rsolti13 wrote:
Without a doubt, this lens is sharp in center at f/1.2.
I wasn't able to discern that from the images you posted. If you have any images that better demonstrate its center sharpness at f1.2, I'd love to see them.
brick33308 wrote:
I wasn't able to discern that from the images you posted. If you have any images that better demonstrate its center sharpness at f1.2, I'd love to see them.
These are f/1.2 - distance and near. Greater than 100% magnification. Not sure how you could realistically expect sharper at f/1.2
I would say that those are both very low contrast images with no direct light, but they appear to be sharp. The results would likely be much easier to evaluate if/when tested in good light.
I've been chatting with someone who just got his 35 nocti (and he got a good copy with no focus issues). Here's his observation:
If I have one criticism of the 35 Noctilux, it's that it doesn't really behave like a Noctilux. It's more like an APO/Summilux hybrid. It's a great lens that truly does stands on its own, but when I want the Noctilux look, I will not reach for the 35. I will reach for my 50 0.95 or earlier f1 or (to a lesser extent) the 75 f1.25, each of which gives me quite a bit more "character"--the swirly bokeh, the dreamy softness, that otherworldly "glow" (this is where the Mandler f1 excels). The 35 Noctilux isn't really a character lens, for better or worse. It is still the best 35 I've ever used, but I can't help but think "what if" they'd gone for broke on this one like they did the 50 or the 75, instead of delivering a wonderfully useable, effortlessly beautiful, but ultimately quite conservative, lens.
I'm starting to think that for 35mm purposes I should just stick to my cron 35 apo and lux 35 steel rim reissue. I’m thinking I need to spend more time with the 35 SRR which, from a real world usage standpoint, is probably going to give me images close enough to what I imagined that the 35 nocti would provide. I’m putting it on the M11P and heading out this morning to see what I see.
brick33308 wrote:
I've been chatting with someone who just got his 35 nocti (and he got a good copy with no focus issues). Here's his observation:
If I have one criticism of the 35 Noctilux, it's that it doesn't really behave like a Noctilux. It's more like an APO/Summilux hybrid. It's a great lens that truly does stands on its own, but when I want the Noctilux look, I will not reach for the 35. I will reach for my 50 0.95 or earlier f1 or (to a lesser extent) the 75 f1.25, each of which gives me quite a bit more "character"--the swirly bokeh, the dreamy softness, that otherworldly "glow" (this is where the Mandler f1 excels). The 35 Noctilux isn't really a character lens, for better or worse. It is still the best 35 I've ever used, but I can't help but think "what if" they'd gone for broke on this one like they did the 50 or the 75, instead of delivering a wonderfully useable, effortlessly beautiful, but ultimately quite conservative, lens.
I'm starting to think that for 35mm purposes I should just stick to my cron 35 apo and lux 35 steel rim reissue. I’m thinking I need to spend more time with the 35 SRR which, from a real world usage standpoint, is probably going to give me images close enough to what I imagined that the 35 nocti would provide. I’m putting it on the M11P and heading out this morning to see what I see....Show more →
I agree with your friend, even without owning the lens. Just looking at the MTF charts and sample images online tells the story. It really belongs to the "new" Noctilux generation, along with the 75mm f/1.25.
People like to say that "Noctilux" has a special look, but that's mostly a myth. From the beginning, Leica's goal with the Noctilux name was simple: deliver the best possible performance at f/1.2 or faster. The 50mm f/1.2 AA, f/1, and f/0.95 were all designed to push optical performance at very large apertures, not to create an intentional character or look, but to deliver more speed, more blur, and the highest image quality the technology of the time allowed.
Leica has always tried to correct these lenses as much as possible. The real difference today is that modern design tools and manufacturing finally let them achieve that goal far more effectively than they could in the past.
Their aim has nearly always been true, this is the real value of Leica M. They are the tip of the spear, leaders in the field, and so often many photographers later come to see what is intended as a result of the more than three years of development this one took - a fair amount of that devoted to concept definition.
This lens is unique, obviously. You can do so much more with a 35mm than any 50mm. Leica imbued it with great character, but at the same time it is subtle because we are presently coming into a time where bokeh is gaining front and center attention, as a complement to very prominent focal plane performance. In a sense therefore, Leica is not aiming at the Noctilux faithful, but at an emerging demographic of users looking for a superb every day carry lens capable of consistent memorable imagery. If it goes well, we may hope for a 28/1.2.
'the differentiator is that the bokeh is super smooth and super soft because the surface of the lenses is perfected to the highest possible level (PGM)..this directly affects the character of the bokeh'.
Jan-Helge Staasmeyer (Head of Optical Technology) explains:
..
Cron 35 (not APO) seems remain a good everyday lens if not crazy about dreamy rendering (at 1.2) and close focus distance of the Noct 35 …
rsolti13 wrote:
Without a doubt, this lens is sharp in center at f/1.2. I have issues because it isn't properly calibrated, but excluding that, this lens is like nothing I've used before. It almost has multiple personalities like the lux V2, yet it IS extremely sharp even wide open. From the small sample size I have, I would characterize as the following:
- sharp dead center, even at f/1.2. Not Cron APO sharpness, but more like 35 Cron sharp dead center. Not just usable, looks great
- towards edges/corners wide open 50 0.95 look, yet not as pronounced
- stopping down sharpens up in the center, but still retains almost like a faint glow, reminding you it isn't a Cron APO
- stopping down edges/corners cleans up really quickly, f/2.8 or f/4 looks more like a regular Cron. Overall feeling of the image retains the softer glow, never reaches Cron APO quality
- high vignetting at/near wide open. Doesn't look much different than Cron APO to be honest, which is also extremely high
I decided to take my chance on getting the lens back in time for my trip - sending it off today. They quoted me 4-5 weeks. I need it back before 7 weeks...Show more →
brick33308 wrote:
And not to open up a can of worms discussing how well the EV1 focuses, does anyone feel it will be difficult to focus the 35 nocti at f1.2 using a rangefinder (like my M11P) without the aid of the LCD and/or visoflex 2?
I would think it should be similar difficulty to a lens like the 50 Lux ASPH that a ton of us have used for ages and from what I recall, has rarely come up in discussions. IIRC you're currently using a 50 Lux variant.
But then, hitting correct wide open focus on a 18 or 24MP sensor 10 years ago wasn't the same challenge as 60MP and pixel peeping at 100% today.
bwcolor wrote:
When I had a lens calibrated in the film days, the technician asked that I also send in the camera. Is this no longer the case?
Lens and camera are able to be adjusted independently to a mutual standard. I have heard some instances of Leica adjusting both together, but that is not the norm.
josh-himes wrote:
Lens and camera are able to be adjusted independently to a mutual standard. I have heard some instances of Leica adjusting both together, but that is not the norm.
I sent my 90 cron APO in with one of my M 10s several years back and they calibrated them together and it has been right on the money ever since. That lens stays on that body and pretty much has since they were calibrated together.
It's still pretty amazing how much precision the RF can deliver, even today with very high MP sensors. There is an 'established standard' for RF alignment and a corresponding standard for M lenses, and when both are built and calibrated to those tolerances, the system can be extremely accurate.
I get why someone might send both the camera and a favorite lens to Leica for calibration, especially if that's their main lens. But it is absolutely possible to optimize RF alignment in a way that works across multiple properly calibrated lenses. When that's the case, you can focus any lens, even ultra fast ones like the Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noct, wide open and get accurate results without relying on live view.
IMO, that's really the mechanical marvel Leica created, and it is also why their tolerances are so tight, expensive, and difficult for other manufacturers to match, assuming they even try! That said, rangefinders are not magically perfect forever. Even on a new camera, RF alignment may not be optimal, and over time it can drift since it relies on mechanical parts. Vibration and general use can slowly knock things out of alignment. (the good news is that it can be easily adjusted)
With lenses, though, this is much less common. Once a lens is properly calibrated to the RF standard, it usually stays that way.
The new Leica 35mm f/1.2 Noct doesn't require LV for focusing precision any more than the 35mm f/1.4 or the 50mm f/0.95 do. It really just comes down to having both the rangefinder and the lens perfectly aligned to the same standard, which is how the system is intended to work. Now for the rant part... I actually test for this, and it's not uncommon to run into lenses that are not properly aligned to the RF standard. That includes brand new Leica lenses. It's just reality. You either live with it, return the lens if that is an option, try to fine tune it yourself, or send it in for service.
Sensor resolution doesn't change that. Whether you are shooting film or a 24MP or 100MP sensor, a slightly out of focus subject is still OOF. The only difference is that higher resolution sensors make this way more noticeable when we start pixel peeping...
I went back and forth on this one, but in the end I decided to pass on the 35 Noctilux.
Whenever I look at Leica glass, I run through a few simple filters:
Will I actually enjoy carrying it?I often have a camera on my shoulder for hours—on trains, buses, in bars, walking cities with no bag. If a lens feels like a burden in those moments, it’s probably not the right choice.
Do I love how the lens and camera look together?Aesthetic matters to me more than it probably should. I much prefer the 28 Cron and 35 Lux with metal hoods over the newer designs—so much so that I went back to the Lux FLE v1 and sold the FLE v2
Do I love the images it creates?Rendering, character, vignetting—the whole feel of the files has to really move me. Especially when considering a lens in this tax bracket-
The Noctilux really only checked the last box, and even then it didn’t blow me away. It’s a beautiful lens, no doubt, but in every example I’ve seen, I still prefer what I already have in my bag. I reserve the right to change my mind in the future and buy this lens used but it’s a wait and see how tings progress vs an early adopter. Hopefully somebody else is stoked they just got a text their lens is in!
RustyRus wrote:
I went back and forth on this one, but in the end I decided to pass on the 35 Noctilux.
Whenever I look at Leica glass, I run through a few simple filters:
Will I actually enjoy carrying it?I often have a camera on my shoulder for hours—on trains, buses, in bars, walking cities with no bag. If a lens feels like a burden in those moments, it’s probably not the right choice.
Do I love how the lens and camera look together?Aesthetic matters to me more than it probably should. I much prefer the 28 Cron and 35 Lux with metal hoods over the newer designs—so much so that I went back to the Lux FLE v1 and sold the FLE v2
Do I love the images it creates?Rendering, character, vignetting—the whole feel of the files has to really move me. Especially when considering a lens in this tax bracket-
The Noctilux really only checked the last box, and even then it didn’t blow me away. It’s a beautiful lens, no doubt, but in every example I’ve seen, I still prefer what I already have in my bag. I reserve the right to change my mind in the future and buy this lens used but it’s a wait and see how tings progress vs an early adopter. Hopefully somebody else is stoked they just got a text their lens is in! ...Show more →
If the Leica 35/2 APO is our reference, it was nearly impossible to get when it first came out. Since you've decided to pass on the 35/1.2 Noct, just know that if you ever change your mind in the future, you can always grab one here on FM for much less.
brick33308 wrote:
question for Fred (who reviewed this) and others . . .
Aside from being 5mm longer, how would you assess the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Version II compared to the nocti 35?
The Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 is easily one of Cosina's most successful lenses. There's a real cult following around it, and the FM review thread here never dies because people keep posting new info and samples. That thread alone has over 2million views. I still own the lens and it remains one of my absolute favorites. But how good is it, really?
1) It's sharp in the center wide open, but I don't know how it stacks up against the new Leica at f/1.2. My guess is the Leica is stronger across the frame at any aperture.
2) The 40/1.2 shows noticeable purple fringing in the focus zone and axial CA in out of focus areas. The Leica is clearly better corrected, including lateral CA.
3) The CV 40/1.2 is much more compact. Both focus down to 0.5m, but the Leica uses a floating element design and performs much better at close distances, especially near MFD.
4) The Leica is also better corrected for spherical aberration. Overall, it's simply a more corrected lens. (Modern in signature)
5) The Leica's rendering is smooth, with soft transitions and almost no outlining in specular highlights. The CV 40/1.2, by contrast, has more character. It can look very smooth up close where blur masks imperfections, but at mid and longer distances (transition zone) you start to see outlining and coma. Personally, I think that signature rendering is part of its charm.
6) Based on samples posted here, the Leica 35mm f/1.2 Noct seems a bit wider than 35mm, though I'm not 100% sure. The CV 40/1.2 Nokton, on the other hand, is clearly longer than 40mm, more like 42 to 43mm. In practice, it feels closer to a 50mm than to a 35mm. (Think Leica Q3 43 FL)
7) The Voigtlaander uses a straight blade aperture mechanism, which produces perfectly symmetrical, well-defined sunstars, even as early as f/2.8. Not sure about the Leica. The Leica outputs 22-point stars and the Voigtander 10 rays.
Put simply, over the years I've taken many images with the CV 40/1.2, including landscapes, that I genuinely love. For that reason alone, it is a lens I'll always keep. It has never disappointed me.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 is easily one of Cosina's most successful lenses. There's a real cult following around it, and the FM review thread here never dies because people keep posting new info and samples. That thread alone has over 2million views. I still own the lens and it remains one of my absolute favorites. But how good is it, really?
1) It's sharp in the center wide open, but I don't know how it stacks up against the new Leica at f/1.2. My guess is the Leica is stronger across the frame at any aperture.
2) The 40/1.2 shows noticeable purple fringing in the focus zone and axial CA in out of focus areas. The Leica is clearly better corrected, including lateral CA.
3) The CV 40/1.2 is much more compact. Both focus down to 0.5m, but the Leica uses a floating element design and performs much better at close distances, especially near MFD.
4) The Leica is also better corrected for spherical aberration. Overall, it's simply a more corrected lens. (Modern in signature)
5) The Leica's rendering is smooth, with soft transitions and almost no outlining in specular highlights. The CV 40/1.2, by contrast, has more character. It can look very smooth up close where blur masks imperfections, but at mid and longer distances (transition zone) you start to see outlining and coma. Personally, I think that signature rendering is part of its charm.
6) Based on samples posted here, the Leica 35mm f/1.2 Noct seems a bit wider than 35mm, though I'm not 100% sure. The CV 40/1.2 Nokton, on the other hand, is clearly longer than 40mm, more like 42 to 43mm. In practice, it feels closer to a 50mm than to a 35mm. (Think Leica Q3 43 FL)
7) The Voigtlaander uses a straight blade aperture mechanism, which produces perfectly symmetrical, well-defined sunstars, even as early as f/2.8. Not sure about the Leica. The Leica outputs 22-point stars and the Voigtander 10 rays.
Put simply, over the years I've taken many images with the CV 40/1.2, including landscapes, that I genuinely love. For that reason alone, it is a lens I'll always keep. It has never disappointed me....Show more →
thanks for that!
last question on the 40/1.2: does the aspherical process change you noted for version 2 over version 1 only involve flare/veiling, and that both versions have pretty much the same center sharpness when shot wide open?
last question on the 40/1.2: does the aspherical process change you noted for version 2 over version 1 only involve flare/veiling, and that both versions have pretty much the same center sharpness when shot wide open?
They perform the same optically, there were no changes to the optical design (overall flare characteristics , contrast, resolution etc..). I have just noticed that the inner structure of specular highlights is cleaner on Version II.
63.3 degrees AOV gives us 35.09mm for Noct 35/1.2, compared with 54.7 degrees 41.82mm for the CV '40'mm f1.2, by my calc s/w anyway. 35/2 APO is a true 35.65mm; Viltrox's 35/1.2 (E/Z) is a true 34.86. All based on manufacturer data.
rsolti13, what apertures did you use for the Noct images in your series at 16/6 and 16/12, pls?
16/16 sees the 35/2 APO rush off the focal plane (left side), fast fade is very common with APOs. That's the smooth steady fade Leica re talking about. Less prone to UV too, more vibrant and slightly warmer colors.
