If anyone has experience with both lenses I'd appreciate any input re: portraits shot wide open or close to it. Eye sharpness, BG bokeh, color, contrast. thanks in advance-
I think the first thing to really consider is how much you value handling, because for me that’s where these two lenses are dramatically different.
IMO, the Leica V4 Noctilux f/1 ranks as one of the worst-handling Leica lenses I’ve owned. I don’t care what kind of amazing beauty the lens is capable of producing—I hated using it. I really can’t say it any more bluntly than that.
It always felt oddly fragile in my hands, and I just never enjoyed carrying it around. It’s one of those lenses where the output can be special, but the actual experience of getting that output took away from it for me.
Flip that over to the 50mm f/1.2 reissue and it’s a completely different story from a handling perspective. The best way I can describe it is that it feels like a slightly larger black-chrome Summilux. Minus the silly hood, it’s a very nice lens to use and something I’d have no problem leaving on the camera and carrying around all day.
Rendering-wise, though, the 1.2 is definitely the more vintage of the two (IMO)
The f/1 also has beautiful OOF rendering and, to my eyes, is a little sharper and more defined in the center wide open. But it’s absolutely not a modern-looking lens. It’s a classic Mandler design with a very distinct signature of its own. The bokeh is beautiful, often dramatic, and has that unmistakable Noctilux character that makes the lens so special.
The 1.2 is still 100% the more vintage-feeling of the two—lower contrast, less sharpness, more glow, and generally a softer presentation. It sounds crazy saying that when you’re comparing it to a Noctilux f/1, but the 1.2 really does take another step backward in terms of optical correction.
So for me, it comes down to this: the f/1 gives you that beautiful, unmistakable Mandler Noctilux rendering with more definition in the center, while the 1.2 pushes even further into a softer, lower-contrast, vintage look—and does it in a package that is dramatically nicer to actually carry and use.
Again this is my opinion! I know there are a few F/1 lovers that love it in practical use!!!!!
Entry and Exit price here is simple though- Play with both and sell the one you don't for what you paid for it!
Unfortunately, I've almost stopped using Noctilux lenses—they're just sitting on the shelf until better times come. Sometimes I use them to photograph my relatives. When traveling or even just for walks around the city, I take lightweight and comfortable lenses weighing up to 300 grams.
I've got both. Wide open the 1.2 reissue has a pronounced field curvature and the truth is, you want the object of the focus dead center. While it can be said that wide open, nothing is truly sharp anything off center is decidedly less sharp. I find that contrasty points of focus (i.e eyelashes or eye on a portrait) render VERY nicely wide open, it just has to be in the center. This all becomes less pronounced as you stop down and by f4 you have a modern, sharp and contrasty lens edge to edge.
The F1 has far less field curvature wide open and a wider zone of relative sharpness compared to 1.2 It might be a touch less sharp that the f1.2 wide open but the wider field often makes it preferred by me over the 1.2 (really, it's just different). It too quite sharp by f4, even by modern standards.
The form factor of the f1.2 is far superior to the f1, the f1 is chunky and heavier but I generally favor the f1.
My f1.2 would be let go to a reasonable offer. My f1 is staying put.
soarfm wrote:
I've got both. Wide open the 1.2 reissue has a pronounced field curvature and the truth is, you want the object of the focus dead center. While it can be said that wide open, nothing is truly sharp anything off center is decidedly less sharp. I find that contrasty points of focus (i.e eyelashes or eye on a portrait) render VERY nicely wide open, it just has to be in the center. This all becomes less pronounced as you stop down and by f4 you have a modern, sharp and contrasty lens edge to edge.
The F1 has far less field curvature wide open and a wider zone of relative sharpness compared to 1.2 It might be a touch less sharp that the f1.2 wide open but the wider field often makes it preferred by me over the 1.2 (really, it's just different). It too quite sharp by f4, even by modern standards.
The form factor of the f1.2 is far superior to the f1, the f1 is chunky and heavier but I generally favor the f1.
My f1.2 would be let go to a reasonable offer. My f1 is staying put....Show more →
That pretty much says it all. I'd say both have distinctive rendering. The f/1 is definitely sharper at center and off-axis compared to the f/1.2, and field curvature definitely plays a role. Both have a structured rendering mostly caused by outlining, and the f/1 yields higher contrast (high SA correction). I've never considered selling my f/1 Noct, as in my opinion, it's the best ultra-fast Leica Noct of all the options available. I currently also shoot with the LLL 50/1.2 "1966" (closer to the original Leica than the reissue) and the MS Optics 50/1 ISM, the smallest 50/1 ever made.
Hey Fred-
How would you compare the LLL 1966 to the Noct 1.0? And which version of the 1.0 do you have?
Particularly central sharpness wide open (or both at 1.2). And which OOF bokeh and imagery do you prefer, for portraits?
Many thanks..
When I was looking into getting a 50/1.2 or 50/1 Noct, I had a strong preference of the files from the 50/1 Noct.
soarfm's summary is great for the technical aspect (which affects rendering). Thank you.
I have been very happy with my choice between the two. I also like the re-issues less than the original Leica's though others disagree. I'd easily go for to 50/1 again.
JohnKraus wrote:
Hey Fred-
How would you compare the LLL 1966 to the Noct 1.0? And which version of the 1.0 do you have?
Particularly central sharpness wide open (or both at 1.2). And which OOF bokeh and imagery do you prefer, for portraits?
Many thanks..
If it helps--I have the Noct 50/1 v2 (my favorite after having tried v1 and v4 as well).
The LLL 50/1.2 has smoother and swirlier bokeh, lower contrast wide-open centrally, more SA at 1.2 than the Noct does at 1.0, lower contrast and I think even more LoCal. All this at portrait distance. I actually like the draw of both. _jim_ and I swapped lenses, and I can tell after shooting the Noct 50/1 consistently for the last 4 years that the LLL 50/1.2 has appreciably more glow WO especially leading to lower contrast. The Noct is also warmer, and that's apparent immediate if you are used to the Leica. Look below. The LLL 50/1.2 has a type of veiling flare that is easier to provoke and pronounced. The 50 Noct has lots of large ghosts and flare. I think the Noct flares poorly. The onion ring bokeh on the 50/1.2 LLL is ugly too though--look at the car photo. We don't have that issue with the Noct.
I also think the zone of sharpness on both lenses is horrible by modern standards, but the 50 Noct has a bit more before the frame turns mushy I think. And that's again comparing at f1 versus 1.2. If Fred does not have comps, I could do some.
Here are a couple comparison photos both lenses WO on a modded Sony. Just got Jim's copy last night. Lastly, the size and price heavily favor the LLL
@nehemiahphoto jumped in before I saw your question, and I agree with everything he mentioned! The only thing I would add is that the field curvature is a bit more pronounced on the LLL 50/1.2 (though I've never tried the original or reissue Leica versions).
Wide open, the LLL 50/1.2 definitely shows more spherical aberration (glow) and optical vignetting (yielding more swirl), plus its coating renders with a noticeably cooler color balance. The LLL also shows more onion ring pattern...I used to dislike that, but it doesn't bother me anymore after seeing that the original Leica has just as much. Shooting film or adding grain to digital images really hides this more. They were both hand-ground, after all.
As for the 50/1 Noctilux, I've tried every version except the v1 and didn't notice much difference across them. The optical design remained the same, so variations feel more like sample tolerances than real optical changes. I ultimately settled on the v3 because I prefer its barrel aesthetics. I really disliked the v4 with its fragile, plastic built-in hood, so I'd recommend looking for a v2 or v3 instead.
For portraits, it really comes down to your personal preference. If you want lower contrast and a bit of swirly bokeh, go with the LLL. If you prefer a sharper image with less glow, the Noct is the better choice.
One more thought, request: If anyone has both the Nokton f/1.0 and either the Noct 1.0 or the 1966, I'd love to hear their thoughts or see a comparison. Though I have a better idea of what the Nokton 1.0 is- in that it being a very modern signature.
JohnKraus wrote:
One more thought, request: If anyone has both the Nokton f/1.0 and either the Noct 1.0 or the 1966, I'd love to hear their thoughts or see a comparison. Though I have a better idea of what the Nokton 1.0 is- in that it being a very modern signature.
The Nokton is wider than both (closer to a true 50) with very little geometric distortion, more contrast and more central resolution.
The f/1 Noctilux is such an amazingly good lens. As @nehemiahphoto mentioned above, I am borrowing his copy. It is one of the Leica lenses that truly warrants its price tag, in my opinion.
The LLL '1966' is a great lens too, but it's use cases are more specialized. It can be frustrating to use, but when it hits, nothing really looks like it.
On film, I prefer the Nokt and the Noctilux. They are more measured, predictable, and dependable in their rendering.
On digital (with evf) the '1966' is the way to go. It is the LLL lens I would choose to keep over all the others I have.
JohnKraus wrote:
One more thought, request: If anyone has both the Nokton f/1.0 and either the Noct 1.0 or the 1966, I'd love to hear their thoughts or see a comparison. Though I have a better idea of what the Nokton 1.0 is- in that it being a very modern signature.
Here is a quick test in harsh lighting showing the Light Lens Lab 50mm f/1.2 1966 against the Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux v3, both shot wide open. I did not use a tripod, but these should still give you a good idea of their rendering.
The only adjustment I made was adding +20 tint toward magenta to the Light Lens Lab file to match the Leica. There is a noticeable color cast on the LLL. It might look nice on certain subjects, but it is not ideal for skin tones. The Leica naturally leans more toward the magenta side.
Both lenses were focused using the rangefinder, as I know both are 100% aligned with the RF.
For this first set, the focus point is on the sunglasses off-center (toward the top). Both lenses are similar in sharpness, but the Noct isa bit sharper with higher contrast. Its rendering is also more structured. (there is also more CA on the Leica)
LEICA M11-DNoctilux-M 1:1/50 lens50mmf/1.21/1500s64 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M11-DLight Lens Lab 50mm f/1.2 1966 lens50mmf/4.01/2500s64 ISO0.0 EV
And here is a set with the face centered in the frame, where the Noct is much sharper.
The Leica shows a more noticeable drop-off in resolution and contrast toward the edges, whereas the LLL delivers a more even performance across the frame.
Thanks Fred, this is very useful. Appreciate the contribution!
This somewhat confirms my research- the lenses are close and each special. The f/1 offers the best contrast between sharpest foreground and softest background- especially when the subject is centered. As a result it has a more modern feel, at least to my eyes.
The LLL 1966 is special in its own way. Partially due to a touch less sharpness in FG and a touch sharper BG.. but many other factors.. it is cinematic, definitely more vintage.. and just adds a certain feeling. And in the same vein feels so analog- the most film-like look I've been able to get from a digital sensor. And offers lots of character stopped down as well.
I shot this past weekend and worked the images in C1Pro. They have a lot of meat on the bone you won't see right away. De-haze if you wish to increase contrast. The images sharpen up well. Colors can be gorgeous once adjusted. BGs are still a touch sharper- but I can bokeh them out in PS or Luminar Neo.
At this point I'd be loathe to sell the LLL 1966 to help budget the f/1. But I plan to purchase the f/1 at some point.
"If it helps--I have the Noct 50/1 v2 (my favorite after having tried v1 and v4 as well)."
Thanks for your thoughts and photos. If possible to explain re: the Noct f/1.0, could you share what you prefer the the V2 over the V4? And this on a digital sensor, on film, or both? Much appreciated!
