Damn. Noctilust again.

[dave_chadderton]

Whenever I'm in the market for a new lens (ie, whenever I'm allowed to

spend!), I weigh up all the options and try to decide which focal

length I'll 'need' and then see which I can afford(!).

 

Recently, I've decided that I should get a 28 (or maybe the 25ZM).

Then I got around to thinking about the 35 Lux, the 50 Lux and the new

75 Cron (I like my CH75/2.5) ... I only (!) have a Leica Tri-Elmar,

and think that perhaps I should get a faster 28/35/50. I then think

that the perfect 75/2 is the definite next lens, but then someone

posts a Noctilux question ... and I want one.

 

I always have wanted one. I know it's big, unwieldy and expensive. I

know I could geta 75 cron and a 28/1.9 Ultron for the same price! But

it's f1 !!

 

Can anyone help (and I'm not sure what I want here) dispel this so-

called Noctilust?

[wai_leong_lee]

Get one. I have one too. It's fun from time to time, although I don't get to use it very often. You'll find that the subject must be quite still at F1 for you to take a sharp picture, simply because the focus throw is so long and it takes a long while to line up the images.

 

Wai Leong

===

[al_kaplan1]

Don't be cheap! Pick up a 50mm f/0.95 Angenieux motion picture lens and get a custom machined rangefinder coupled Leica M mount made for it to match the original Angenieux cosmetics and engraving. Angenieux glass is noted for its great bokeh!

[skeeter]

you should try to rent one, if possible (probably difficult). i suspect a week with one will cure your ailment. a pre-asph summilux is only a stop slower, but a fraction of the size, weight and price, with nice ergonomics.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

After a David Oliver seminar earlier this year I knew I had to have a Noctilux. It's really no bigger than a typical SLR lens and it balances well with your M body. There is nothing equal to the effect you get when shooting wide-open.

 

A couple of recent examples...<div></div>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

Another model train...<div></div>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

Here's one for you to chomp on...

 

http://www.popflash.com/item.cfm?id=%24%24%2EFK%5EP%20%20%0A

[Bill Blackwell Images]

One more...

 

Under the capital dome, Sacramento, CA<div></div>

[fjords]

try the original<div></div>

[terry_rory]

I am sure we have all been there. (Lens lust I mean.)

 

You are batting around all over the place deciding between 50mm/25mm/28mm/35mm/75mm & Noctilux

 

Have you identified a specific requirement in your shooting for any of these? If there is a glaring need for a 50/1 then you should get one. Maybe get a good used one then if you 'get over it' or need to sell it there is little or no financial loss.

 

If you have never used a lens this fast before then it may be an idea to contact www.ffordes.com about their Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS (E++ for 249 GBP in the used listings) and put it on any old Nikon SLR for a bit of practice before re-mortgaging your home to buy the Noctilux! It may not be as good as the Noctilux but you can prove to yourself (at little cost) whether you have a need for an ultra fast 50mm. (Minolta did good 50mm and 58mm f1.2 lenses which are even cheaper for this this purpose.)

 

I think that the ultra fast 50mm primes tend to hark back to a time (1960s-70s) when ISO 400 was considered really fast film (especially with colour) and these 'hairy chested' ultra fast 50mm lenses were more fashionable as a result. However I got bitten (or smitten) by the idea for a little while after watching the Kubrick film 'Barry Lyndon' where he made use of a modified Zeiss f/0.7 lens for a lot of the indoor nighttime scenes.

 

But I got over it. The fastest 50mm I have used is a Contax/Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar which is fast enough for me.

 

Don't forget the CV 35mm f/1.2 ('only' 549 GBP brand new from www.ffordes.com) this may enable your budget to stretch further through your shopping list.

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt3512.htm

[eliot_rosen1]

If you have a Tri-Elmar, a 75 or 90 mm lens makes the most sense. The 75 CV, 75/2 Summicron, 90/2.8 Elmarit, or 90/3.5 CV make the most sense, the CVs being cheaper than the Leicas. The Noctilux is a specialty lens, once the novelty of F/1 wears off, you may not use it very much. I've seen enough contrived pictures people taking in daylight with the nocti at 1/1000 sec to realize that you have to search hard for opportunities to take pictures at F/1.

[fjords]

Elliott, Try fondling the flowers at dusk.

[dave_chadderton]

Al, thanks. I hadn't thought of that!

 

Trevor & Eliot,

 

I agree with everything you say ... Perhaps the best solution is for the 75/2 Cron and the CV35/1.2.

 

... but that Popflash link is now saved as a bookmark, just in case ...

[e_b7]

There's no depth of field at f1. I like Bill's model train photos, but check out the

front numbers and headlight on the steam engine (this is an observation and

not criticism). To Bill's credit, I'm assuming he couldn't have gotten the shot at

all without the fast lens. So, unless you are making a sequel to Barry Lyndon,

and need some hand held still photos in an 18th C style candle lit setting, f1

may not be that useful for you. You'll find a tripod is much cheaper and more

effective, but, of course, harder to carry. In short, the Noctilux is a bit of a

specialized tool. I agree that renting might cure your bug.

[eliot_rosen1]

Sorry, John, but you didn't need F/1.2 to take a picture of the rear end of a horse.

[johnny massey]

Dave, ask yourself if there is an image posted here that could not be taken with a slower lens and where the increased depth of field would have spoiled the shot. I believe I have just done myself a big favour buying the very slow 90 Macro-Elmar, then again, I own a tripod. Johnny

[al_kaplan1]

What the heck, if somebody gave me one I'm sure it would get at least as much use as my 50/2.8 Elmar or second generation 50 Summicron. Next to none. I want a 15mm f/1 ;-)

[johnny massey]

Precisely Al, your elmar and summicron are getting bugger all use.

[Rob F.]

Dave, I can tell from your post that you will eventually buy one to try, no matter what anyone writes here. You are hoping we will give you permission to go ahead with it. Well, I bought a used one, and I'm having fun with it. I hereby give you permission to do the same. Go ahead, have fun.

[dave_chadderton]

Rob,

 

Are you sure you're not my wife? She'd definitely say something like that! And you/she may be right.

 

Common sense tells me to go for either the 50/1.4 or 75/2and save the cash for a second body (camera, not the wife!!!).

[nasmformyzombie]

Dave, your second post suggests you already know where to go with this. A faster 50mm (f1.4 or f2) or 75mm (f2) probably makes much more sense and the Noctilux---unless you want to go wide. With virtually grain-less ISO 400 films, the f1 is really a very specialized lens. At present, you don't own a single prime lens!

[james_.1]

If you read about the history of the noctilux, maybe you'll note that the original f/1.2

version was the design that wasn't feasible in the long run due to aspherical element

manufacturing problems. Then they (perhaps compromised) and came out with the f/1

version. Close focused and wide open, it's a bit soft. Now, if Leica came out with a new f/

1 or f/1.2, close focus to .7m, and some new technology (asph, FLE, etc.), that would be

enough to send plenty of Leicaphiles into an inescapable tizzy. As it is, it's a neat lens but

maybe a compromised beasty. However, there will probably be no other f/1 lenses ever

again.

[dave_chadderton]

Gary,

 

"At present, you don't own a single prime lens!"

 

I have a CH75/2.5, 15/4.5 and Nokton40/1.4. I haven't really gelled with the 40/1.4 as the lack of an accurate vf frame really bugs me. I know it's a good lens, but it's not really for me.

 

I'm very tempted by the new 75/2 to replace the CH75, but wonder if I actually need it. If I turn my attention to my lack of fast lenses (<50mm) I wonder if my cash should go to the 28/2 Summicron or maybe a 50/1.4 ... and then I confuse the whole party with the Noctilux.

 

I guess my problem is, and this is actually my only criticsm of the lens, is that the Tri-Elmar has now muddied the waters for subsequent lenses.

 

_

Confused & undecided, UK

[donald_ingram1]

I had a Noctilux for a few years. Taking moving subjects at closer than 2 or 3 meters e.g.

informal/candid portraits, and the depth of field and tracking of focus at f/1.0 became a

serious problem. I rarely got the plane of focus in the right spot - loosing the edge on

many good pictures.

 

Like the example pictures show above, the Noctilux indoors always gave painterly images

wide open - but never tack sharp.

 

However a 35 f/1.4 ASPH delivers me sharp high contrast images - and is good for close

in and group photos. The 35 Lux is a better practical lens by far, but I too fell for the

Noctilux before working that out. Now I would never sell or travel without the 35mm lens.

 

I would not buy another Noctilux, but the super sharp modern 50 ASPH f/1.4 is at the top

of my wish list.

[john_amiet2]

Dave,

 

You have been given lots of (conflicting) advice above. Some saying the Noctilux 'can't' be focussed, some saying it has 'no' DOF, ad nauseum.

 

The fact is, these are all brushes in your grab bag of 'painting sticks'. Noctilux IS a legitimate tool, with its own peculiar persona. It but remains for the photographer to use those features.

 

Technical quality (sharpness, definition) is NOT alway desirable, in fact can be quite boring.

 

Now, go decide how you would like to take picture and decide if you can use 'that bundle' of aberrations to good effect.

 

Enjoy!