It seems as if the consensus among this group is that the Noctilux is a very specialized niche product with a small scope of applications. As I am looking for a low and available light lens, naturally I heard read much on the Noctilux and 1.4/35 Summilux. Am I right in thinking that for practically even money, I will get more of my money's worth from the 35 'lux? I am interested in shooting indoors and under outdoor public lighting. With the Noctilux's very limited DOF and abberations, I have almost firmly decided on the Summilux. Is there anyone that can confirm the Summilux as a better all-rounder, or are there also fans of the Noctilux for the two situations (without moving subjects) that I described?

-- Paul Beaulieu (catnhat@winnet.net), March 13, 2002

Answers

If your application is shooting indoors you're probably better off with the 35 Lux. You get better coverage compared to the Noctilux and its only 1 stop slower so just shoot with faster film. Also, the Summilux is useable with the 0.72 finder in low light because the plane of focus at f1.4 is sufficiently deep enough to allow you "limited" DOF thus make up for slight focusing errors. For the Noctilux (as well as the 75 Summilux and the 90 Apo-ASPH) maximum aperture means a very thin plane of "acceptable focus" if your portraiture close so really, these lenses should be used with the 0.85 body. That has been my experience.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

I use both lenses from time to time but if I had to limit myself to one, it would be the 35MM Lux. Do you Really need the extra stop? Can you push your film an extra stop? Do you want to carry an extra brick around your neck? Come to think of it, I think I'll dump my Noctilux in exchange for another 35MM "lux" ASPH.

-- Ned Learned (ned@kajabbi.com), March 13, 2002.

I used a Noct for about 6 months (indoor BW work). I have to admit it made me proud to be an owner but did sure not improve my work. The Noct is far from being crisp as the 35/50. If used wide open, well, you know what DOF is, with the Noct, it's almost not present when used wide open, if stepped down, well, take a 50/1.4 or 35/1.4...

My EUR 0,02...

-- Bernd Kunze (bkunze@gmx.net), March 13, 2002.

As I see it, the 35 Summilux and 50 Noctilux are each so different that the choice cannot be either-or. The unique properties of the Noctilux aren't only seen in indoors / low light situations. I took this picture on a bright sunny day at F:1, 1/1000 sec. I suppose I could have done the vignetting in Photoshop, but the soft foreground grass wouldn't have happened, even with the 35 Summilux wide open.

-- Michael Stern (hoof@optonline.net), March 13, 2002.

I own only two Leica lenses and they happen to be 35'lux and 50 Noct. Certainly get the 35 'lux first then add 50 Noct later. These two lenses were the only reason why I wanted a M6. They are that good.

-- Damond Lam (damondhk@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

Dear Paul,

I too love available light and your thoughts have passed through my own mind.

To me personally a 35mm lens is more of an all-rounder than a 50mm lens; it would be the opposite for someone else. The Nocti, as you sense, is not an all rounder.

If I were to make a choice between the two lenses, my choice would probably be the 35/1.4. It is, I believe, optically better all around. It is also a lens I see myself using in daylight as well as in available light. These are your instincts too. Probably if you follow your instincts you'll be happy.

I recently played around with a Nocti and a 'lux. I could see myself carrying around the 'lux all day. Not the Nocti. The Nocti balances well and all that. It just that for most situations I'd much prefer having my 50/1.4 or 50/2 which are lighter and more fast handling (and the better optics). I have seen myself going out in the dead of night armed only with the Nocti and nothing else. It seems like the sort of lens that demands all of your attenton. These are belly- feelings, not anything like scientific observation.

The thing that bothered me about the Nocti after I looked at my shots with it was its very limited depth of field. It shows so much and yet so little seems actually sharp. Now, I'm talking about test shots. With a little practise one could work this to one's advantage.

Should mention that today I bought a Summicron 35/2 ASPH. In the city-lights situations I find myself in, f2 with 1600 film is usually fine. I have been shooting with a non-asph. 'lux 35/1.4 which is on the soft side wide open; it has been until now, along with my 'lux 50/1.4, my standard available light lens.

Here is a question. Do you now have a 35mm lens that you really, really like? I mean the sort of lens you always take with you and end up using, say, 70% of the time. If you have this kind of 35mm lens and it is fairly fast--like f2--why don't you take a chance and try the Noci. There is not that much difference between a 2 and 1.4 35mm lens. But an f1 50mm lens is another world. And you would have a nice combo. An f2 35mm lens and 50 f1. But, forgive me; I'm making assuptions. If you have "firmly decided" on the 'lux go for it. Tomorrow is another day and another dollar. You can get the Noci another time.

Hope these disjointed thoughts are of some help.

Best,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), March 13, 2002.

To offer a slightly different opinion: you say you want an all- rounder but that you want to do low and available light photography indoors and under outdoor public lighting. Seem like two different wants. IMHO, you should be getting the 35 Summicron and save your extra sheckels for a purchase of a Noctilux down the road. You see, the problem with this question (and it seems to come up a lot) is that you're comparing a 35 to a 50-- apples to oranges.

To me, the Summicron is lighter and quicker on its feet than the 35 'lux, making it a true all-rounder. At f/2 you can still achieve some very beautiful OOF effects and in 85% of your shooting situations you'll still be fine with it handheld.

The Noctilux is a special purpose lens that would excel at the sort of available light photography you would want to do, and like most Nocti-devotees, with time you'll come to appreciate its idosyncracies and its unusual fingerprint. Between this lens and the 35 'cron you'd have both your available light and all-around lens bases covered. Just my two cents.

-- JM Woo (wooismyid@deletethis.yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

about a year and a half (maybe two) years ago, ctein wrote a long article in phorotechniques on whether or not the noctilux could be viewed as an ideal gen'l purpose lens. the piece was very illuminating and discussed all aspects of the lens in practical use. although his point of comparison was the 50mm summilux (or 'cron, i forget), i think it mite be worth your time to dig the article out. i think it was titled "king of the night," or some such.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 13, 2002.

All you need is the 35 lux, and then the 75 lux later. Period. : )

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

If your only criteria for selecting one of these lenses is low light applicability then you should consider both of these to be equal. The Noct will give you one more stop but the lux, being a 35mm lens, will allow you to go one click slower on the shutter speed dial. I have no problems hand holding at 1/15th with a 35mm, but I do not go slower than 1/30th with a 50mm lens.

-- Jim W (jkdub@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

The Photo Techniques article Roger refered to is in the Sept/Oct 1998 issue (how time flies!), and it was written by Erwin Puts. It makes comparisons to the Summicron. The photos in the issue taken with the lens aren't that compelling, but the article is excellent and comprehensive.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@miekdixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

3 1/2 years ago!!! mike, you've got me really depressed!!

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 13, 2002.

IMO, the 35/1.4 Summilux is a good general purpose lens, while the Noctilux 50/1.0 is really a specialty lens, principally for low- extremely low light applications. It may be the best performing lens made at 1.0 and very close to that, but in terms of definition, it isn't nearly as good as the 50/2.0 Summicron-M at f/5.6. On the other hand, the 35 Slux is nearly identical to the 35 Summicron at f/5.6. I tend to use lenses at or near their optimal apertures unless forced to open up for low light situations or where I want limited DOF.

Thus, while the Noctilux is a dream lens for available darkness, the 35 Slux is the better choice as a general lens.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 13, 2002.

Through my use of a 50/2 and now a 35/1.4 i appreciate the seemingly "balanced equation" as to exposure. For my case, it may appear i've gain 2 stops. But the pain is when i saw a swinging head as oppose to a still expression when i shoot candids at 1/15.

IMHO, apart from hand-holdability, 50/1 at 1/30 may equate 35/1.4 at 1/15, exposure wise. However, subject movement can only be arrested by a faster shutter speed. 300/2.8 freeze the ball in the air, IS/VR can't.

Also, if one is searching for a kind of "look", then only that kind of lens can cut it. When testing a 35/1.4 and a 35/2 SLR lenses some time ago, i notice that at equal aperture and distance, ie. all being shot at f2 at about 1m-1.5m, the 35/1.4 lens produced a subtly larger globe of OOF highlights, possibly due to the larger entrance pupil. That's why i'm very firm about getting the 35Lux when i decided to go M.

-- y.shawee (shawee@pacific.net.sg), March 13, 2002.

OOF lights are sweet on the 35 lux. Check out the 1st pic in this folder:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=78211

I noticed this and was somewhat dazzled by it, adds an enchanting facet. The 3rd pic is with the 75 lux. All these were taken wide open.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

James, are you wanting us to look at the OOF highlights or your lovely girlfriend?! Both great!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

My feeling is that the noctilux, which is designed for use in very marginal light, has too narrow a field of view to be very useful indoors which is where those conditions prevail. The 35/1.4 is a wonderful lens, but even there it would be nice if it was a 24/1.4! Indoors you need to go wide, and the noctilux just doesn't go there. Good for portraits and so on, I suppose. My point of view, anyway.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 14, 2002.

Kristian when I tell my gf that...well! She's gonna have her day made. *grin* Thanks...hehehe Neat effect though around her huh?

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

David Alan Harvey (a 35 'lux user) told us at a workshop that HE actually would prefer the 50mm focal length, but uses the 35 because he needs the extra depth of field shooting color at f/1.4 for Nat. Geo.

Personally I prefer ANY 35 to ANY 50 as a 'normal' lens, but am finally considering a 50 'cron as a 'portrait' lens with more focusing leeway than the 90s.

But the Noct weighs more than an M6 body - which is contrary to MY reasons for using Leica. So IMHO - yes, the 35 lux is "a better all- rounder".

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 15, 2002.

Bingo! on what rob and Andy Piper say above...
I have the noct and my friend has the 35 lux. I got into the noct pretty hard core. But now I find that most shots in available light for me are indoors the 50mm was too "tele" and the depth of field is too tight. I get a low hit ratio of good shots with the noct. Also I a a bit worried about Put's article explaining the focus shift problems with the noct at f1.4 and f2.
So I have made a more drastic turnaround and am playing with my 35mm summicron now for the wider angle indoors and a bit more depth of field. This means I have to shoot 800, and also sometimes break out the TMZ...
FWIW, I didnt go with the 35mm lux because I really wanted that depth of field at close range.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), March 15, 2002.

Paul,

I have owned both the Noctilux and the 35Asp'lux. Very different lenses. As an all rounder the 35 is pretty hard to beat. Much lighter and easier to use ergonomically and in composition. Definitely a better lens optically. Much sharper across the board and no hint of vignetting.

Yet I still sold the 35 when a very insistent friend offered to make use of it more regulary than I seemed to be.

I like the look that the Noctilux gives me. Couldn't say the same with my Asp. lense. I like the focal length. I find now that I have a Abrahmsson rapidwinder the balance of the 3units is perfect for me. Plus I have figured out the trick of nailing near distance focus wide open with my baby. This applies mainly to offcentre subjects of course. I focus on my subject's eyes(most of my imagery is of people) recompose usually placing my subjects head toward the midthird points within the frame and the tweek my focus to a slightly closer focus distance- corresponding to the depth of field marker distance on the lens barrel. I very rarely miss focus, even under 1.5m

Actually I can see why everyone complains about missing focus with this lense. I get almost every shot now with my tweeking trick, so if I didn't use my technique I guess I'd miss nearly every shot. Bit of a worry for those outside the "loop". Learnt if off a very early posting on this list.

Anyway I think I've sidetracked. Get both if you can afford it. I could, but still sold off the 35 as I'm really a 50's man and I like the look of the Noctilux. Knowing what I do now if I needed a 35 as well I'd get a Summicron. Vice versa if I favoured the 35 over the 50.

Good luck.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.