand total of 3250 invested in lenses. Doing the math, considering I bought my M9 this year too, that's over 10K, not pocket change. My first goal is to finish getting my M9 paid off. I hope to get there within 2 months. That's why looking only now. But if I decide to sell some more nikon gear, whole process could be moved into hyperdrive...

I am probably more of a summilux prospect likely,but anything is possible.

 

[Bob]

Jono,
I guess it comes down to this for me.
I am not all that impressed with the look of either the new or the old nocti wide open.
Now remember that this is coming from someone who almost always has his aperture ring stuck at f/8 LOL But I do like the new Lux a lot, even at f/1.4.
-bob

Hi Bob
Depends on the Noctilux . . . and it depends on the Lux too.

If you're talking of a new 50 lux Asph, and a new 0.95 nocti, the look is pretty much the same at equivalent apertures (at least that's how it seems to me).

The f1 Noct is quite different from the new 'lux - but then, you know all of this.

I have the 0.95 and the latest 'lux - I use the Nocti when I want that look, and when I don't want to focus so close, and when I don't mind the weight . . . and the 'lux under other situations.

 

[jonoslack]

HI Bob

Jono,
I guess it comes down to this for me.
I am not all that impressed with the look of either the new or the old nocti wide open.

Then there's no hope for you . . . it's not the answer to the question of 'life the universe and everything' - but it's one of the few really distinctive photographic thrills (at least, I think so).

Now remember that this is coming from someone who almost always has his aperture ring stuck at f/8 LOL But I do like the new Lux a lot, even at f/1.4.
-bob

And this is coming from someone who spent the day shooting his 24 'lux at f5.6 . . . . lovely.
Actually, I'm trying to think of anyone who has had anything nasty to say about the new 50 'lux.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Jono,
I guess it comes down to this for me.
I am not all that impressed with the look of either the new or the old nocti wide open.
Now remember that this is coming from someone who almost always has his aperture ring stuck at f/8 LOL But I do like the new Lux a lot, even at f/1.4.
-bob

+1!
Bill

 

[jonoslack]

Rob, I have a 35 ASPH, but not current generation of it. I bought what I could get started with, and I felt that a 35 ASPH Cron was a excellent first choice. It has not disappointed me at all. My Nifty Ninety is a Version 3, last version before ASPH APO with pull out hood. Please document that in the great lens book someone.

Well, I think that these are the most sensible lenses to start with - the slim 90 elmarit is a darling (I use mine a lot). I don't have the 35 asph cron anymore, because I bought one of the new luxes, but this is angels dancing on the heads of pins. the 35 'cron asph is splendid. The summarit lenses are also sensibly priced and lovely to use.

****** addition

oops - looking again I see that you have the 90 'cron, which I only want! IMHO all the lenses have their own joys and pitfalls . . . but maybe you should complete your set and get a 50 'cron - a lovely lens, small and crisp and even?

 

[Photojazz]

Yes, it is a Cron 90 pre-asph verson 3. Your suggestion has merit, I am sure it's more affordable than the lux, by a lot. But it's only 15mm difference than my 35 Cron, and for this reason alone I rather much think the lux 50 would add not only a slightly different focal range, but also that speed as close to the middle as possible and yet still maintaining quite a nice open frame of view for versatility. But giving the bonus of the creamier bokeh, and the 1.4 speed. Well, just a thought, it would also be easier to get there than the noct... .4 speed is not a tremendous difference, assuming with good reason I looked at an older 1.0 noct, not a .95, that is makes the difference more substantial of course.

 

[robsteve]

Doug:

The 35mm Summicron ASPH is my favorite lens. Unless your really need the speed, the 35mm at F2 is a stunning performer. I have shot some events using both the Noctilux and the 35mm ASPH and at F2, the 35mm Summicron ASPH images are miles ahead in image quality if you can hold it steady enough in low light.

As for the 90mm you have, except for the really dreamy backgrounds of the Noctilux at f1, your Summicron would have similar picture quality to the Noctilux from f2 and smaller apertures.

If you are on a budget, rule out the Noctilux for a few years, but try a version 4, 50mm Summicron for experimenting with the focal length. These are the ones with the latest optical formula, but with clip on hoods and either made in Canada or Germany. I think the version 3-4 transition was in the 2.8 million serial number range, so anything in the 3 mil or larger range is likely a version 4. I don't know how the pricing is on them lately, but you used to see them in the $500-700 range.

Robert

 

[Photojazz]

Most excellent information Robert, my thanks. I got quite a bit tied up in Nikon gear, so I got to balance the books somewhere. I will keep my eye out. I rather like getting good buys in Leica, because it's so big budget. I'm getting the Leica processing of the M9, and 90-95% of the ASPH image quality probably with great Leica glass. Stopped down, sometimes I think it would be difficult to tell. Yeah, on a budget somewhat.

 

[Chuck Jones]

You asked in your Title of this thread for ad nauseam, so here is my contribution

I've shot practically every M lens ever made at one point or time since I started shooting my first M6. Some of them were spectacular, some of the older ones just so - so by modern standards. Each of them had their strengths and their weaknesses. Each their distinctive signature, and each made the way only a Leica lens is made. Precise, positive, complete control of the possibilities in the hands of someone capable of pushing them to their design limits... and beyond. A very tough place to reach, as many of history's greats have used a Leica - and in doing so set a very high bar.

Almost all of the recent vintage Leica M lenses made in the past twenty years are excellent in my opinion, each with some differences but all with superb drawing and signature. They all hold up to the Leica standard of not changing a lens design in a particular focal length or speed until it will be a substantial improvement to the present production model. So at the time of their manufacture, each Leica lens was the State-Of-The-Art in the science of lens design and construction at the time it was made.

I owned a 50mm Pre-ASPH 'Lux and still own a 50mm 'Cron I had at the same time. My 'Cron had better contrast and was sharper at f/2 than my 'Lux at every aperture up to f/8 at half the size and weight, so I sold the 'Lux. I never missed it. Historically I've shot mostly wider lenses, with 50mm being long for me. I love the wide open look of a 21mm. Others may disagree, as the choice of a lens "look" is as personal to a photographer as the make and model of a guitar is to a musician. Both have their own unique "tone." Their "signature." Their "color." As each of the 50mm choices from Leica do, in my opinion.

A couple of months back, I had the opportunity for a new Noct f/.95 so I decided to take it. I liked the old f/1, but found it a bit too soft for me wide open. The 'Cron, while not having the soft narrow depth of field, had far superior contrast. I heard the new Noct was much better in that regard so decided to see for myself. The new Noct is a very different beast than the one it replaces, improved in many somewhat subtle ways or appears so until you get to know it.

Any wide aperture lens is tough to use, let's face it. Sure it looks sexy as heck shooting away in candlelight, but be frank with yourselves and admit that even professionals like myself who shoot with one almost daily rarely land more than 10% "hits" even at f/2. Open 'er up to f/1.4 and not only does your positioning come into question, the very shallowness of the depth of field itself can make it impossible to get a good shot. Unless your back aways, or going for one sharp eyelash kind of thing, for a portrait your going to be at least at f/2 anyway. Open to f/.95 at the closest focus distance, you're shooting for an effect pure and simple and little more, since the falloff is pretty severe and area of focus very shallow indeed.

At greater distance, when you just have to have as fast as possible, repeatedly, then it may be worth considering investing $10,500 in a new Noct. I shoot in these kind of conditions constantly, so for myself it makes sense. And I really am loving this lens the more I learn about it. It is an extremely tough mistress out the gate, demanding your full time and attention at first if you are looking to get anything usable at all. I'm only a couple of months into it myself, and it has taken me a lot of work learning to use it, but I do find it lets me use options not available to me with any other tool in my bag.

These are from a recent job using it. If you don't absolutely need the speed or the falloff, or if you don't have the time to invest in learning how to best employ this type of a specialty lens, you would be much better off just buying yourself a 50mm f/2. The 'Cron will do most everything you will ever need, and costs a fraction of what the investment is in any of the faster versions.

 

[ashwinrao1]

Well, not sure how much I can contribute. I have owned both the f/1 Noct and f/0.95 Noctiliux, and sold the prior in favor of the latter. I also own the 50 lux asph for convenience and size (The f/0.95 doesn't travel quite as well )

Anyways, let me share some with the new f/0.95...the combo of macro/microcontrast and f/0.95 renders a near diorama like effect, almost like using tilt shift, but in-plane...it's crazy, and there's nothing like it other than MF, with its narrower DOF. I have enjoyed my experience with the f/0.95 more than I did with the f/1, as I felt that the f/1's signature was so strong that every shot that I took with it loked like f/1 more than my own photography:

Here are some examples:

f/0.95:

And the entire f/0.95 set, here (about 500 images posted)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashwinrao1/sets/72157624075806922/with/5045817548/

Please pardon the wide range of processing that I used...

 

[ashwinrao1]

Now some f/1 Noctilux images, omn the M8:

 

[jonoslack]

Most excellent information Robert, my thanks. I got quite a bit tied up in Nikon gear, so I got to balance the books somewhere. I will keep my eye out. I rather like getting good buys in Leica, because it's so big budget. I'm getting the Leica processing of the M9, and 90-95% of the ASPH image quality probably with great Leica glass. Stopped down, sometimes I think it would be difficult to tell. Yeah, on a budget somewhat.

I agree that stopped down it's tough to tell.
As for the budget, of course that's really important, but the one nice thing about Leica lenses is that you aren't likely to lose money by experimenting - buy well and you'll make a profit. Buy new and keep for a couple of years and you'll still probably break even.

I think all the modern leica lenses have lots going for them - including the humble summarits; the 35 especially is a lovely lens, and so tiny.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I think it comes down to what you like your results to look like. Personally, I like my main subject thoroughly in focus, with the background slightly softer. Easily recognizable, even detailed, just slightly softer for separation. Because of this, most of the time with a 35mm lens this means shooting at f/5.6 give or take, with a subject at 20 ft or so. For a more impressionistic image, f/2.8-f/4. Wider than that I find very limited use for, and f/2 is pretty much limited to everything-at-or-near-infinity and without enough light to let me stop down to f/5.6 (where the 35 cron ASPH looks its best IMO). And I do mean subtle focus separation, because what looks good on a computer screen often looks a bit overdone when printed. For this to work it's very important that a lens render sharp edges in the background not as wider sharp features (double imaging), but by diffusing them. The 50 noct clearly does this. The 35 cron ASPH does as well, unless overdone. Processing also matters; it may look soft and diffuse, but then when you increase contrast because the light was flat it looks double imaged. Getting it just right requires familiarity with the lens, light, and post to print. Because of this, I personally only see a 50 faster than f/2.8, a 75 or 90 faster than f/4, or a 35 faster than f/2 as pure PJ tools. Because of this, lens choice to me comes down to how the lenses render, as well as their overall look, and size of course. Just about ANY lens is fast enough IMO, although sometimes I wish the WATE were faster - so that's a pretty big tradeoff. I like the look of the CV 35/1.2 even stopped down but rarely use it because of its size. The .95 nocti has a unique look - not something I'd use myself, but definitely one of a kind if that's what you're looking for. The 50/1.4 ASPH is more mundane, though excellent of course - but it's not a clear must-have only because the crons are so good. (Plus, to me, I never shoot 50mm; I've owned many and the only time they got used were on crop cameras.) I like the 75/2 because of how it looks, but very rarely if ever prefer to open it up past f/5.6, simply because I can't get enough in focus. It, too, has a very nice background rendition, color, and tone. At f/2 it's a PJ tool IMO. The exception to fast lenses, I think might be a 21/1.4 - I could definitely see one of those in my bag one day!

Oh well, just my handful of pennies worth of opinion. It comes down to what you shoot and how you like it to look. And this probably could be discussed ad nauseam. My opinion on your particular quandary though would be: if you want the look of the nocti, that's the lens you want because nothing else will look like it. Otherwise, unless you do PJ work the extra stop of the lux just adds bulk to carry around because it has no practical use over a cron since even f/2 is pretty darn shallow focus.

 

[rcerick]

Ashwin:
Tremendous .95 images. The first one is pure magic. I've tried the Noct 1.0 and didn't really care for it. Not a whole lot different from my CV Nokton 1.1 and although a stop faster than my 50mm Lux ASPH, not as sharp wide open and a bit of a beast to lug about.
Rich

 

[NB23]

The Beauty of the Noctilux (and its internet Myth) is that people think they know it but they don't.
Just like the 50 Lux Asph, which is very far from being too "clinical". As a matter of fact, the 50 lux asph has a very pre-asph signature to it except that it's sharp.

Out of these 10 pictures, 7 are from the Noctilux f1.0 and 3 are from the 50 lux asph. Can anyone tell them apart?

 

[PeterA]

I have bought and sold the old style Nocti three times over the last 5 years -I dont like the balance of the lens on camera I love the look wide open ...


Is it my eyes - or is it a strange concidence that the great majority of shots posted - are not in focus - anywhere on the frame...

 

[ashwinrao1]

I have bought and sold the old style Nocti three times over the last 5 years -I dont like the balance of the lens on camera I love the look wide open ...


Is it my eyes - or is it a strange concidence that the great majority of shots posted - are not in focus - anywhere on the frame...

Depends on where one chooses to set their focus....:ROTFL:

Sorry, I had to...this is a very selective focus lens, to state the utterly obvious...