Musings on the Noctilux on its 50th anniversary

<p>The Noctilux turned 50:<br>

http://leicarumors.com/2016/10/04/leica-celebrates-50th-anniversary-of-the-legendary-noctilux-lens.aspx/</p>

<p>The history of the Noctilux is more interesting that you'd think. The first model, a f/1.2, had two aspherical elements. But the second, an f/1, had none. The current version, an f/0.95, has two. It's one of the most interesting lenses ever made, but for me it's one of the most useless, especially in a modern context.</p>

<p>Sure, when I discovered Leica in my 20s, I thought that I'd one day have a couple of M bodies and a Noctilux. It took me a while to get over this desire, but I did get over it. There are several reasons why such a lens makes no sense to me. One is that the DOF is next to useless. Secondly, it's large. Not large compared to Canon's 50/1 EF, which weighs twice as much, but large compared to a Summilux. But when I look at the Summilux, then look at the Noctilux, I have to wonder why anyone would want the latter.</p>

<p>The Noctilux had one purpose: to take photographs in very low light levels. The very narrow DOF was just something to put up with. Now, a fashion has taken hold where some photographers believe that the narrowest DOF possible is somehow the holy grail of aesthetics (this has polluted video and cinema as well). Of course nobody is obliged to follow this fashion, as obnoxious as it is.</p>

<p>We have digital cameras which, at worst, have two or three stops of performance over the best film emulsions. You'd think that this would free us from the need for very wide apertures. But no. The Noctilux lives.</p>

<p>The performance of the Noctilux is is arguably inferior to the SLR Magic Hyperprime 50mm T0.95. It's less sharp, has worse light fall-off, and produces more CA - but it does have noticably less distortion. The Hyperprime is, as you'll notice, a T0.95, which is the actual value of transmission. The Noctilux's T stop might be a third of a stop slower, which might make it a T1 at best.</p>

<p>There is of course the Canon 50/0.95 'dream lens' which a lot of people love. I am going to bet, based on the performance of the Canon 50/1.4 LTM, that it is quite soft wide-open and would not compete with the SLR Magic or the Leica.</p>

<p>Maybe Leica's next move could be a 35mm Noctilux. The current Noctilux is great if you want the 50mm focal length, but it won't help you if you want something a bit wider. I don't quite think that a 28 Noctilux would be necessary, though. There is already a Summilux whose aperture is wide enough. I think a longer shutter speed, which is possible with a wide-angle lens, would give about the same softness as an extra stop.</p>

<p>For me, Leica is the one manufacturer that stands above all others. But the Noctilux is an example not of prowess but of irrational priorities, albeit driven by irrational market demand.</p>

<p>A Noctilux review:<br>

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-Noctilux-M-ASPH-f-095.html<br>

<br>

A Hyperprime review:<br>

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/02/04/the-slr-magic-hyperprime-50-lm-t0-95-leica-mount-lens-rolling-review/<br>

<br>

A 'dream lens' review:<br>

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/06/03/the-canon-50mm-f0-95-dream-lens-an-amazing-dreamy-classic-50mm-on-the-m-240/<br /></p>

<p>Photozone tests:<br>

http://www.photozone.de/leicam/861-slrmagic50t095?start=1<br>

http://www.photozone.de/leicam/860-noctilux50asph?start=1</p>

<p>"We must remember this...."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Noctilux had one purpose: to take photographs in very low light levels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is really true of all the extremely large aperture lenses. The bokeh thing, as you say, is a more modern trend. I still use my Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 lens and it is good enough that you can shoot more conventionally with it stopped down. However, its main original purpose for me, and I think for Nikon, was "to take photographs in very low light levels". Otherwise I dig out my 50mm f/1.8 lenses for normal shooting. Most of them are very good optically and are practically cheap as dirt (certainly cheaper than rare earths, at any rate).<br>

When these lenses first came out, really fast films were ASA 400 or 500. Many films were well under ASA 50. Many cameras were supplied with "fast" f/2.8 lenses.<br>

Thanks for the observance of the 'holiday', nostalgia, and for the useful links.</p>

<p>After lusting over the Noctilux for years, but unable to find an affordable copy, I bought a Canon 50/0.95 and had it modified to work on my M4. I was greatly disappointed and after infrequent use for a year sold it at a profit. Finally I found a deal on a Noctilux, bought it, but had my money promptly returned, it turned out to be part of an FBI sting. Eventually I did find one at an OK price, and treasured this holy grail. As you said, not only was the DOF razor thin wide open, but it was so soft even in the center of the frame that I really hated the results; closed down a notch or two it became terrifically sharp. But it, as well as the Canon, pretty well blocked my viewfinder and turned the camera into a paperweight which rivaled my heaviest SLR. I sold it and have never looked back....it was a learning experience. For some it is a great lens, for me it was an albatross.</p>

<p>I was very fortunate to be allowed use of Prototype Noctilux f1.2.<br>

I found it too contrasty(compared to Collapsible Summicron) for my needs.<br>

The tiny depth of field made it almost useless.<br>

I owned a 50mm Canon f1.2 which had less contrast.<br>

I sold it when it was damaged.<br>

I no longer bother with heavy, large, block viewfinder optics.</p>

<p>Certainly the DoF at f/1 makes the Noctilux difficult for anything at all close. At a distance (people on stage for example) it was impressive, but light falloff was large making it f/2 or worse on the edges of the frame. I was amazed at how sharp it was in the centre. But the focus shift was offputting. It seems that a lot of us have owned one for a while but not found it a must-have.</p>

<p>I commend Karim on his post. He focusses on the real anomalies in using an f1 normal lens.</p>

<p>In the days of slow films the Noctilux was of dubious real utility and overkill as well, but it made at least a little more sense then. High ISO digital camera bodies have made f1 largely redundant.</p>

<p>An arguent may possibly be made for the extreme shallowness of sharp focus of an f1 lens, as our eyes see clearly only a degree or two of angular visual field at any instant of perception. Our eyes would behave like an f1 lens only if we did not continuously scan an overall subject to render it clear to us. However, that we do, which an f1 image cannot.</p>

<p>I believe that Leica should limit their offer to only practical optics. I believe that their highly expensive aspherical Summicron 50mm is also a case of overkill, albeit for different reasons.</p>

<p>Walter Mandler of Leica argued that virtually any degree of high optical quality (or increase of normal lens speed, that I imagine he would consider as well) is possible, provided that the cost of design, construction and manufacturing care are no obstacle. He did that for some remarkable industrial and military optics, including the 90mm f1 Elcan objective.</p>

<p>The additional high cost factor of making either the f1 (or f0.95) or aspherical f2 normal lens is reflected in their market prices. And neither is very practical for most applications.</p>

<p>The Noctilux has always been an interesting lens. Larry Clark used one for his photography as did Magnum photographer Eli Reed. 'Back in film days. But in film days, as Arthur says, there was a need for speed. Nikon came out with not only a 200mm f2.0 but a 300mm f2.0 - both for sports, or so they thought. The 200 became the darling of fashion photographers, while the rare 300 f2.0 got snatched up by cinematographers. I have a Noctilux and a 50mm Summicron. To be honest, I'd probably trade both for a 50mm Summilux-asph. I DO like f1.4, but can live without f1.0. And the weight. And the 1-meter minimum focus. :-)</p>

Couldn't disagree more with the above. The Noctilux has a unique character that makes it an outstanding tool for isolating subjects whilst retaining a wide(ish) feel. The out of focus character adds to its unique look. The only reason I bought Leica MP was to use the Noctilux, but found the Rangefinder system useless for the extreme accuracy needed when focusing. I now use it on a Sony A7mk2, it's still not easy, but with the right subjects it produces stunning results. In a time where optical perfection is being pursued with such fervour, the flaws of older lenses are now much sought after to counter the brittle, clean images attained with digital capture. An extension ring helps get the focus cliser than 3 feet. The optical footprint also works well with the Red Epic Dragon