Few days ago I saw on eBay a used Noctilux f/1.2 at a price higher than a new one. It was not mint but in very good condition. I would like to know why people will buy this used lens at this price considering this is an F/1.2 instead of F/1.0 for the new version....All technical comments are welcome...JPAuger (Canada)

-- Jean-Pierre Auger (paphoto@videotron.ca), May 24, 2002

Answers

Rarity.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), May 24, 2002.

stupidity. the new 1.0 is better in all aspects (i'm sure someone will jump me for that...) cheers, pat

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), May 24, 2002.

too complete a set of noctili (noctiluxes)???

ie

1.2, 1.0/hood, 1.0 built-in hood.

that is someone more interested in the equipment than the photography....me, its about 50:50 (I still cannot afford or justify a noctilux...maybe for my next birthday,christmas and fathers day rolled into one :-))

john

-- John Tobias (johntobias@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.

I agree with Pat. Not that I personally used the 1.2 version, but hey, why does one want a noctilux? For it´s shallow DOF and it´s specific out of focus blurriness (spelling?) of course. And for all the other characteristics I don´t need to mention. Not for putting it in a glass door cabinet! (and now I will be the one to be flamed...)

-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), May 24, 2002.

If I were restricted to only one lens for my Leica, the Noct might be the lens of choice.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.

Like Chris said...

As a user, the f/1.2 is a little more compact - not much bigger than the un-hooded Summilux - and so blocks the viewfinder less. And it's corner imaging is not quite as 'squirelly' as the f/1. But the f/1 is better at the center wide open, in my (very) limited experience.

But really it's just rarity...

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 24, 2002.

Frank: I agree with you. The Noctilux is a very desirable lens. My point is : why someone pay more for a used lens made 20 years ago when he can buy a brand new Noctilux in a box with protection from the distributor all that for less money.....JPAuger.

-- JPAuger (paphoto@videotron.ca), May 24, 2002.

The Leitz Noctilux 50/1.2 lens was made in very small numbers (dates of production 1966-1975, but most were made in 1966-67). This is a six element design with two hand ground and polished aspherical elements, and was very difficult and costly to produce. The high price is because of its rarity and desirability by collectors. You may have noted that 50/1.0 lenses are relatively frequently offered on eBay, but 50/1.2 Noctis are very uncommon. It seems the 50/1.2 was not very popular during its period of production, because it only offered 1/2 stop more maximum aperture than its competition, the 50/1.4 Summilux which was smaller, less bulky, and less costly.

The 50/1.2 Nocti was advertised as being a high contrast lens for wide aperture use with better performance than the contemporary Summilux at comparable near maximal apertures. I might add that it is a beautiffuly constructed lens made by Leitz Wetzlar (only in black anodized finish) with the elegant scalloped focussing ring found on a number of early M lenses. I bought one quite a while ago ( for much less than current prices) mint in box with shade and series UVa filter. The sticker on the box shows the price the dealer was charging for the lens when it was new: $ 438. (I payed more than that!).

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 24, 2002.

Hello Jean-Pierre. It seems that Leica have always pushed the envelope with respect to speed (even half a stop over the Summilux), and performance.As stated,this lens is a rarity,however $438 as a new lens cost was relatively high in 1966.Today the high book price paid by officiandos is not necessarily for highest optical quality, but for the fact that the asherical concept,now universally adopted in a new manufacturing technique,was not only on the shelves 36 years ago,but being worked on the drawing board probably well before that.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.

All of the dozen or so F1.2 Noctiluxes I have seen on Ebay go for more than a brand new F1.0 Noctilux...I have been on Ebay since 1998..They are not that rare on ebay... The f1.2 model attracts the collectors; which NEED the rare item to display and rarely ever use......Horrors; an nick will reduce their investment.... Total production was something like only 2500 units...

The new 1976? + F1.0 Noctilux was designed by computer; and uses no expensive aspherical surfaces....A lens grinding machine naturally grinds/polishes spherical surfaces....Newer machines create some aspherical surfaces; but it is expensive....the F1.0 lens is 1/2 stop faster than the F1.2 model....

Since the F1.2 Noct is rare; one doesnt hear or see much feedback/photos taken with one....I am sure it is a great lens; and would like to hear some comments from anyone that has actually used one...

I have used the 50mm F1.0 Noctilux and the Canon 50mm F1.2 LTM Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 24, 2002.

Sheridan. My lens dates to 1967, but I suspect that $ 438 price actually coresponds to a few years later than that ? 1970 or so, since the lenses sold in very small quantities. Still a lot of money in those days. Does anyone know how much that would correspond to in todays dollars? The value on the Leica collectibles market for the complete unit (lens + shade (metal and rare) and caps) is on the order of $3500-5500 depending upon cosmetic condition, optical condition, and completeness.

It was a fabulous lens by 1966 standards [certainly better than all of the Japanese superspeeds of the 50s and 60s] and still very good even today. I'm sure the 50/1.0 Nocti of 1976-present is even better optically. Apparently, the use of several extremely high refraction index glasses made the aspheric surfaces unnecessary in the 50/1.0 Nocti.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 24, 2002.

Jean-Pierre, the older Noct goes for more for the same reason that some of us have paid more for the F/3.4 21mm Super-Angulon, than you have to pay for a 21mm Elmarit:

Chacun a son gout . . .

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 24, 2002.

Kelly. I have seen that production estimate of 2500 units too, but I don't know exactly where it comes from, since Leica never released official production numbers for the 50/1.2 Nocti. BTW, I didn't mention that this lens was chosen for use by NASA. I have seen pictures of specially modified 50/1.2 Noctis for use on the M4 with gloved hands (presumably by astronauts). I'm sure NASA wouldn't have selected this lens unless it was very good.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 25, 2002.

Eliot; the book Identifying Leica Lensesby Sartorius on page 90 mentions "units: about 2000" ...as the production figure ...I have this paperback book; bought off of ebay...; I misquoted the figure as 2500.....Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 25, 2002.

The old f /1.2 Noctilux price is the demonstration of what is worst in the influence of Leica collectors-investors: artificially inflated prices.

The only point which can justify this price is rarity.

The practical value of this lens is far below most much more usable “old lenses” can justify.

On the contrary to the present superb f/1 Noctilux, this lens is a very specialized one to be operated only at very wide apertures.

When it was issued, it bettered anything in production at wide aperture but it paid this superiority by mediocre results when closed down.

The necessary compromise to produce such a lens was clearly determined for wide aperture use only. Today Noctilux is perfectly adapted to general use (if you can afford it and accept the weight and volume penalty) so you don’t need another 50 mm lens at all.

If you have already one it is probably worth keeping (if you have another 50mm of more general use) but to try to buy one is something only a diehard collector has any interest to do. It is better to save and buy a present version (even second hand).

It is also worth underlining the present Noctilux is a full f-stop more open than the Summilux and not only a half stop as with the old version. Is a mere half-stop worth the money? I’m not really convinced.

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 26, 2002.