Just asking why? ...

[Jack]

For those of you that own or have used the Nocti, f1 or f0.95 versions, why do so many of you shoot it at f2 to f4?

Back in the day, I owned multiple version of the f1 lens, and shot it against the Lux Pre, Lux Asph and Cron 50's (never owned the Cron ASPH). My own (humble) results showed that the Lux was better optically than the Noct across the frame at f1.4, and the Cron was better than both -- at least optically -- after f2.8. As for "signature" or "drawing" I preferred the look of the Lux up to about f4.5, whereafter I could not really distinguish them from one-another.

I *did* like the look of the Noct wide open and at f1.2 which the Lux could not do, but focusing the dang thing was nigh on impossible wide open -- or more accurately, focusing and holding myself still enough to maintain the exact focus distance was nigh on impossible. I did use it more reliably at f1.2, but even then DoF was so paper thin (and this on the M8) that I finally sold it.

Seriously, not wanting to incite a flame war, I am truly interested in the reasons behind using it at anything above f1.2... So for the added weight, slower focus helical, inability to use it reliably where it shines, and last of all its almost ridiculous price, I have to ask why do you bother with the Noct?

 

[rayyan]

Jack, that is a very valid question.

I tried a Noct for a few days once.

Nobody was the least interested and none
were impressed that I had a Noct.

Sold it. Fast.

Hired a model instead. Never looked back.
But everyone looked at us.

Best.

 

[Double Negative]

On the face of it, a very good question. If you're not shooting it wider open than f/1.4 - a Summilux would be a better choice. If you own one and are out shooting however, sometimes you have to stop down (for whatever reason).

 

[Ocean]

For Noctilux 0.95, it has been indicated by Leica's literature that, from f1.4 on, Noctilux 0.95 achieves similar performance of Summilux 50 ASPH. What Leica is saying is that having a Noctilux 0.95 is equivalent of owning a 50 Summilux ASPH plus additional f stops (1,2, 1,0, and 0.95), without considering the additional weight and size, of course.

For me, I prefer to use the Noctilux wide open at all time, unless I have to step down few f-stops on certain lighting conditions.

 

[AreBee]

Jack,

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but...

My own (humble) results showed that the Lux was better optically than the Noct across the frame at f1.4, and the Cron was better than both -- at least optically -- after f2.8. As for "signature" or "drawing" I preferred the look of the Lux up to about f4.5, whereafter I could not really distinguish them from one-another.

If the difference in "signature" or "drawing" of lenses converges upon stopping down, and by f/4.5 has become near indistinguishable, which clearly is an aperture wider than that normally adopted by landscape photographers, then, besides technical characteristics of a lens, is one lens not simply as good as another?

 

[JWW]

I have both the 50mm Noctilux ASPH and the Summilux ASPH. I put the Noctilux in my camera bag when I intend to go out and use it wide open. If not, I'll just use the lighter, smaller Summilux. The Noctilux does allow using one lens for both the wide open look and for Summilux-like stopped down images so I never have to carry both 50s together.

I find that I don't have too much problem focussing the Noctilux using the M viewfinder when there's some light but the EVF is a lot of help in dark situations. The difficult lens to focus is the 75mm Summilux wide open.

In some cases, I'll stop the Noctilux down to f2.8 or 4 if I need the additional DOF, such as taking a picture of multiple people grouped together and I want to have them all in focus. In addition, I stop it down if I want maximum sharpness to the images such as if I happen to take a landscape shot with it.

 

[docmoore]

I have the Summilux Asph ... used a Cron for years ...

I have been told that the color spectral rendering of the Noctilux 0.95 is
much cleaner than the Summilux or the Cron...perhaps someone with the lens
will weigh in with their impressions concerning this. Whites in particular are better.....

Bob

 

[Jack]

Jack,

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but...



If the difference in "signature" or "drawing" of lenses converges upon stopping down, and by f/4.5 has become near indistinguishable, which clearly is an aperture wider than that normally adopted by landscape photographers, then, besides technical characteristics of a lens, is one lens not simply as good as another?

In simple terms, if one shoots everything at f5.6 or f8 then it doesn't matter much what lens you use -- a 50 of any manufacture at those apertures is going to be pretty good and most optical anomalies that refer character are attenuated by those smaller apertures. However not all of us, even dedicated landscape shooters, shoot everything at f5.6 or f8 -- quite often I'm in the f1.2 to f4 range for my landscapes, even with longer lenses

 

[MaxKißler]

Very interesting. When I saw the post of TimothyHyde in the Fun with digital M images thread (nice image btw, nothing wrong with it), I asked myself the same basic question: Why shoot the Noctilux at anything but its widest aperture especially if it's a night shot without tripod?

If I had a Noctilux I'd simply not bother stopping down that lens. I mean if you're able to afford this particular lens, you can definitely afford a Summicron aswell for all the occasions you need or want to stop down.

I personally like the slow lenses of the M system. IMO they yield the best performance across the field with the additional benefit of being smaller and lighter.

 

[MaxKißler]

In simple terms, if one shoots everything at f5.6 or f8 then it doesn't matter much what lens you use -- a 50 of any manufacture at those apertures is going to be pretty good and most optical anomalies that refer character are attenuated by those smaller apertures. However not all of us, even dedicated landscape shooters, shoot everything at f5.6 or f8 -- quite often I'm in the f1.2 to f4 range for my landscapes, even with longer lenses

True. Even a 50mm Jupiter 8 at f5,6 looks just as good as a 50mm Summicron.
However, I cannot completely agree: For example, the 50mm pre asph Summilux is optically just a bad lens compared to the Summicron or even the Jupiter 8. At f11 the edges of that Summilux are still horribly fuzzy while the other lenses mentioned before are much sharper.

Don't get me wrong, Im not implying that the Jupiter 8 is better then the Lux. It is not, in fact it has lots of flaws; Enormous focus shifts, bad performance wide open and horrible mechanics just to name a few.

Then again, all these lense are made to take images with. And I guess if the content of an image is alright, nobody will care whether it was captured with a Noctilux or a Jupiter X at a certain aperture.

 

[fotografz]

For those of you that own or have used the Nocti, f1 or f0.95 versions, why do so many of you shoot it at f2 to f4?

Back in the day, I owned multiple version of the f1 lens, and shot it against the Lux Pre, Lux Asph and Cron 50's (never owned the Cron ASPH). My own (humble) results showed that the Lux was better optically than the Noct across the frame at f1.4, and the Cron was better than both -- at least optically -- after f2.8. As for "signature" or "drawing" I preferred the look of the Lux up to about f4.5, whereafter I could not really distinguish them from one-another.

I *did* like the look of the Noct wide open and at f1.2 which the Lux could not do, but focusing the dang thing was nigh on impossible wide open -- or more accurately, focusing and holding myself still enough to maintain the exact focus distance was nigh on impossible. I did use it more reliably at f1.2, but even then DoF was so paper thin (and this on the M8) that I finally sold it.

Seriously, not wanting to incite a flame war, I am truly interested in the reasons behind using it at anything above f1.2... So for the added weight, slower focus helical, inability to use it reliably where it shines, and last of all its almost ridiculous price, I have to ask why do you bother with the Noct?

I get asked this question from time-to-time Jack … especially from photographers considering the Nocti (or other fast aperture lenses) and aware of challenges such a fast lens presents.

It gives us a chance to discuss how DOF increases with distance, even with these fast optics.

Usually, people think of an ultra fast lens in terms of shooting closer subjects … which is where a lot of the "difficulty of use" arises. Lenses like the Canon 50/1.2, Canon 85/1.2, Zeiss 110/2FE, M75/1.4 and M Noctiluxes (etc.) have very narrow DOF at their closest focus. Okay, IF super narrow DOF is the objective, you know exactly what you are doing and why, and have impeccable technique. I have a hell of a time with my assistants who are all gaga about their new 85/1.2 and insist on shooting people up close, wide open … so one eye is ALWAYS soft, or the nose (and not in a good way) … and that's with AF! I have to constantly remind them to stop down a bit.

Most of the time I use the M50/0.95 @ 0.95 at a bit more distance … environmental type portraits, images with more expansive areas in the composition. Especially night scenes, evening cityscapes, or in dark venues … including in churches where flash is forbidden during a wedding. 0.95 gets me the shutter speeds I need, and still helps isolate the subject from the background better than f/1.4 at the same distance.

I had the M50/1.4 ASPH and the M50/0.95 at the same time for awhile … while it's nice to have a smaller 50, from f/1.4 onward, the results were almost impossible to tell apart. Personally, I like the size of the 50/0.95 on the M Monochrome it balances very nicely.

Oh, BTW one of the only reasons I bought the A7R was to use the 0.95 on it so I didn't have to spend $7K to get a few color shots occasionally. Focus mag and peaking even makes it easy to focus closer. However, even perfect focus isn't going to alter the fact that close up the DOF is next to zero.

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

:worthless:

Here are a few 50/0.95 shots to illustrate various use of the Nocti … from f/0.95 to f/8 … depending on subject, lighting, and distance-to-subject … or distance-to-subject, and subject-to-background.

(Color from a M9 … B&Ws from a M Monochrome).

"Bride leaning on door" @ f/0.95 was in such low light that my assistant's 5D couldn't achieve focus with her 50/1.4. Distance to subject increased DOF enough, and the background was almost on the same plane as the subject.

"Bride at table" was also f/0.95, but I was far enough away (and I also cropped in a little bit to frame her in post) so she is isolated front and back.

Girl on walking beach was at f/1.2 … again further away, but the little extra aperture allowed a wee bit more DOF and a slightly faster shutter speed for a moving subject.

"Boy and book" was at f/2.8 … which just barely got both eyes in focus at that distance.

"Rabbi preparing for prayer" was at f/4 which provided enough DOF to capture some of the cluttered intellectual surroundings.

"My wife and our dog" was at f/8 … which still isolated her from the background because it was so far away, yet kept a sense of where we were rather than obliterating the background completely like f/2.8 or faster would have done.

- Marc

 

[CharlesK]

Excellent question Jack, and I agree with Marc here.
I have the 50 Noct f/1.0 and the 50 Lux Asph, and I find the paint like rendering with the 50 Nocti f/1.0 still is there from f/2 right up to f/4. For outside shots, I will normally have to use f/2.8, even late afternoon.

I have attached some shots from a recent wedding, with the Monchrom and the 50 Noct f/1.0. Most of the outdoors shots were at f/2.8 to 4, while indoor most were at f/1.2 to 1.8.

Having the flexibility of one lens, with the ability to change the DOF and rendering without changing the lens to a 50 Lux or another 50 is a bonus.

 

[bradhusick]

I try to shoot each of my Leica lenses wide open almost all the time. Leica (and I) spent a great deal of money making sure these lenses perform better than any alternatives when wide open, and I don't want to waste that investment.

 

[AreBee]

Thanks Jack,

I appreciate that there is no reason to not shoot at larger apertures if the photographer wishes to. It's not my cup of tea, however.

 

[Hosermage]

Not an owner of such exotic lenses, but I suspect they are the same reasons why anyone doesn't shoot a f/1.4 lens or f/2 lens at wide open all the time. I pay for fast lens for its versatility so that I can shoot it that wide when I need to, without the need of changing the lens for every different lighting scenarios. Once the lens is on the body, however, the aperture settings becomes a creative tool for DOF/shutter-speed control. I'm lazy and prefer not to change lens often while I'm out, so I see the benefit of being able to slap on a slightly bigger lens that is capable of wider aperture range, especially if you move between indoor/outdoor a lot.

I wish that they can figure out a way to provide constant fully round iris so the bokeh looks nice at all apertures.

 

[Jack]

Most of the time I use the M50/0.95 @ 0.95 at a bit more distance …

I had the M50/1.4 ASPH and the M50/0.95 at the same time for awhile … while it's nice to have a smaller 50, from f/1.4 onward, the results were almost impossible to tell apart.

Excellent question Jack, and I agree with Marc here.
I have the 50 Noct f/1.0 and the 50 Lux Asph, and I find the paint like rendering with the 50 Nocti f/1.0 still is there from f/2 right up to f/4. For outside shots, I will normally have to use f/2.8, even late afternoon.

Having the flexibility of one lens, with the ability to change the DOF and rendering without changing the lens to a 50 Lux or another 50 is a bonus.

I pay for fast lens for its versatility so that I can shoot it that wide when I need to, without the need of changing the lens for every different lighting scenarios.

Okay, I see a general theme and it makes some sense. Good to know the new Noct 0.95 is as good as the Lux ASPH from 1.4 up -- that was data I did not have, and I understand the paint-like rendering of the older Noct up to f4 -- it's like Lux Pre at f1.4 to 2.8.

I still have difficulty wrapping my arms around the added weights and slower focus helical (as well as for the 75 Lux or 90 APO too), but I can see where if one wants that look, it's worth the effort.

@Max -- I suspect you may have had a defective copy of the Lux Pre? I owned a few copies over the years and they were painterly almost to f2.8 and while not Cron sharp from f4 up, mine were pretty close...

 

[Gary Clennan]

@Max -- I suspect you may have had a defective copy of the Lux Pre? I owned a few copies over the years and they were painterly almost to f2.8 and while not Cron sharp from f4 up, mine were pretty close...

Yep - the 50lux pre-ASPH is certainly not an "average" performing lens. The only time I prefer my 50cron is for infinity performance...

 

[MaxKißler]

...
@Max -- I suspect you may have had a defective copy of the Lux Pre? I owned a few copies over the years and they were painterly almost to f2.8 and while not Cron sharp from f4 up, mine were pretty close...

The copy I tested is owned by my neighbor and this black 50mm pre asph Lux is in perfect condition. It looks like new and behaves just like the copy I tested (less thoroughly though) in my local Leica store.

There are several reasons why I don't like this lens:
-When the lens gets stopped down its focal length changes just enough to cause focus shifts; Just like any other fast lens without correction (FLE come to mind). I hate having to compensate for this while shooting, I find it distracting when I have to focus on the shoot instead.
-Field curvature is very prominent; The field and corners are always a bit fuzzy even when stopped down.
-It's quite large compared to a 50mm Cron especially if you consider that you get more resolution (especially across the field and in the corners) from the Cron in a much lighter package.


However just because it doesn't meet my demands doesn't mean anybody has to share my opinion. If you have one just shoot and enjoy it.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

At least for me when I shot the older version of it many times I hated the background effect depending on what was behind the subject. Many times the background looked so nervous I really did not like it. The one lens I did like was the older 50 lux pre asph with the slide on hood. That lens far cheaper but I liked the look better. Now the newer Nocti I have not shot so can't comment on it but the old one I would not buy.