I currently use an M6 and M3 with 21 Asph, 35 Lux Asph, 50 Cron (latest ), 90 Tele elmarit ( slim ) and 135 Apo-Telyt.......each has its own character, much like the members of any family, and I am extremely pleased with them. My photography is pretty eclectic these days .....candids, family, nephews at sport, landscape, cityscape, " walking around " shots, travel, some portraiture in low light, low light shots in general just for the drama of the images and the sheer pleasure of it, general scenic and events, and attempts to document " the human condition "..... I also have an old Nikon FE with Nikon 55/1.2 lens which has given me some very nice shots in the ( distant ) past.... but seem to only use the Leicas these days.

Looking at the very fast lenses in the standard/short tele focal lengths. I have the excellent 90TE and no real wish for the 90Apo ( not fast enough ). My dilemna is in understanding the opportunities offered by the Noctilux and the 75 Lux. Having read previous posts I have learnt much about both these lenses....but I'm wondering if anyone here has used or owns both and would like to comment on the particular uses they find for each lens if the choice is actually available in the camera bag.

Both are big, heavy,and require careful focussing which is OK.....accepted as the price you to pay to get the images these lenses are capable of producing. The 135 Apo also is rather large and focussing is critical but I have managed some super shots with it which I could not have otherwise obtained with the M lenses I have at the moment. It is a superb lens.

Both Noct and 75 Lux appear to have good resolution wide open ( while perhaps not as sharp as some of the newer lenses like the 90 Apo ). I like using Leica lenses wide open and I have no doubt whatsoever that both would be sharp "enough" . Part of the attraction, apart from speed, is the fact that both these lenses seem to fit in the 1970's/80's style of Leica optics. I'm more concerned with their "look" and the possibilities they open up for picture making. Is the Noct "creamier"? Can the 75 Lux achieve the same isolation from surroundings that the Noct allows? Can either be used as a general purpose lens where you just keep shooting as it gets darker?

I tried a Noct briefly at a Leica day recently ( unfortunately the 75 Lux was not available to try )and got a few well focussed shots but felt a little " pushed back " from the subject by the min focus distance of 1 metre for one on one portraiture ( could not get a really tight head and shoulders shot )....shots isolating one or two people in a group worked better and the lens seemed more at home at this distance. The 75 Lux allows getting closer as Mike Dixon's excellent posts have shown, and provide a certain intimacy without that "tele" look ( thanks Mike, your lux adventures postings have been very helpful ) .....but the Noct is faster.... Both lenses are said to be very resistant to flare and I imagine both lenses are excellent stopped down and would expect any differences in their character to be less apparent at smaller apertures.

Is anyone able to advise me please?..... when is the Noct preferred to the 75 Lux and vise versa if both are right there with you?.......Can a good case be made to have both?

Many thanks

Greg

-- Gregory Bell (grbell@bigpond.net.au), May 26, 2002

Answers

Shinozuka's photos using the Noct and 75mm Lux wide open

BCC Customer Gallery Rei Shinozuka Here's a peak at Rei's favorite images all taken wide open with the 75 lux, 90 AA and Noctilux f1.0 lens

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 26, 2002.

Noctilux vs Summilux for documentary work

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 26, 2002.

I have used both of these lenses extensively, wide open because I did a lot of low-light work in theaters. I no longer own either of them. I replaced both of them and a 50mm Summicron with a 50mm Summilux. As a practical matter, there is not a tremendous amount of difference between these 1.0 and 1.4 lenses for a photographer working with a wide variety of subjects. I realize that contributors to this discussion group like to talk about lens "fingerprints" and "bokeh." However, I think that these considerations are of significant value only when a photographer is going exploit them on a regular basis (such as a commercial portrait photographer finding a lens that gives him or her a signature look). I think that people involved in general photography (amateur or professional) are better off sticking with equipment that offers interchangeability (all 46mm filter sizes), simplicity (carry fewer lenses), and ease of use (Noctilux and 75mm Summilux are heavy and are harder/slower by comparison to focus).

F8 and be there still holds the most weight in general photography. You take pictures to show them to people. People are interested in the subject matter of the photo, not the technical considerations of the photographer. Make things as easy as possible for yourself so that you can take well composed pictures of meaningful (to you) subjects.

-- Jim Lennon (jim@jmlennon.com), May 26, 2002.

What Jim said...

My two cents: I used to own both as well, and not only is there not that great of difference between f1.0 and f1.4 in practical use, there really isn't that much difference between f1.4 in the 75 and f2.0 in the 90APO in practical use. Which is why I cherish the 90APO in use -- except for its size. And FWIW, I also sold a 50 'Cron and the Noct, bought the 'Lux (and a BUNCH of other stuff) and never looked back.

However... I think both of these lenses DO have their own unique signatures. The 75 is very sharp; perhaps not as sharp as the 90 APO (or your 135 APO), but it does have a "creamier" look, much like the 50 'Lux. The Noct has an "older lens" look, but is not as sharp as the 'Lux from f1.4 up -- and before anybody slams this statement I am aware of the focus-shift issue with the Noct, but as a practical matter one cannot implement focus correction on the M while using the Noct in the f1.4 - f4.0 range (before DOF corrects the "error"), so it is of little consequence in practical shooting applications. Factor in the size/weight/inconvenience issues Jim mentioned, and these two lenses simply never made it from the camera cabinet to my camera bag very often.

All IMO,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 26, 2002.

I think the answer is something that is more readily answered with an SLR with a matt screen. It lies in the individual's perception of a natural field of view. These days, the choice of a standard lens, particularly longer focal lengths, with a newer Leica M is an intellectual exercise, based upon results. With an SLR the nature of the image is self explanatory, and the photographer will gravitate to a focal length based upon what he/she sees in the viewfinder. I do not myself perceive an issue with modern Leica lens quality or individual characteristics

-- James Elwing (elgur@acay.com.au), May 26, 2002.

I wonder if Mr. Shinozuka has ever had the problem I have with the 75 Lux-- When framing, I keep reverting back to the 50mm framelines, which appear in the viewfinder with the 75 framelines. Those are but mere corner brackets and they tend to get lost. I keep telling myself, 'next time, I'll remember those little 75mm brackets', and sure enough, I find myself forgetting them and using the 50mm brackets! Jack-- did you ever have that problem with the 75? The photos taken with the Luxes, by Mr. Shinozuka, really represent what the Luxes can do! Really fine examples! Try *that* with the 50mm Elmar-M!

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), May 26, 2002.

I think that, for a given situation, the choice between the 75 and 50 should be based primarily on whether a "normal" focal length or a short telephoto is more appropriate (assuming that you don't need an aperture wider than f1.4). The difference in angle of view will have more impact on the photo than very subtle differences in bokeh and tonality.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), May 26, 2002.

Jack F. wrote: "there really isn't that much difference between f 1.4 in the 75 and f 2.0 in the 90APO in practical use. Which is why I cherish the 90APO in use"

I strongly disagree with this statement for four reasons:

1) The 75 Summilux is much more versatile of a lens for theater and interior low light events. Time and time again I have had to plumb the inky depths with the 1.4 aperture to keep my shutter speeds up to freeze action.

2) The 75 mm focal length gives a 1 f-stop depth of field advantage over the 90 mm at any set distance. This is helpful when shooting groups of people on stage.

3) The 75 mm focuses closer and covers a smaller area than any Leica 90 mm. True below 2 meters my 90 Elmarit-M is sharper and has more contrast than my 75 mm at 5.6 and wider but the Elmarit-M outperforms the 90 AA is this region also.

4) The OOF rendition of the 75 mm is creamy and graduates gently compared to the 90 AA. This is really an advantage with narrow depth of field and subjects of secondary interest within those OOF areas.

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), May 26, 2002.

The 50mm arsenal here is a Noctilux F1.0 on an M3 ; the fast short tele arsenal is on my Nikon F; it is the 85mm F1.4 AIS lens.....Both are brutes and have less usage or ROI (return on investment) that slower more practical lenses...In real dim light my consistancy of focus is better with the M3/Noct...; than the 85mm F1.4 on the F....The F is loud as hell compared to the M3; but is better for sports..I have the F finder screen that has microprisms over the entire image; it makes focusing on action quick...

As a practical compact camera combo the collapsable F2 Summicron and M3 is used..The Noct is just another heavy lens to carry..; but for super low light it has an one stop advantage over the 1.4 lens...

In scanning some old 25 year old tri-x negatives recently; I found a roll shot with my Nikkormat SLR of a party outside; which had poor lighting....I didnt use a flash; to try to get some natural shots...The surveyors field book/roll logbook of mine has the data for that roll...Exposures were 1/8 to 1/30 all at f1.4....The developer was Ethol blue ; and the film was exposed for EI 1000 and "pushed"...Many times this just increases the contrast on the well exposed parts of the negative; and only slighty pulls an image out of the toe of the films D-logE curve.....................

they result of the roll was poorthe focusing constancy of the 50mm F1.4 Nikkor on the Nikkormat was really hit or miss..in the dim light...The negatives could have used more exposure....My later rolls with 2475 recording film were too grainy.....My Leica M3 yields alot better quality focusing in dim light...My TRW swap meet 20 dollar/meter broken Canonet QL17 40mm F1.7 is also a cool camera for low light work....;Since I dont have a fast 35mm focal length lens for the Leica M yet....Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 26, 2002.

Frank: Actually, my problem with the 75 was more that the 50 lines seemed more accurate than the 75 lines! It is in that regard that I felt the 75 was not that different in perspective from the 50 I guess. I know that it obviously is, but my 90 just seemd a LOT tighter than the 75. Why 15mm made such a difference for me, I don't know -- perhaps it was just the way I used the 75 or "saw" with it.

Doug: I did use the qualifiers "my two cents" and "IMO only" -- I was sure at least a few of you would disagree with me!

;-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 26, 2002.

Jack. The angles of coverage (diagonal) of 50, 75, and 90 mm lenses are, respectively, 46, 31, and 27 degrees. Therefore, the 75 mm lens is much closer in perspective to the 90 than the 50. I understand the reason for its existence is only that Leica felt a 90/1.4 lens would intrude too much into the VF frame, so they made there f/1.4 tele 75 rather than 90 mm.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 26, 2002.

Greg,

I use the 75 'lux, and have been pouring out extatic comments in many previous threads, so will avoid repeating here.

I often ask myself the same question as you regarding the Noctilux, and have periodically felt very tempted by the adventure of replacing my 50 'cron by that mythical monster.

What stops me, beyond size/weight (the 75 is already adding that much un-M cumbersomeness to the setup), is the 1m minimum focus limit. That is just too far for a 50mm lens, even on a M, especially for the usage I would make of the Nocti (interior shots in cafes, bars and other smoky places...).

I think the intimacy you are looking for is better served by the other 50mm lenses in the stable. And there is here a clear case in favour of latest generation 50 'lux, combining nice differential focus capability, low light flexibility and compact footprint.

But if it is a case of carrying more than one lens around, and as you have already fallen for the 35 'lux asph, I feel money would be better invested in the 75 alone rather than in the Noctilux or in both. I bet you will be tempted to leave the 90, and even the 135, at home once you carry the 75 around...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.

Greg--

I have similar lenses to yours, except I have the 35/2 ASPH and I don't have a 135. The answer from my POV is "It depends."

Rent a Noctilux for at least a week and then see if you really want one. I spent a few days with one recently, and it was enough for me to decide that it just didn't do the trick for me.

Other M shooters have made similar complaints, which I have to agree with-- it is heavy (I didn't like what it did to the balance of the camera), it is big (it blocks the lower right corner of the viewfinder, which I don't particularly like), it's slow (the focus ring is huge and takes more effort than I'd like to move it) and it's deadly expensive. (Roughly $2k!)

That said, it IS a great lens. But will it fit in with what you're shooting? I think it'd be great for portraits and studio things that move slowly (or not at all), but I found it to be a nuisance on the streets. By the time I'd wrestled the focus ring to the right position, the shot was gone. Perhaps it'd be nice for nature, but you can't get close with it.

If you're doing the sort of stuff where you can afford the luxury of lugging the entire arsenal o' lenses with you wherever you go, then it could be useful. If being mobile and light is your bag, well, maybe not.

I, too, was lured by the magic of f/1, and it does take outstanding pictures, but you need to ask yourself the most important question: Is it the right tool for the job? 'Cos that's all it is. A tool. (I know, sacrilege!) ;-) Seriously, though, you should try one out extensively first before plunking down $2K for one.

I must admit that I happily went back to my 50/2. It was SO much faster to focus, and I could see the whole frame again. (Which was one of the main reasons I got an M to begin with...) One day I may move to a Lux (35 or 50), but I'll try before I buy again.

As for the 75, well, you can either use the 90 and step back, or the 50 and step forward. That's what I usually do. I'm not sure buying another lens will make that radical a difference in your photography, (heresy!) although it may make a radical difference in your checking account! ;-)

I know what you're going through, though, because I've been there (and sometimes come back). Unless you have a specific need for the 75 or Nocti, I'd save the money for either: 1) film 2) a backup body or 3) a trip someplace exotic where you can take great pictures. Better to be lens-poor and photo-rich than lens-rich and photo-poor. IMHO, of course and YMMV.

Best of Luck, Rich.

-- Rich Fowler (richfowler@mindspring.com), May 27, 2002.

Well Ithink these 2 lenses are totaly different in feel.Forget the perspective differences which i think are minimal. MY noct (latest model) is never realy sharp wide open.It is not bad in the center but else where forget it.But this is the feel I want from this lens.The fall off in the corners is very very obvious aswell.The 75 on the other hand is much sharper and has stacks better edge sharpnest etc if this is what you would prefere.To me lens aberation differences are way more noticable than the focal length difference.

-- Tim Robinson (timphoto@ihug.com.au), May 27, 2002.

A big thankyou to all those who took the trouble to reply to my post. So many perceptive and detailed replies to my question ...... excellent advice which has made me stop and rethink the whole thing.

Your collective advice has convinced me that for the moment its best to wait, take careful notice of pictures taken with these lenses, and learn a bit more. I'll find a way to borrow or rent them to try out for a short period. And I'll have a good look at the 50 Lux as well....a lens which I had foolishly underrated without any really good reasons.

Following the old rule " when in doubt, Don't ", I reckon its best to just postpone this decision for now until I'm more sure. As some of your posts have reminded me, that sort of money can buy a lot of other photographic possibilities.....such as film,...or travel,.........also paper, darkroom supplies, etc ...and this sort of purchase should really be made with specific photographic goals in mind.

Thanks for such a good forum.

Best regards

Greg

-- Gregory Bell (grbell@bigpond.net.au), May 28, 2002.

I have had both and the 75 is by far and away my most favorite, prized lens I own, or have ever owned. I take a lot of crappy shots, but the several that I have taken that are outstanding, I mean worth my whole camera investment, have been with the 75. I have trouble with the whole Leica glow concept, I mean what is that anyway?, but somehow 75 pictures produce almost color from black and white. No M owner should be without one, and the whole size/weight issue is the price you pay for good pictures. And as for price, well that's a Leica thing and unfortunate.

The Noct. was a big fat pain in the ass lens, but is made extraordinarily well, delivers great pictures, and is probably the best all around 50 if your willing to dispense with the notion of the M as a compact camera. There's really nothing all that special about it, beyond the weird depth of field at f1 and the fact that with ASA 400 film you don't need to worry about whether there is enough light. Chances are there is. Optically, it's the same as the other lenses, unless your messr. Puts and have time and optical benches and so forth.

In terms of difference in 50 vs 75 perspective, they are indeed too close to own both. And one last comment ... the 75 is useless at 1.4 b/c the dof is too shallow. You get an eyelash in focus if you're lucky. That said, for what's in focus the 75 is damn sharp at all apertures.

-- A. Woolf (awoolf@hotmail.com), May 29, 2002.

Ok,I never try the Summilux 1.4 but the summarex 1.5/85 SW is excelent for B&W at f2¡. Try it if you find a good one¡

-- CESAR ZUBILLAGA (CLAROCESAR@HOTMAIL.COM), May 31, 2002.