Do many people own a Noctilux - if so how often do you us it?

[jac_waddington]

Hi,

I love available light photography and this looks like the ideal lens.

 

<p>

 

I would be interested to know how many people own the Noctilux F1 lens and what kind of results they have been getting. I have seen a lot of them advertised 2nd hand and was wondering if people were using them and then selling them on after finding they were not using them as much as they may have. It sure is expensive - is it worth the money?

 

<p>

 

Mark

[jay_.]

I was lucky enough to be able to get one on loan for a while, long

enough to discover that it wasn't my cup of tea. The hood intruded

into the finder (this was the latest, pull-out-hood version, I

believe the earlier versions had "vented" hoods), the weight and bulk

were uncomfortable (but not so uncomfotable as the 75/1.4), and

mostly the problem was that at f/1 the DOF was so shallow, especially

in the near range, that what I got was a lot of well-exposed

available light shots of out-of-focus objects. With the quality of

400 and 800 speed films today, I'm satisfied with a 50/2. At the

most, I think I'd opt for the 1.4, which is a lot smaller and less

expensive than the Noctilux, but the performance of the Summicron is

just so amazing compared to the other 50's that it's hard to switch.

[jackflesher]

I was lucky enough to acquire a noctilux as part of a "barely" used

Leica package. I have the second generation version with the

removeable hood. It is a phenominal lens that produces images like no

other lens can produce. It is sharp, even at f1, and has that

wonderful "Bokeh" quality that has become so popular lately. But,

with that being said, the truth is I do not use it much. It is heavy,

slow to focus as the focus ring has a longer than normal travel, and

does not meter properly in bright light at f1 or f1.4 (You need to

meter at f4, and calculate the f1 or f1.4 exposure to get correct

results in normal light -- however, this problem does not arise when

using the lens in low light situations -- a curious anomaly.) I have

since purchased a Summicron which sees a great deal of use, and I am

thinking I may eventually sell/trade the Noctilux. My advice is buy

the Noctilux only if you really plan on doing a lot of available

light or night photography. Also, as mentioned above, there is

precious little depth of field at f1 -- make sure the rangefinder in

your particular body is adjusted perfectly as there is virtually no

room for focus errors at f1!

[augusten_burroughs1]

Because so few people use the Noctilux with regularity, the distinctive

look that it can create is less familiar, thus quite unique. I'm

speaking of the astonishing lack of depth of field when used opened

wide. The background melts. Indeed, if you are focused on the eyes, the

ears will not be sharp. This can create a very powerful and unusual

look. And it provides the photographer with fresh creative options that

are not available with any other lens.

 

<p>

 

I've had success using this lens in the very low light situations for

which is was created, as well as outdoors in the daytime. Absolutely,

it's not as sharp as my Summicron. And truly, one must spend a lot of

time learning to focus this lens. The higher mag .85 would be ideal for

this objective. Although a heavy and large (by Leica standards) lens,

it balances perfectly on the camera body. However, a large portion of

the viewfinder is obscured.

 

<p>

 

The question of whether or not this lens is worth the money is

impossible to answer. If you are shooting hand-held in a dark bar and

you want to capture the glint in someone's eye, this is your lens. And

if you want to create images that have a unique lack of depth of field,

a "look" not usually seen, this would be the lens for you.

 

<p>

 

But there are compromises and you need to be fully aware of them.

Price, viewfinder obscurity, weight, size and focus challenges come to

mind as the leading

[tony_rowlett2]

I received the latest version as a Christmas gift a couple of years

ago. I love it - it is my favorite lens - however it is difficult to

use and is quite heavy to keep around the neck. Inside in available

darkness, it is especially difficult due to the lack of depth of

field. I have never noticed the intrusion of the lens hood into the

field of view, but unfortunately it is there for those who spend a lot

of time framing the photograph. But anyway, it is really quite a

magical and weird lens if you are willing to spend some time

getting used to it.<p>

<a href="http://www.alaska.net/~rowlett/noctilux.htm">Here are some of

my results with the lens.</a>

[kens]

I've tried both the vented-hood version and the latest version. The

vented version does provide a little relief from viewfinder intrusion,

but the newer version - with it's rectangular hood - provides more

relief from corner vignetting.

 

<p>

 

Corner vignetting is an inherent problem with all Noctilux lenses,

due to the sheer size of the front element and the light bending that

must be done to gather it all into the 35mm frame. Leica decided that

this was somewhat less important assuming the usual dark surround of

an available-dark Noctilux subject.

 

<p>

 

The circular hood of older lenses permits better viewing but

exacerbates the vignetting. The rectangular hood of the newer lenses

intrudes more in the viewfinder, but less so on the corners of the

film plane. Choose your priority.

 

<p>

 

I use the Noctilux only with the M6.85 viewer or with an M3 - focusing

is more accurate. I also tend to use it with more distant subjects

rather than close subjects, due to the extremely limited DoF already

mentioned above.

 

<p>

 

I love the lens. I'll probably never part with it.

[russell_brooks]

I have one of the older Noctiluxes with the vented hood. I would

agree with the man who said that at f1 it's best to use at distance

rather than at 1 meter. If I try to focus (with an M3) at one meter

and f1 it's really hit or miss if anything is in focus. I would like

to hear from people who use it as a full time lens during the day as

well. I'm thinking about using it this way since I dont like to

schlepp around multiple lens.

[Rob F.]

Nice work, Tony. The still life really shows off the shallow DOF.

If I ever get a Noctilux, I'll try my own, only with a bottle of

Corona. What are the tiny points of light in "building II"? At

first I thought they were stars (the ones over the building still

could be), but about six are in front of the building.

 

<p>

 

I suppose you could say that with today's (and tomorrow's?) fast

films, f/1.4 is fast enough; but then, to push the edge of the

envelope, you would still need f/1.0, no matter how good the film

gets.

 

<p>

 

Best Wishes,

[tony_rowlett2]

Bob, I'm not positive on the bright dots above the buildings. I don't

have the machine print handy right now, but I'll dig it out and see if

they're not just dust specks or something. They may be stars, which

would be ultimately cool, I think.

[tony_rowlett2]

Bob, oops. My apologies. The thought was nice while it lasted.

Nope, those dots aren't even visible on the machine print anymore

(just got it out). I'm 100% sure they were dust specs at the time the

machine prints were scanned. Rats.

[richie chishty]

Tony: Your Noctilux photos are really good! I have just bought this

lens from a LUG member and expect to have it in my hands in a week or

so. I am very excited about this lens and plan to use it a lot for

nighttime urban landscapes and people photography...................