Oh no! Nocti-lust!

Oh dear. The single best/worst thing about Leica M ownership has struck me again - lens lust.

Ever since owning my first M7 back in 2004 I have wondered about the Noctilux? I know it's stupid money; I know it's heavy. But I keep on coming back to it. I was tempted by the 1.0, I'm sorely tempted by the .95

So so I take the leap of faith? Do I trade a few lenses (90 apo rarely used, 50 lux asph, spare M7 body) and part with another £1500 or-so of my hard-earned on top of that?

That would leave me with my M9, 35 lux asph and the .95

Do I? Don't I? I need help! Sensible or otherwise - give it to me ;-)

Good luck choosing

steveleicaman said:

Oh dear. The single best/worst thing about Leica M ownership has struck me again - lens lust.

Ever since owning my first M7 back in 2004 I have wondered about the Noctilux? I know it's stupid money; I know it's heavy. But I keep on coming back to it. I was tempted by the 1.0, I'm sorely tempted by the .95

So so I take the leap of faith? Do I trade a few lenses (90 apo rarely used, 50 lux asph, spare M7 body) and part with another £1500 or-so of my hard-earned on top of that?

That would leave me with my M9, 35 lux asph and the .95

Do I? Don't I? I need help! Sensible or otherwise - give it to me ;-)

Click to expand...

--
Per Nicolaisen

Photo's of my East Greenland:
http://www.byper.net

Would I like the Nocti? Sure, if money were no object. And maybe if I were more interested in bragging rights. But really, isn't it only a minimally useful lens? For most purposes, the slower normal lenses will do the job better, and without all that bulk.

So, should one give up any more-versatile lenses to finance the purchase? I don't think so. If it were me and I really lusted after this lens, I'd just save up until I could buy it outright. And I wouldn't need the approval of others, even forum members, to do so. Just one man's opinion.
Happy Holidays,
-Rich

PS: When you do buy the darn thing, maybe you will let some of us rent it occasionally?.................

i personally think that a noctilux at some point in your leica/RF life should be a must. it is well worth the money, esp considering how much a 35/50 lux ASPH cost nowadays.

as for 0.95 ASPH vs any of the pre-ASPH versions, i would say you can locate a pre-ASPH and give it a try first. while the 0.95 is surely a great lens, the older Nocts will not disappoint you either and i personally feel that the cost difference between the two is still significant enough for you to consider getting the older versions.

steveleicaman said:

Oh dear. The single best/worst thing about Leica M ownership has struck me again - lens lust.

Ever since owning my first M7 back in 2004 I have wondered about the Noctilux? I know it's stupid money; I know it's heavy. But I keep on coming back to it. I was tempted by the 1.0, I'm sorely tempted by the .95

So so I take the leap of faith? Do I trade a few lenses (90 apo rarely used, 50 lux asph, spare M7 body) and part with another £1500 or-so of my hard-earned on top of that?

That would leave me with my M9, 35 lux asph and the .95

Do I? Don't I? I need help! Sensible or otherwise - give it to me ;-)

Click to expand...

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLERY: http://galay.fotki.com

Gary

If I am right, despite the fact it's specialised, from 1.4 onwards it's like having the Summilux anyway. So in my own simple mind I get two lenses in one?

Also, the 1.0 is significantly different in character to the asph lenses that I enjoy....

No rhyme or reason to this. I keep wavering. It's not bragging rights either. I do a few weddings each year and I recon the extra stop or two could be genuinely useful

I too would love a Noctilux, but, only if money were no object as a lens costing that much needs to be on the camera 90% of the time to justify the outlay.

I still use the 3 lenses that I had with my M6TTL that I traded in to get the M8.2 (28mm f2.8 Elmarit / 50mm f2 Summicron / 90mm f2.8 Elmarit) they are not 6 bit coded or aspherical but work fantastically with my M8.2.

This is a perfect "set of 3" for me and as much as I would love an M9 + Aspherical lenses, finance and current climate prevent an upgrade so I am very grateful for what I have as the combination, size, weight and limited automatic functionality inspire me in my photography.

--
http://www.Ianskyphotosite.blogspot.com

well, esp if you like your modern lenses, i'd avoid the older noctilux. the .95 is (conceptually; i haven't used one) awesome, and i would love to have one just hanging around whenever i needed it.

but; personally i seriously doubt i would be very happy with it (and i'd never have the money for it). my f/1.4 lenses are on the verge of uncomfortably large as it is; i would want to have a more reasonably sized option, personally. so what do you do, buy the noct, then a cron too as an 'everyday' carry lens? but then, you are bound never to have the noct when it would be super cool to exploit it. (that is, if you're anything like me, and always have the camera with you everywhere, but usually with just one lens.) and no way would i give up the 50 lux for any other 50 anyway. that's what i love about the 35 and 50 lux: small enough to carry all the time; there when it's been 15 hours since you left the house and it's dark; not so large (like the noct) that they spook strangers; virtually flawless all-round performance; no excuses for missing pictures. sure, sometimes i'd love to have a smaller, lighter lens like the 35 cron or even summarit. but it would bite me on the behind when the light dropped and i couldn't take the photos i want to take.

Hi,

Sorry to break it to you, but once you've asked the question it is really too late.

You're going to get one, might as well get it over with.

Steve, the 90mm lens by virtue of its focal length produces stunning isolation images. The fact that you rarely use your 90mm suggests to me that the novelty of isolating subject matter with the Noctilux will wear off fairly soon.

The 35mm Summilux also renders isolated subjects beautifully, but not with the same pop as 50mm or longer lenses (only because of the physics involved). Do you use the 'lux wide-open, often? If so, then the Nocti will serve you well; it's astonishing the way the .95 continues its image quality throughout its f/stops, which makes it versatile in a way the earlier Noctilux wasn't.

The Noctilux was originally designed for low-light photography. In your photographic style, do you shoot a lot in low-light? Do you think you'll shoot more in low-light with the new lens? Often a tripod or a flash system will help in these situations. If you shoot street at night you may not want to try either the tripod or the flash - but they are much cheaper alternatives! I've found in many night street shots, regardless of the lens' light-gathering power, or the camera's ISO quality, the extreme dynamic range still makes the image too dark, and too overblown at the same time. I wonder if the Noctilux will overcome that, and I also wonder if the long focus throw of the Nocti will allow you to get more spontaneous shots on the street, at night?

Good luck!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12191517@N05/

jeff hladun said:

Steve, the 90mm lens by virtue of its focal length produces stunning isolation images. The fact that you rarely use your 90mm suggests to me that the novelty of isolating subject matter with the Noctilux will wear off fairly soon.

The 35mm Summilux also renders isolated subjects beautifully, but not with the same pop as 50mm or longer lenses (only because of the physics involved). Do you use the 'lux wide-open, often? If so, then the Nocti will serve you well; it's astonishing the way the .95 continues its image quality throughout its f/stops, which makes it versatile in a way the earlier Noctilux wasn't.

Click to expand...

just a small comment on the earlier nocts' performance when stopped down. there has always been a myth that earlier nocts (from the double aspherical 1.2 to E58 to the three versions of E60) performance do not improve when the lenses are stopped down the way other lenses do. but this has been confirmed to be false both by users of nocts as well as MTF charts. information contained in the leica pocketbooks also confirm this, with supporting MTF charts. so while the 0.95 i'm sure perform even better than the earlier nocts, the latters are not slouch either, when used wide open or otherwise.

jeff hladun said:

The Noctilux was originally designed for low-light photography. In your photographic style, do you shoot a lot in low-light? Do you think you'll shoot more in low-light with the new lens? Often a tripod or a flash system will help in these situations. If you shoot street at night you may not want to try either the tripod or the flash - but they are much cheaper alternatives! I've found in many night street shots, regardless of the lens' light-gathering power, or the camera's ISO quality, the extreme dynamic range still makes the image too dark, and too overblown at the same time. I wonder if the Noctilux will overcome that, and I also wonder if the long focus throw of the Nocti will allow you to get more spontaneous shots on the street, at night?

Good luck!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12191517@N05/

Click to expand...

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLERY: http://galay.fotki.com

Gary

That's news to me; thanks, Gary.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12191517@N05/

....is how I love to shoot whenever possible. That's what I love about my two Lux's. I can't think of a single situation that would make me part with the 35.

As much as I do enjoy the 90, it's also the hardest (for me) to get critical focus spot-on. It's also not as versatile for my needs. Funny because in my SLR says I rarely took my 70-210 zoom off the camera. That's how much rangefinders have changed the game for me.

It's also why I think the Noct could be more versatile for me, certainly in portraiture alone. Especially as I like to get close to my subjects. The long focus throw could be a deciding factor to a degree.....possibly.....then again I like to think that I could learn to adapt.

I do shoot a fair amount of street but I prefer candid stuff amongst friends at parties and the like. I wish there was a way to try both lenses out but I can't think how?

Thanks to every one for the advice so far - keep it coming

steveleicaman said:

It's also why I think the Noct could be more versatile for me, certainly in portraiture alone. Especially as I like to get close to my subjects. The long focus throw could be a deciding factor to a degree.....possibly.....then again I like to think that I could learn to adapt.

Click to expand...

I can think of lots of times I might want to use a noctilux, but portraiture certainly isn't one of them. Or am I missing something here? I'm hopefully still teachable if someone wants to enlighten me.
-Rich

Depth of field. With a 90mm lens you have to be further away than with the 50mm. So in that respect (distance to subject) you can achieve the same subject isolation with the Noct as the 90. Also, there are many different styles of portraiture. Not just the formal head and shoulders stuff.

I wouldn't use it that way every day that's for sure. I just feel that sometimes people can forget just how versatile the very fast lenses can be.

Having said that maybe it highlights further the need to 'try before you buy'?

I am aware that the .95/f means an incredibly shallow depth of field. But that's a detriment. Your previous post says that you like to get close for portraiture. Surely, the shallow field is not an asset in such cases. Just as one for-instance, how do you keep both the eyes and nose in focus at once. Add the perspective distortion, and I just don't see it..........

Not a Noctilux but a Noct-NIKKOR shot wide open at 1.2:

CelticOdyssey said:

I am aware that the .95/f means an incredibly shallow depth of field. But that's a detriment. Your previous post says that you like to get close for portraiture. Surely, the shallow field is not an asset in such cases. Just as one for-instance, how do you keep both the eyes and nose in focus at once. Add the perspective distortion, and I just don't see it..........

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8088619@N05/

I'm not so sure about distortion from a 50? I would agree with you on a 35. I would be unlikely to take portraits at .95 anyway. Not unless I was experimenting - which I would certainly do sometimes

A lovely portrait, and I like what you did there, very much. However, I do find the out-of-focus neck somewhat disconcerting, almost as if a flat face is standing out from the photo. And this is with a lens at least a half stop slower. But I do agree, the eyes and the nose are all definitely in focus....
--Rich

steveleicaman said:

I'm not so sure about distortion from a 50? I would agree with you on a 35. I would be unlikely to take portraits at .95 anyway. Not unless I was experimenting - which I would certainly do sometimes

Click to expand...

For my own taste, I find the 50 is still too distorting. Unless one is very careful, the nearer parts of the face become too large. In my own portraiture, a fast 75 to 90mm has always worked best for me. My very favorite portrait lens was an 85mm f/2 on my Nikon SP. For better or worse, I let them go a couple of years ago.
-Rich

No matter how bad you need one it's no use if you can't find one. Same with every decent M lens though now-a-days.

You can only decide if you need it, don't ask us. I wouldn't mind one myself but only if it was my spare 50mm lens.
-
Christakis
http://blog.christakisphoto.com
(Updated every Monday and Friday)