There was recently a posting that suggested that members of this forum were using the Noctilux for B&W. Here are two color pictures shot with the Noctilux with an M^ on Ektachrome 100S. The first is at the Paris flea market:

The second was shot at f/1 in Chieng Mai, Thailand.

Any comments?

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 30, 2002

Answers

I love them both, Mitch, though I think the Thailand shot shows a little better what this lens can do, I assume wide open.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 30, 2002.

I don't see the point of it. Both scenes can be shot just as effectively or better with a half decent 50/2 and good 400asa neg film.

-- (akkirman@clear.net.nz), March 30, 2002.

Grouchy, aren't we? The point? Simple: the second picture was shot at f/1.0 and would not have had the background out of focus as much had it been shot with an f/2.0 lens; the first picture was shot at f/1.4 and would have looked similar had it been shot with an f/2.0 lens, which shows that the Noctilux is not just for shooting at f/1.0. Also, the two pictures themselves make a statement; but I am not going to explain that in words.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 30, 2002.

"Akkirman" may be grouchy, but he does have a point. I don't think anybody believes that the Noctilux can't be used w/color film or during the day. However, the Noctilux was designed for, & excels @, extremely low light "available darkness" shooting, which is why most Noct' shots are in B&W. While your pix show that it does fine in daylight conditions & has a certain look & boke, the bottom line is that you're wasting a lot of money if you end up using a very expensive specialist lens for purposes for which it wasn't really designed.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 30, 2002.

Chris. With all due respect, I've read a lot of utter nonsense on this forum about the Noctilux being a lens suited to B & W (NOT color), the Leica M being a "wide angle camera" for 35-50 and lower [SLRs presumably being required for longer focal lengths], 90/2 and 76/1.4 lenses not being focussable at short distances, and one even saying the M system is for B & W while Leica R and SLRs in general being better for color.

People post their own personal preferences (or foibles) and hold them out as general truths. I think all of this stuff including the fact that the Noctilux is a B & W fast film lens is a bunch of nonsense, and I think this is the point Mitch was trying to make.

I only photograph using color slide film and I find fast lenses very useful. The Leica M lenses produces exquisite color slides and if you never use B & W film, the Noctilux would be just as good a purchase.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 30, 2002.

Eliot:

I agree, there's a lot of nonsense posted on this, & many other, internet fora. I had no idea people actually thought that the Noctilux was suitable only for B&W, although someone once asked me, in all seriousness, whether my old uncoated 1930s lenses only took pictures in B&W!

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 31, 2002.

Dear Mitch, I am just being practical. For the price and weight of 50/1, I personally would buy & carry (and I have) a 50/2 and a 90/2.8. The 90/2.8 shot at f4 would probably produce at least some of the flower in focus and give a very nice out of focus background. Just a personal observation, I don't think we have to agree.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), March 31, 2002.

Isn't the point that Mitch is making a simple one? The Noctilux is quite useable in applications it wasn't specifically designed for. When faced with the possibility of different lighting conditions this lens will deliver. When away from home, I may be shooting in low light as well as the usual shots. A 50/2 can do only half the job. As far as weight is concerned, A Nocti plus a 50/2 weigh more than a Nocti alone. So, in those cases, the 50/2 stays home. The flower shot is not a good example of what the lens can do. If it were stopped down a bit more the subject would've popped off the background more. But the point is made.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 31, 2002.

There isn't much to add to what has already been said. Part of the point being made here by Mitch is the shallow depth of field combined with the perspective of the 50mm lens produce fantastic effects. And a 90mmElmarit shot at f/4 will not do the same thing!!!!

Any decent lens over 50mm at f/4 will produce a nice blurred background at close distances, but what the 35 Lux Asph and Noct can do wide open is unique, especially because they are sharp. There is NO substitute when after the 35mm/50mm perspective combined with SUPER shallow depth of field.....And NO lenses are better at B&W than colour, unless colour rendtions are terrible....which I've never heard about any lens.

Argue with that!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 31, 2002.

Sait:

I agee that the Noctilux is not an "essentialist" for most photography, but I have gotten to like it quite a lot. The trouble is that I also like the Summilux-75; and the two together are not light in weight.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 31, 2002.

Marc:

Yes, if the lens were stopped down a bit more the "subject" would have "popped off the background more". But that wasn't what I was trying to achieve. I parfticularly like the violet blur of the flower that is the "subject". Actually, to me the background in this image is as much the subject as the flower. In the print, the violet blur and the background look like a painting.

I have been shooting a series of pictures with out-of-focus areas both in front and behind the plane of focus, and have found the Noctilux ideal for this...also the Summilux-75. I have gotten to like both lense quite a bit.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 31, 2002.

Kristian:

You've got it right, in terms of what I was trying to show. But I wish people would give me reactions to the pictures themlselves, apart from the technical discussion of the use of the Noctilux.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 31, 2002.

Sorry Mitch, your original point of posting these pictures was to show the color capibility of the Nocti, and these photos do that. Again, it's hard to judge the subtile things these lenses deliver over the web.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 31, 2002.

I just purchased a Noctilux last week and shot a roll of Fuji Reala with it both handheld and at different F stops on a tripod,as well as panf 50asa and 3200 T-max and Kodachrome 25...Havn't got the Kodachrome back yet but I can tell you that the Fuji reala is unbelievably sharp and saturated.I photographed some different colored fruit and other kitchen objects on a table and this is definatly among the best color lens I own if not the best....The rendition is great...This lens seems to reach inside the object and pull the color out of it!The pictures GLOW!!! The guys down at the camera shop were amazed with the results in color and so am I! In fact I prefer the slower films with this lens ...no grain and that Nocti look.Amazing!!!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), March 31, 2002.

Mitch, I understand that it would be nice to get some comments on the pics themselves, but people on this forum (mainly Leica photographers) usually react better to "low light pics" and "people pics" taken with the Noct. Display some of those, and my interest will increase too :)

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 31, 2002.

Kristian:

Gimme a break! If I were interested in that type of photography, I'd use a large format camera. Seriously, though, I do find that it's awfully hard to have an esthetic discussion on this forum, which makes it almost useless to post pictures.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 01, 2002.

Mitch, I like the first one a lot...complex and interesting...a bit yellow, but to my eye it works fine.Good photo! The flower shot has less impact to me for a few reasons...flower is out of focus...nothing sharp at all,no center of defining interest,kind of non-descript.Tripod probably needed here or really long exposure for impressionest effect...handheld or on tripod.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), April 01, 2002.

Emile:

Thanks. I agree in that I like the first one much more also. The yellowness comes from the mixture of daylight and tungsten light. The color matches the Ektachrome slide. Do you find the yellow disturbing? I'll have to try a print with less yellow when I get back to my Epson 1290 printer in Bangkok late-June.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 01, 2002.

Mitch, I think it is fine the way it is!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), April 02, 2002.