Do many people own a Noctilux - if so how often do you us it?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Hi, I love available light photography and this looks like the ideal lens.

I would be interested to know how many people own the Noctilux F1 lens and what kind of results they have been getting. I have seen a lot of them advertised 2nd hand and was wondering if people were using them and then selling them on after finding they were not using them as much as they may have. It sure is expensive - is it worth the money?

Mark

-- Mark Griffin (gripper@iprimus.com.au), February 26, 2001

Answers

I was lucky enough to be able to get one on loan for a while, long enough to discover that it wasn't my cup of tea. The hood intruded into the finder (this was the latest, pull-out-hood version, I believe the earlier versions had "vented" hoods), the weight and bulk were uncomfortable (but not so uncomfotable as the 75/1.4), and mostly the problem was that at f/1 the DOF was so shallow, especially in the near range, that what I got was a lot of well-exposed available light shots of out-of-focus objects. With the quality of 400 and 800 speed films today, I'm satisfied with a 50/2. At the most, I think I'd opt for the 1.4, which is a lot smaller and less expensive than the Noctilux, but the performance of the Summicron is just so amazing compared to the other 50's that it's hard to switch.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 26, 2001.

I was lucky enough to acquire a noctilux as part of a "barely" used Leica package. I have the second generation version with the removeable hood. It is a phenominal lens that produces images like no other lens can produce. It is sharp, even at f1, and has that wonderful "Bokeh" quality that has become so popular lately. But, with that being said, the truth is I do not use it much. It is heavy, slow to focus as the focus ring has a longer than normal travel, and does not meter properly in bright light at f1 or f1.4 (You need to meter at f4, and calculate the f1 or f1.4 exposure to get correct results in normal light -- however, this problem does not arise when using the lens in low light situations -- a curious anomaly.) I have since purchased a Summicron which sees a great deal of use, and I am thinking I may eventually sell/trade the Noctilux. My advice is buy the Noctilux only if you really plan on doing a lot of available light or night photography. Also, as mentioned above, there is precious little depth of field at f1 -- make sure the rangefinder in your particular body is adjusted perfectly as there is virtually no room for focus errors at f1!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 26, 2001.

Because so few people use the Noctilux with regularity, the distinctive look that it can create is less familiar, thus quite unique. I'm speaking of the astonishing lack of depth of field when used opened wide. The background melts. Indeed, if you are focused on the eyes, the ears will not be sharp. This can create a very powerful and unusual look. And it provides the photographer with fresh creative options that are not available with any other lens.

I've had success using this lens in the very low light situations for which is was created, as well as outdoors in the daytime. Absolutely, it's not as sharp as my Summicron. And truly, one must spend a lot of time learning to focus this lens. The higher mag .85 would be ideal for this objective. Although a heavy and large (by Leica standards) lens, it balances perfectly on the camera body. However, a large portion of the viewfinder is obscured.

The question of whether or not this lens is worth the money is impossible to answer. If you are shooting hand-held in a dark bar and you want to capture the glint in someone's eye, this is your lens. And if you want to create images that have a unique lack of depth of field, a "look" not usually seen, this would be the lens for you.

But there are compromises and you need to be fully aware of them. Price, viewfinder obscurity, weight, size and focus challenges come to mind as the leading

-- Augusaten Burroughs (talkingdog@aol.com), February 26, 2001.


I received the latest version as a Christmas gift a couple of years ago. I love it - it is my favorite lens - however it is difficult to use and is quite heavy to keep around the neck. Inside in available darkness, it is especially difficult due to the lack of depth of field. I have never noticed the intrusion of the lens hood into the field of view, but unfortunately it is there for those who spend a lot of time framing the photograph. But anyway, it is really quite a magical and weird lens if you are willing to spend some time getting used to it.

Here are some of my results with the lens.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), February 26, 2001.


I've tried both the vented-hood version and the latest version. The vented version does provide a little relief from viewfinder intrusion, but the newer version - with it's rectangular hood - provides more relief from corner vignetting.

Corner vignetting is an inherent problem with all Noctilux lenses, due to the sheer size of the front element and the light bending that must be done to gather it all into the 35mm frame. Leica decided that this was somewhat less important assuming the usual dark surround of an available-dark Noctilux subject.

The circular hood of older lenses permits better viewing but exacerbates the vignetting. The rectangular hood of the newer lenses intrudes more in the viewfinder, but less so on the corners of the film plane. Choose your priority.

I use the Noctilux only with the M6.85 viewer or with an M3 - focusing is more accurate. I also tend to use it with more distant subjects rather than close subjects, due to the extremely limited DoF already mentioned above.

I love the lens. I'll probably never part with it.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), February 26, 2001.



I have one of the older Noctiluxes with the vented hood. I would agree with the man who said that at f1 it's best to use at distance rather than at 1 meter. If I try to focus (with an M3) at one meter and f1 it's really hit or miss if anything is in focus. I would like to hear from people who use it as a full time lens during the day as well. I'm thinking about using it this way since I dont like to schlepp around multiple lens.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), February 26, 2001.

Nice work, Tony. The still life really shows off the shallow DOF. If I ever get a Noctilux, I'll try my own, only with a bottle of Corona. What are the tiny points of light in "building II"? At first I thought they were stars (the ones over the building still could be), but about six are in front of the building.

I suppose you could say that with today's (and tomorrow's?) fast films, f/1.4 is fast enough; but then, to push the edge of the envelope, you would still need f/1.0, no matter how good the film gets.

Best Wishes,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 26, 2001.


Bob, I'm not positive on the bright dots above the buildings. I don't have the machine print handy right now, but I'll dig it out and see if they're not just dust specks or something. They may be stars, which would be ultimately cool, I think.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), February 26, 2001.

Bob, oops. My apologies. The thought was nice while it lasted. Nope, those dots aren't even visible on the machine print anymore (just got it out). I'm 100% sure they were dust specs at the time the machine prints were scanned. Rats.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), February 26, 2001.

Tony: Your Noctilux photos are really good! I have just bought this lens from a LUG member and expect to have it in my hands in a week or so. I am very excited about this lens and plan to use it a lot for nighttime urban landscapes and people photography...................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), February 28, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ