Leica Noctilux-M 75mm F1.25 ASPH sample gallery

@Yake, he is getting confused by his Sony's oversharpened images.

I have to agree with you joed700 the photo sample you linked to was taken at f2.8 with the featured lens. Owning every lens you mentioned except the Sony FE 55mm/85mm I would certainly say I would get sharper/contrastier results than the $12,000 Leica 75mm f1.25

Misspiggy01 - If the lens is soft as this one, I don’t care if it opens at f/0.95.

For those of you who wanted to see a sharp f/1.2 lens at f/1.2 check this out: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-noct-nikkor-58mm-f1-2

Used ones on eBay costs over three grants, but compared to this Leica, it’s worth it IMO.

This lens isn't soft, don't be daft. Download the Raw file, sharpen to your normal preferred settings (we dial sharpening down from ACR defaults in our sample galleries) and see what you think.

This lens is laser beam levels of sharp. You are a goof for not noticing that very obvious fact.

@Joed700

i checked the dp sample you are referring to again and the softness you point out is coming from focus error. ie the right eye is not in focus.

the review of the nikkor noct you linked is using web sized jpegs 2000x1300 in size. dont know how to tell sharpness from those. what it does show is that the lens has the nice soft low contrast look that the old nikkors have. (i own about 15 of them, i love them!)

i´m afraid that a direct shootout between these 2 lenses would make the nikkor look pretty dated. not that its not a nice lens!

but hey, cool story, bro!

Misspiggy01 - thank you for pointing that out; focus error. It seems like the misfocus at Dp has become the norm now. I posted similar comments on other Dp galleries...you can go see for yourself.

Here is the thing, Dp should not do a sample gallery if they can’t control the focus accuracy issues. That doesn’t help anybody....

To Barney Britton- I don't believe OP is being silly, The softness the OP is seeing is found everywhere in your samples. It has been suggested the softness is due to user error. Do you think user error is the case here? Maybe this lens was never meant to be Otus sharp?

Are you people dense? It is f 1.2, the depth of field is just a few millimeters. You have to be an absolute noob to not understand what is going on in the photos.

@Snapper2013 - Thank you for pointing that out. I'm glad my eyes are not going blind on me. Many people just praise this lens without even doing close examination of the images, wow!

Please tell me how this image is soft: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5242743195/leica-noctilux-m-75mm-f1-25-asph-sample-gallery/9335498584

A lot of things can cause soft images, misfocusing, camera movement, subject movement, even at high shutter speed when you pixel peep not every image will be perfectly sharp.... duh.

No, you immediately blamed the LENS not the focus error... or are you that daft that you forgot the content of your original post?

We also verify the content of our assertions before posting them far and wide on the internet...

If your initial statement had been why is a 12k lens used in the same manner as a point and shoot at an outdoor barbecue, then yes, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. But your initial statement was a critique of lens sharpness which considering the f1.2 aperture this lens is certainly second to none.

No Joed700, I did verify the sharpness of the lens, that is why I provided you with an example. On the other hand, you have bumbled your way into a corner and are obviously trying to con your way out of looking like a fool, but it's too late for that in my view.

noemailneeded - To put things in perspective, I was browsing through the photos and the thing I was looking for was sharpness, and how do you find sharpness? You look at the eyes...when I saw this photo (shot at f/2.8) which is soft on my initial assessment. I was very surprised because most lenses would have superior performance by f/2.8...I've also looked at some that was shot at wide open, and they weren't sharp either. No, I didn't go through the entire gallery because I thought I had seem enough already. You are welcome to go back and look at the entire gallery and see how many photos are not sharp. Remember, the whole point of these gallery is for us to review and make judgements, and that was my judgement based on those photos...

LOL, I have taken enough pictures to know what sharp looks like you silly goof.

@ nomailneeded Wouldn't have known that looking at your mindless snapshots.

@Snapper2013 Aww, your feelings got hurt! Ain't that cute. Now go home and pet your kitty little girl.

Davinator - the things that ruin this site is the people who are running it. User errors has become a norm. When you published so many photos that are out of focus, what kind of credibility do you think you have?

Maybe you're right Joed700, but it is a manual focus lens. So if you want a test of lens sharpness of a manual lens a real world use case is probably not the best place to look for that.

After 20 hours, I highly doubt that The Davinator will answer your request.

It's common knowledge that when the The Davinator gets backed into a corner, he goes into silent mode.

So you can’t explain what is obvious for yourself. Fine. You like Leica. Great. For me, this lens offers not enough to even consider it. When everybody was excited about the Zeiss Otus lenses, I tried one myself, and even on the camera screen it was clear that this lens (28mm 1.4) was truely great. I did not buy one, but I could tell and show you, in one image, why this lens is worth 4500.

@ The Davinator "that is why the admin disagreed with you Snapper." Care to share that conversation or is this simply another lie?

Let me try answering. The Canon OOF areas are plain-blurred and are jarring to look at when compared to the Leica OOF areas which have watercolor rendering. There are limited number of people in this world, myself included, who prefer Leica's watercolor render of OOF areas.

@DevilsCry: Ok, I can see this difference, if I look for it. Nothing "entirely different" in my eyes, more of a subtle difference. If somebody wants to pay 10k for better bokeh, fine. I don't like this "watercolor" render, I prefer my backgrounds to look more "photographic" (still looking for the right word).

ekaton, did I understand you to say that Fuji cameras are rangefinders?

They are not. The only digital rangefinder cameras on the market are Leica. That's one of the reasons people are willing to pay a premium for them.

Well... i don't think the point was being funny, it is just true.

Is this lens super cool and all that, sure. If i could afford it as an item in my collection, or lenses to use for fun i will get it in an instant.

But choosing between a leica M + this lens and a GFX + 110mm/F2 lens for a person really shooting portraits... well the Fuji wins by miles on any single category. And it is half the price.

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/7650264251/fujifilm-gf-110mm-f2-sample-gallery

I'd put a used Canon 85L/1.2 on original A7r and get results no client could ever distinguish from this, for less than two grands

Because as a leica owner I wouldn't want to soil my fine lenses by putting them on junk camera from a manufacturer of mindless game systems, poor tv's and mediocre hifis....

It's not just the current obsession with bokeh, it's also the extremely shallow DOF. I realize most of these samples were made at F/1.2 precisely to show off the Noctilux-M's "special" characteristics, but just because one owns an exotic, super-fast lens doesn't mean every image looks better shot wide open.

Very shallow DOF often just doesn't work, and it can be visually jarring in some cases. That's obvious when comparing the image of the branch and berries made at both F/1.2 and F/2.8. But it can also be subconsciously unsettling when a subject's facial features drift in and out of focus, often for no good reason other than flaunting one's expensive lens' maximum aperture.

I guess he did not anticipate that.

This lens is ideal if you want your subject to look completely isolated from their surroundings to a point where it looks completely unreal and boring.

Nope the people that can afford these have lots of free time to spend shooting. Life just isn't fair I'm afraid.

@Zdman:

You’ll find that a lot of us just saved and saved for the cameras that we like- because for the Leica owners that aren’t rich and that need to work for their food, it’s an either or decision that is hard come upon.

All the Leica owners I know jse their gear a lot...and saved to be able to afford it. This rich doctor / collector thing is a myth.

I never understand people and their talk of "awkward" focal lengths. If a 50mm lens is useful, and an 85mm lens is useful, a 75mm lens is damn sure to be useful, too.

You can do portraits with any lens, but the best are done anywhere between 24mm and 200 mm, so "too short for portraits?" Have you ever taken a portrait?

75mm is perfect for portraits. So are 50mm, 55mm, 58mm, 70mm, 85mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm, 135mm, etc. They are all perfect for portraits. Except 68mm ... that's absolutely useless for portraits. Never, ever buy a good-for-nothing 68mm for portraits. :)