Noctilux 1.0 -- worst lens ever?

I thought I'd throw this snake on the table:

 

The Noctilux f1 is the worst lens in production today. It features:

 

1. Mind-numbingly poor performance at f1 and focus shift at smaller

apertures rendering it useable for only 4x6 enlargements. In practice

(I've owned two and have never gotten a truly sharp picture despite

all the rave reviews on this forum) and in specification (MTF graphs

for 40 and 20 lp nearly zero) the lens is among the worst you can find.

 

2. Not a true f1.0 lens except at 5mm and closer from the center of

the lens due to extraordinarily severe vignetting. Vignetting at the

corners is 3 stops+. Vignetting exists across practically the whole field.

 

3. Poor contrast rendering color pictures washed out and

black-and-white pictures looking like they were made with a cheap

Tamron zoom.

 

4. Terrible color fidelity: Should be Blue 0, Green 5, Red 4 but

Noctilux is Blue 0, Green 8, Red 6. Tolerance on green is +0 and so

this lens has a very apparent color shift towards green.

 

5. Obstructs the M viewfinder severely and is so bulky and heavy (1.4

lbs) as to make the M the size of an SLR with a zoom lens on it.

 

6. Lens is poorly made -- in Canada by ELCAN and with a cheap plastic

hood on the latest version.

 

7. Lens focuses only to 1 meter meaning you can't get in tight on

anyone... highest reproduction ratio is 1:17.

 

Now, when you consider the cost of this lens ($2800+ new), it becomes

laughably obvious that this lens is not primarily for picture taking

but just to talk about on discussion fora like this.

(I've owned two and have never gotten a truly sharp picture despite all the rave reviews on

this forum) I see by your p.net portfolio, that your quite the photographer-:)

Poorly made????

<p>

<img src="http://www.steveunsworth.co.uk/Albums/Paris_2001_dec/images/previews/preview3.jpg">

Jorge, what's your point?

Right you are. Oh, how does it stack up against other 50mm f1.0 lenses in production today?

Oh, there aren't any others. Well, how's it stack up against <I>any</I> other 50mm f1.0

lenses? Just asking. Really, I'm just asking. I don't own nor have I owned a Noctilux.

Don't feed the troll.

hmmmmm. . . . i don't own one of these lenses. . . but, i've always thought that (despite whatever shortcomings it might have) its appeal was for someone that wanted a lens that could be used in low light situations. . . at times when they had to shoot wide open to take advantage of every bit of light available. . . not necessarily for its outstanding qualities in the areas you've mentioned. . . .

Noctilux is a perfect lens for portrait on the upcomming digital M in the following ways.

 

Its is with cropping factor close to 70mm which makes it the fastest portrait lens ever.

 

The sides of the frame are cut off with a cropped frame sensor, so, since the worst of the vignetting won't be there any longer what remains will look better.

 

Since the lens is soft focus and almost no DOF people with ugly skin defects will certainly look younger.

 

OOF will hardly be in focus at all so less background distractions.

 

All of the above will push up the collectors value for a lens that Leica owners usually keep the shortest time in there kits.

 

Since the edge of the frame won't actually be in the picture its not going to matter that the lens blocks the edge of the viewfinder.

 

With one third of the picture cropped now the lens will be tight enough except for subject from nations where the people are starving.

Troll on...

 

I never seemed to have any trouble with my Noctilux.<div></div>

a fine portrait lens<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/35/

71565380_3d2609eb3a_o.jpg"></center>

"Mind-numbingly poor performance at f1" - Compared to my Summicron, it has excellent performance by far at f1, mostly because my summicron can't shoot at f1.

 

"focus shift at smaller apertures rendering it useable for only 4x6 enlargements" - Isn't this really a function of a poorly aligned camera issue, or possibly the fact that the photographer just isn't all that good at focusing such a small depth of field.

 

"Obstructs the M viewfinder severely and is so bulky and heavy (1.4 lbs) as to make the M the size of an SLR with a zoom lens on it." - Toughen up boy, still only takes 60mm filters for an f1 lens.

 

"Lens focuses only to 1 meter meaning you can't get in tight on anyone" - Have you actually spent some time shooting with a rangefinder?

 

 

"The Noctilux f1 is the worst lens in production today." - Surely Tokina or Sigma is making something that can take that prize.

 

"it becomes laughably obvious that this lens is not primarily for picture taking but just to talk about on discussion fora like this." - Hence your lame explanation of how terrible this f1 lens is.

How does it compare (in outright performance and value for money) to the 35mm f/1.2 Nokton?

It's obvious that it's (f/1.0) true value, is it's resale value:)

Sorry, can't resist this troll

 

1. Maybe it is you who can't focus well

 

2. Many lenses are not their listed ratings in max aperture nor focal length. The lens doesn't vignette, it has falloff.

 

3. At least it doesn't look like it was shot with a cheap Prinz zoom

 

4. So, all other lenses are spot on accurate color?

 

5. I guess that makes the 135 Elmarit even a worser than "worst lens ever". Doesn't that send us into a parallel evil universe?

 

6. Damm those Canadians! Don't they know that they need to hire Jorge as designer and inspector? And as for the hood, how can it be made of "cheap plastic"? Have you seen the price of a replacement hood. Besides, I LOVE IT when my expensive metal hoods dent. That way I can have to pound out the dent so that it doesn't VIGNETTE the image.

 

7. Now this one I agree with Jorge. I want to get in so tight on a portrait that I can make the forehead, nose and chin on my portraits blow up to mammoth proportions. People love that look.

 

"Now, when you consider the cost of this lens ($2800+ new), it becomes laughably obvious that this lens is not primarily for picture taking but just to talk about on discussion fora like this."

 

And you bought TWO of them? Now that's laughable. I bought an older version when my photography fit the very specific strengths of the lens. I sold it when I didn't need it anymore.

 

Finally, make up your mind. Is the the worst currently in production or worst ever?

FYI Jorge, on this forum based on the evidence, uploading your photos is a requirement before you are granted carte blanche to bash Leica or exchange insults with one another or counter them with accusations and threats. I would expect that kind of thing on a politics forum but tell me, am I the only one disturbed by some of the stuff that's allowed to go on here?

Plus it's the most flare resistant lens I've ever used.

George,-- It seems that you are in the extreme minority on this lens. While I have met many people who love this lens, i have met none with

your opinions. I don't use one because it is too expensive and the

Summilux is more than adequate for my uses. In fact it is my only 50mm

lens.

If you think the Noctilux is bad, try the Noct-Nikkor its a true dog.

 

Actually both lenses are like fish out of water when used under certain conditions, but

good in others. The designers made trade offs to meet the goals they thought most

important.

 

The Noct-Nikkor is sharp only when given minimal exposure - high contrast situations

turn point sources into footballs across the image.

 

The Noctilux gives pin sharp point source images in the center and butterfly coma at the

edges, but handles contrast well.

 

I always found the Noctilux soft up close so going under 1m would make matters worse.

 

Todays Summilux ASPH lenses are curve fitted to correct a higher degree aberrations that

was simply not possible in the 70s, but the 35 ASPH still flares with bright light sources.

 

With the 50 ASPH many of these trades-offs seem to be better handled. Or so it seems - I

have yet to try one, but I'm sure there will be unforeseen conditions were if fails miserably.

 

It's an unavoidable fact of life that you need to learn to use each lens.

It's an expensive game as the manufactures only tell you about only their lens's good

points - that's what's great about forums like this, which really can save you time and

money.<div></div>

Dear Jorge,

 

I was prepared to dislike this lens, but a kind friend lent me one for a few months and I have to say that if I could afford one, I'd very much like one. There are pictures you can take at f/1 that are simply harder work with slower lenses -- and it beats my old f/1.2 Canon hollow, so that's a much stronger candidate for a bad lens. And the Canon f/0.95 is even softer at full bore...

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Steve, that picture of yours in the rain is really nice.

 

I don't think there is a real legitimate comparable to the Noct in production today. The f1.2 lenses are just that, f1.2,s and I think of them as more in the league of the f1.4's. Only the Noct gives the full stop in speed over the f1.4. More importantant, it seems to me that the depth of field performance of an f1.2 is more comparable to an f1.4 than an f1 or an f0.95. The f1 and f0.95 lenses take shallowness of depth of field into a new realm.

 

I'd say the best comparables to the Noct are the Canon f0.95 and the recent Canon SLR lens with an f1 aperture. We know the 0.95 isn't in production anymore, and there are rumors of the Canon f1's demise.

 

Charlie Le May produced an excellent comparison of the Noct and the f0.95 that shows both to some credit. He concluded that the Noct had more even performance edge-to-edge, and the Canon was sharper in the center, but deterioriated at the edge.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0099xZ

 

There have been some recent threads showing some really nice work with the Noct:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FikM&tag=

 

and I just took my own Canon f0.95 for a spin that satisfied me that these f1 and faster lenses can give great results if one is careful about technique:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Fwca&tag=

 

I think these superfast lenses are really valuable, but demanding tools. If your rangefinder is out of whack by a couple of inches, you are just not going to get good pictures.

 

Even if your rangefinder is properly adjusted and your technique is bang on, composition also plays a major role ... unless you have a subject in the plane of focus that absolutely dominates the composition, the shot can look soft all over due to the shallow depth of field.

 

There's a lot of evidence that these fast lenses can be great tools. It's best to look to one's own equipment and technique before dissing them.

Jorge - your lens is def. the old 50summilux ... forget the 1 stop more ... use the full capabiltiy of the LUX - it�s a freeking good lens ... and from 400asa upwards also a killer in the night ...

my favourite together with the 75lux ... which is even 1 step cooler ... and also THE top portrait lens ...

2 lenses from Leica which I will never buy is the Noct and the 135mm - life can be soooooo simple

Trevor, I would say the true comparable to the 35mm f1.2 Nokton is the 35mm f1.4 Aspherical Summilux.

Steve Unsworth , apr 30, 2006; 02:19 p.m.

"Plus it's the most flare resistant lens I've ever used."

 

That is the Noct's biggest advantage over the Canon 0.95. The Canon 0.95 is very vulnerable to flare. It needs a deep hood, which adds to vignetting, and should never be used with a protective filter.

Here I bought my Noct used for 400 bucks in the later 1970's, and like the lens alot. <BR><BR>(1) the performance at F1 on mine is stunning, but then I aligned my M3 correctly for my lenses, so the focus is true at infinity and 1 metre. Those who use their Summicrons at F8 then jump to a Noct at F1 WILL have problems.<BR><BR>(2)ANY 50mm F1 lens for a 24x36mm frame WILL HAVE Vignetting, UNLESS IT IS AS BIG AS A BEACHBALL, and costs 50k, and weighs 5kg. The lay public doesnt understand that vignetting is a design tradeoff. One purposely adds vignetting to clip the bastard rays far off axis. I dont expect folks to really understand optical design, BUT this lens having vignetting was documented when it came out in the 1970's, and is mentioned in books and the web too. Folks must have a reading problem to have not stumbled across that a 50mm F1 Noct has vignetting. Maybe these same folks think a M3 is an slr, and thus complain about the m3 too.<BR><BR>(3) The noct here has a decent contrast, but then I dont constantly scrub my lenses or worry about a spot on the lens. The lens having just moderate contrast wide open is like most fast lenses made in the last 150 years, ancient history. The test reports in the 1970's mention this fact, but then folks would have to learn to read,<BR><BR>(4) Here my 50mm F1 Noct 58mm filter size is slightly a warm spectral response, not green at all. Have you ever really shot an image with a noct? If so what version to you have that gives a green cast to it?<BR><BR>(5) Here the Noct is mostly used in the dark, since I bought it for F1 usage for astro work, bars, clubs, super low light work. Here I many times cannot even read anything on the camera, and set the M3's shutter just by feel of the Notch on the shutter dial. Here I have never really found the slight blockage to be a problem. Strangely, folks who dont own one always bring up this worry, like it is a huge deal. <BR><BR><b>As far as the weight goes, a bigger tools usually weight more. This concept goes back to the caveman days, and is nothing new.</b> Tools that were made for slaves and todays rental tools were/are heavier, since they get torn up more.<BR><BR>My 12 Lb sledge hammer, 14" big foot beam cutter circular saw weigh more too, they are specialized tools. A 16oz claw hammer or my 7 1/4" skill are more like the F2 50mm Summicron, more usable, lighter. But then there are times when there is little light, and the Noct works at iso 800 @F1 at 1/15 or 1/10 second. There are times where the dumb 12Lb sledge works better than a 16oz claw hammer too. Or with the Big foot saw, one can cut a 4x4, 4x6 in one cut, and not fart around with two cuts.<BR><Br> Some of use have speicalized tools for "big jobs", and dont do the all in one combo tool thing amateurs strive for. Heck I use the Summicron F2 and 7 1/4" skill and 16 oz claw hammer alot more tha their bigger brothers, Than doesnt mean that I am going to part with big tools that get the job done, when the smaller tools dont just cut it.<BR><BR>(6) Here the almost 3 decade old Noct I have, 58mm filter size is well made, It doesnt have any stiff feel, because it actually gets used. Collectors seem to always get stiff Nocts, they sometimes use too much glue when bonding them to their showcases.<BR><BR>Here I have never had a problem with the 1 meter focus distance. Heck my M3 only focuses to 1 meter anyway. The DOF at 1 metre is tiny, say less than 1 cm. The only folks who whine about the 1 metre distance are usually non noct users. <BR><BR>Most Noct whiners are just one night stand folks. They see cool images of others, buy a Noct, then are disapointed that their M doesnt focus well, that was last calibrated when Ford was President. Thus after the fling, they discover the Noct wont cook, wont vacuum, cant boil water, weighs more than an elmar, cannot dance, etc. Theses whiners often divorce from their Summicrons during the sow wild oats fling with the Noct, then end up rebuying another Summicron after divorcing the Noct. Then they blame the Noct instead of their uncalibrated rangefinder, since it fits their ego's want to dis the old Noct, a specialized lens. Just because the wild girl dances well at 2am doesnt mean she can cook, make ones own flour like a Summicron. <BR><BR><b>Most folks should stick to their Summicrons, 7 1/4" circular saws, 16 oz claw hammers if they dont understand why a bigger tool helps in difficult situations;</b> Since they dont do work where a large tool is required, whining and complaining about the extra cost of bigger tools is natural, for the lay public. There is nothing wrong with owning, renting, using bigger tools. They always weigh more, They always cost more, since the market is smaller and thinly traded.<BR><BR>

Further up the thread it is mentioned that the "Noct is the most flare resistant lens I have ever used/owned"<BR><BR>Here mine can be used to shoot directly into lights, and has this radically low to zitch flare compared to any other lens I have ever used.