I ran across one of these rare babies recently on a camera store shelf and took some test frames. Thought I'd pass along my impressions since these are few and far between - and someday someone might want to know.

I haven't posted scanned images (yet) because at web resolution they really wouldn't look much different from 50 Summilux shots, as I will explain.

Externals: Roughly halfway between the current Summi and Nocti in weight, bulk, size - but closer to the Summi - it doesn't have the big 'bell' outwards of the current Noct. Has the real 60's style knurling - big dips for fingertips alternating with fine ridges for friction. Felt very nice on the M4-P.

Images: nothing like the f/1. It's (not to put too fine a point on it) soft everywhere at f/1.2. The background blur is just a blur - none of the f/1's - ummmh - INTERESTING effects. For the most part the pix look like slightly misfocused Summilux pictures. Very good contrast, though. I didn't get a chance to try smaller apertures - they weren't going to let a $3000.00 collectors' item out in the sunlight. 8^(

Further comparison, just for reference - I also recently ran across a 35 nonASPH f/1.4 - the 35 nonA is sharper than the f/1.2 wide-open by a little bit, but with somewhat less contrast.

IMHO a great collecters' lens - rare, expensive, and not worth bothering with for real photography. The current Noct is at least usably sharp in the center at f/1, and does those cool mystical things at the edges much 'better', too. For less money. And if you don't want the special effects, the Summilux will be just as smooth in the backgrounds, again with better peak sharpness at max. aperture - and it's only 1/2 stop slower.

This one had a touch of metal showing on the knurled edges - they were asking $3K, claimed it was really worth $4K, and probably (reading between the lines) would have taken $2500-2700.

Anybody else out there ever tried one?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 30, 2001

Answers

One of my friends uses the f1.2 Nocti. He tried out all the different f/1.4 to f/1 lenses available for the M (Leica, Canon and Nikon) and settled on the f/1.2 Noctilux as the best compromise in handling and performance. I managed to find a NOS hood for the lens for only $80US and he now owes me big time!

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 30, 2001.

I had a friend who had this lens in 1973. He was one of the best unrated phorographers I have ever known and he taught me a lot about Leica photography. He made some beautiful pictures with this early version of the Noctilux. He kept it in the bottom of a cookie jar when he wasn't using it because he worried that it would get stolen. Cheers.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), November 30, 2001.

John: I should have added that this one has the hood.

Also, on re-reading my original the evaluation was maybe a little harsh, esp. since I didn't see stopped down quality. My main point was that it is a very different lens from the f/1.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 30, 2001.

Andy

This is NOT at all my impression of the 50/1.2 Noctilux. First of all, it is one of the most well constructed and elegant Wetzlar producrs, certainly better quality construction than the current Noctilux. The hood is a beautiful metal affair which unscrews to take a series 8 hood between the two halves.

Optically, it is an excellent product. Its wide open performance is remarkable, especially for its time (introduced in 1966) and could not be considered soft. In fact at high apertures, it is better than the 50/1.4 Summilux. This lens has two hand ground and polished aspherical elements. If you can't get sharp images wide open or close to it, then the problem is either with the glass of that particular lens or with the focussing.

This lens was specifically designed to produce high quality images wide open (well corrected for spherical aberration and coma in particular). The difference between the 50/1.2 Noctilux and the slower lenses is that the Summicron and Summilux 50s improve significantly with stopping down, while the 50/1.2 Nocti imporves only slightly -there are more uncorrected residual aberrations.

I should also add that these lenses (assuming the glass is good) usually sell for $ 4500 or more (the hood alone can sell for over $ 500). If someone is asking $ 3000 and the lens doesn't produce sharp images wide open, I would suspect there is something wrong with it. Finally, Modern Photography did objective tests on this lens a number of years ago and found it to be a superb performer. Your experience with this particular example does not reflect the capabilities of this lens. The unfortunate thing about the lens is that it is so rare, that very few people can enjoy using it.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), November 30, 2001.

Eliot: Thanks for the feedback. The f/1.2 WAS very well constructed. As you said, it's rare enough to find one example, and one sample doesn't make for a reliable survey.

I THINK my focusing was OK - the sharpest plane was where I intended it to be - but who knows what may have happened to any given chunk of glass over 30 years? As you said, my results and the discount price may be related - also the fact that it is clean but not excellent/mint.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 30, 2001.

I have used all three 50 mmm high speed M lenses from Leitz in their latest optical computations: Summilux @ f:1.4, Noctilux @ f:1.0, and Noctilux @ f:1.2 (aspherical). I found the Summilux extremely sharp and contrasty even wide open, the Noctilux f:1.0 to give sometimes contrasty photos but not as sharp as the Summilux. The Noctilux f:1.2 gave painting like, pictorial effects. Handling beautifully on the Leica CL, my main M-mount camera, its light gain over the Summilux was slight. I think the Summilux gives the best overall performance and value.

-- Tugrulbey Kiryaman (tkiryama@stevens-tech.edu), January 18, 2002.

The Noctilux f:1.2 is a well-made lens much smaller than the Noctilux f:1.0. Its handling characteristics are close to that of the 50 mm Summilux.

-- Tugrulbey Kiryaman (tkiryama@stevens-tech.edu), January 18, 2002.