Noctilux alternatives

Hi everybody. I've seen some pictures from a Leica Noctilux 50 f1 and loved

them, but I don't have the money for it, can anyone suggest some alternatives

(Leica or others).

I don't mind for speed or focal length, but for the 'fingerprint' of the images

i.e. color rendition, bokeh and contrast.

 

Andrea

Are you looking for a rangefinder lens ?

If not the Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 for Minolta MF SLR maybe a good alternative.

I have a Leica M5, but I can consider also SLR, thank for the advice.

I like the old Takumar 50mm f/1.4 too I don't if they have look you're seeking but many are yellow and the oldest are really radioactive.

 

Here is what I got from a yellow and radioactive one.

Hi Andrea, don't be fooled into believing that Leica glass would have a "fingerprint" or "glow" that other lenses don't have. Technically speaking, this fingerptint or glow is nothing more than uncorrected spherical abberation, not unique for Leica- glass. It's true that it can look asthetically pleasing but other factors are more important imo. How large will you be printing? Look for a lens that will be sharp in the corners and one that is reasonably sharp when shooting wide open. Another point, which you brought up, speed, depends on what film speeds you are going to shoot. What I mean to say is, do you really need f/1? I once owned a f/2.8 50 mm Elmar and did just fine shooting 100 iso film under normal light. Depth of field was ok at least. When light levels drop, simply shoot a higher iso- film or boost up the iso of your digicam. Unless you really need to shoot at f/1, the Noctilux is simply a "prestige- lens" to me. In the 1950's, and 60's, great photographs were made with f/ 3.5 max. aperture lenses. The third point, focal length, depends all on personal taste and what you intend to shoot, so how can you say you don't care about focal length? Figure out for yourself what need artistically and technically and buy the best your money can buy. Good luck friend!

There's always the Canon 50mm f0.95, but it is hard to find in a Leica mount, and expensive to have somebody do the conversion. Also, it should be calibrated to your camera. Attached is a shot of the one I used to own. FWIW I like the Noctilux better, but it was a good alternative for several years.<div></div>

I have a noct, and a diana camera comes closest (I have one of those too). I recognize the irony of this statement.

 

The nice thing about the leica/noct combo is it is reliable. The diana is not. It would be funny to chop off the diana lens and somehow stick it on a leica...or any 35mm camera.

 

You might try a pinhole-to-35mm adaptor too.

I've read again. "I don't mind for speed or focal length" and you have a Leica M5.

Cosina-Voïgtlander Ultron 35 f/1.7.

Another sample.

A color sample.

"I don't mind for speed or focal length, but for the 'fingerprint' of the images i.e. color rendition, bokeh and contrast."

 

The only reason to specifically choose a Noctilux is to obtain the special characteristics of that lens (including the shallow DOF at f/1). However, your post is so general in its requirements that one could point to any number of (or all for that matter) alternatives of various focal lengths, brands, and stops. This is not to mention that many find the bokeh produced by the Noctilux as far from desirable.

 

So what is it precisely you're looking for?

i use a vc 35mm f1.2 in m mount on my r-d1s and i am pleased with the results. it is a VERY

big hunk of glass so keep that in mind... most of the fast, and i mean real fast, are serious

handfuls.<div></div>

Like Bill I still don't know what Andrea is really looking for.

If you are looking t get the experience of using a standard lens which is faster than f/1.4 then you have a few not too expensive choices. For the Konica SLR cameras there was the 57/1.2 Hexanon. I have two of these. They don't get out much but the shallow depth of field is a nice effect. Greg Weber often has these in stock [gweber@webercamera.com]. I have a Canon 55/1.2 FL lens which is also nice. These can be found frequently on eBay. The earlier 58/1.2 Canon FL is considered more collectible and usually sells for more. The 58/1.2 Minolta Rokkor lenses seem to sell for quite a lot today. The later 50/1.2 MD model is a cult lens and sells for much more than the older 58. It is supposed to have the same design as a Leica SLR lens of that period. Olympus sold both 55 and later 50mm f/1.2 lenses. The 55 sells for less. Coming back to Canon the real cult lens is the 55/1.2 Aspherical, followed closely by the newer 50/1.2L. Both are very expensive. If you don't absolutely need the slightly shallower depth of field provided by an f/1.2 lens there are many affordable f/1.4 lenses on the used market. Selective focus is an interesting and useful effect but you would soon get bored with it if that's all you did. Mr. Spock said something interesting in a 1960s Star Trek episode: " After a time you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical but it is often true."

Jon, That is a swell shot!

 

Andrea, I use a few fast lenses. The Canon TV 50/0.95 i have for the M-mount is one of my favorites.

 

There is no getting bored of it as the OOF effect is never observed until the images captured are seen (a rangefinder thing).

 

One reason why fe stick with fast lenses is that they are extremely tricky to use. Focus and exposure (two basic things in photography) take a different meaning while using ultra fast lenses. Once these are taken care of, generally, the images quality is unique.

 

Jeff, I would love to see some sample images from the 57/1.2 Hexanon.

Andrea. I know what you mean when you say you want the Noct look. The signature of a Noctilux is distinct, and can't be easily reproduced. I think the look is a combination of the following:

 

1. Depth of field at F1.0 is so narrow that only the plane of focus is sharp in the picture.. To get the look, you need it. F1.4 or F1.7 just isn't the same.

 

2. Light Falloff (Vignetting) is ridiculous. Extremely apparent in daylight, but also visible in low light situations too. The only way to get this effect is to buy a "vignetter" or use a lens shade for a longer focal length lens to purposefully cause the corners to go dark.

 

3. Swirly Bokeh. The lens is not very well corrected and shooting at F1.0 causes all kinds of abberations to be visible.

 

 

Putting it all together, the combination of effects above all work together to make a signature that's not easy to reproduce. There are some things to consider though. You can look at a Holga medium format camera. The lenses in these cameras give a similar appearance, and the bigger negative helps sharpness. Also, Leica made a "Summitar" lens, which is a 50mm with max aperture of f1.5. This lens has it's own signature, but very similar effects, and can be had for much less money (1/10th) the cost of an actual Noctilux.

 

I'd say do a flickr search for these lens and some of those mentioned by other posters. You don't have to drop thousands of dollars to get a similar look, but you do need to buy one if you one the exact signature. If there was a way to get it for less I would spend the money myself!

Correction.. make that "Summarit"... not the new ones! The original 50 1.5 Summarit

You also can try the Minolta Hexanon (sp) 50F1.2 however it was only sold in sets to with Hexar RF.

I'd look at Zeiss 50/2 planar.

 

Michael

I've recently acquired a Konica M-Hexanon 50mm 1.2, and it does come close to the Noctilux in certain respects. I like the Konica thus far, but it was a limited edition, and is therefore hard to find and becoming increasingly expensive.

 

Here's an example...

 

<center><img src="http://mtanga.com/barn7.jpg"></center>

Another vote for the Voigtlaender Nokton 35 mm f/1.2. See <a

href="http://web.mac.com/chammann/iWeb/Mostly%20Black%26White/Nokton.html"

>here</a> for some examples. I sure does have a unique rendering of out-of-focus areas,

though I can't compare it to the Noctiluxe's (for lack of experience). It's also perfectly useable

at smaller apertures. Big as a Tri-Elmar, though.

<br><br>See ya!<br>Christoph

CV 40mm 1.4:

 

<img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/mharris660/karen-1.jpg">

What about the Canon f/1.2 50mm rangefinder lens? It comes in LTM and can easily be adapted to any M mount camera. I did not shoot too much with mine, but I got it together with the camera body for less than a single Noctilux with just a tad of an f-stop more.

Im going to get hammered for this, but get a 50mm f1.4 and really spend some time learning photoshop-- one of the reasons I got rid of my Noct was that I learned (after a LOT of experimentation) to be able to create a similar effect in selective post processing-- everything from reduced contrast to limited DOF. I even finally am able to come close to the coma created by the old 35mm Summilux.

 

The only issue you cant really duplicate is the flare control of the noct.

 

Granted, I was able to start out with the noct, and shoot it, so I had samples to work from, and experience with it...

Use Ilford 3200 (shoot at 1600) with any 50 Summicron, or even a 3.5 50 Elmar mentioned above, & save your money and your wrist.<div></div>