What makes the 35 Noct so interesting is the evolving lens design philosophy of Leica, Arri Cine and others: after achieving ever better technical mastery, they're acknowledging character is lessening. So they sometimes back away from the technical perfection to get the character they want. Apparently Leica is doing this with the Hektor Cine line (thanks to Kevin Fickling for this info). The earlier post that Arri Cine started looking at faces and OOF BG over MTF charts is another example of what’s happening.
Noct vs. FLE II: I’ve had the FLE II for over a year- and recently was torture testing it to see how it handled certain difficult scenes, like low sun high contrast bright morning backlight - and it’s so good. The micro contrast and 3D pop is also terrific. It focuses closer than the 35 Noct and is smaller and lighter. What’s compelling for me with the 35 Noct is the slight veiling BG in OOF areas WO- like my 50 1.2 Noct. As well as the softer BG focus. So if shooting a lot of portrait/fashion WO, that’s special. In terms of sharpness, contrast, CA, etc.. for my work (not focusing on branches or cars in strong backlight, etc) the Summilux FLE II is fine.
As someone who just bought the Safari FLE II while on vacation in Japan despite owning it in silver already... if they come out with a Safari version of this lens I am as the kids say, 'cooked'.
I do like how smooth the OOF areas are with the Noct and it does render some beautiful images. That being said I am easily influenced by beautiful images and productions from influencers/photographers who are much better at taking pictures than I am.
I am happy with my FLE II but my main gripe with it is the fringing which occurs a lot for me due to frequenting car meets and shows weekly. This Noct looks like it is better in that regard which would help my workflow a significant amount.
JohnKraus wrote:
The 35 Noct is an exciting lens, and this is an exciting thread.
What makes it so interesting is learning about the newer lens design philosophy of Leica, Arri Cine and others: after achieving ever better technical mastery, they started to see how character was lessening. So the idea focuses on getting a lens technically perfect and then perhaps seeing how to adjust, sometimes back off, to get the character they want.
I came across another example of this with some info about the development process and the special tunable lens they created to arrive at the amount of spherical aberration that produced the best look. Apparently they also tweaked the lens behaviour to certain distances and apertures. https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/limited_lens/interview/
this thread is exacerbating my up to now decently controlled chronic GAS condition.
I'm on the fence whether the 35 noctilux can and should replace my cron 35 APO. Feel free to tell me to sit down and take a chill pill.
It so depends upon what you shoot, what you're looking for and what you can afford. I'd think most landscape shooters might prefer the APO for edge sharpness. Portrait shooters who shoot WO would probably prefer the Noct.
The Noct is bigger and heavier than the APO. If you walk around all day with your camera that's another consideration.
Plus the money to sell the APO and replace for the Noct. Lots to muse on and no rush, in my book. Just a guess not knowing you- I'd guess you'll miss the APO.
brick33308 wrote:
this thread is exacerbating my up to now decently controlled chronic GAS condition.
I'm on the fence whether the 35 noctilux can and should replace my cron 35 APO. Feel free to tell me to sit down and take a chill pill.
JohnKraus wrote:
It so depends upon what you shoot, what you're looking for and what you can afford. I'd think most landscape shooters might prefer the APO for edge sharpness. Portrait shooters who shoot WO would probably prefer the Noct.
The Noct is bigger and heavier than the APO. If you walk around all day with your camera that's another consideration.
Plus the money to sell the APO and replace for the Noct. Lots to muse on and no rush, in my book. Just a guess not knowing you- I'd guess you'll miss the APO.
queue the 'why not both' gif....I think they have totally different use cases, and I plan on keeping both. In fact, I plan on keeping a pre-asph lux along with the 35 Cron APO when I get the 35 Noctilux.They are all so different and each have their place - my opinion
brick33308 wrote:
this thread is exacerbating my up to now decently controlled chronic GAS condition.
I'm on the fence whether the 35 noctilux can and should replace my cron 35 APO. Feel free to tell me to sit down and take a chill pill.
Ask yourself these questions:
1. Do I want my images to show more blur in the rendering? (Noct)
2. Do I want a very well corrected lens (color and SA aberration) and sharp edges at f/2? (Cron)
3. Do I prefer focusing with a focus tab? (Cron)
4. Which rendering do I prefer? I'd say they're very similar (modern, smooth transitions) starting at f/2, so it really comes down to the extra blur you get at wider apertures. (Noct for the extra blur when desired)
5. Do I prefer a noticeably smaller, lighter lens, with less frameline blockage? (Cron)
6. Do I prefer a shorter focus throw? (Cron)
7. Am I okay taking a hit selling my Cron APO on the used market and paying full price for a new Leica lens?
8. Have I checked my own images to see what my style actually is?
We all have different needs and preferences, so the best answer is the one that matches how I really shoot. Just food for thought.
My Steel Rim Chrome is nice, but the 35 Noctlux checks all the boxes.
My Steel Rim Black is nice, but...
My APO 35 is nice, but...
My 35.1,4 CL is nice, but...
My VM Ultron 35 is nice, but...
My 35 KOB Canada is nice, but...
My 35 KOB Made in Germany is nice, but...
My LLL 35 8 Element is nice, but...
Good to see they are open about aiming to make it closer to the 35/2 APO. From Jaarn-Helge Staasmeyer at Leica AG:
'we tried to bring as much as possible from the very popular 35mm APO-Summicron to a Noctilux.'
A sound move, as 35m is very different to any fast 50mm Noctilux, in size and shot-making opportunities. It's more of a stealth 'EDC' lens.
'the bokeh is super smooth and super soft' due to the surface accuracy. Nice to see mention of HRI glass too. It's moving in the direction of cine lenses, you see a lot of shadow work in many videos.
..
1. Do I want my images to show more blur in the rendering? (Noct)
2. Do I want a very well corrected lens (color and SA aberration) and sharp edges at f/2? (Cron)
3. Do I prefer focusing with a focus tab? (Cron)
4. Which rendering do I prefer? I'd say they're very similar (modern, smooth transitions) starting at f/2, so it really comes down to the extra blur you get at wider apertures. (Noct for the extra blur when desired)
5. Do I prefer a noticeably smaller, lighter lens, with less frameline blockage? (Cron)
6. Do I prefer a shorter focus throw? (Cron)
7. Am I okay taking a hit selling my Cron APO on the used market and paying full price for a new Leica lens?
8. Have I checked my own images to see what my style actually is?
We all have different needs and preferences, so the best answer is the one that matches how I really shoot. Just food for thought. ...Show more →
thanks Fred, great list of questions.
I never shoot landscape, and mainly what I shoot is street with an emphasis on candid street portraits. I like shooting wide open for subject separation, indeed many of my favorite images are from my 35 steel rim reissue and 50 pre asph v2, both of which I more often than not shoot wide open, as well as from my 35 APO, all being shot at widest aperture.
I'd be willing to take the hit on selling the 35 APO and replacing it with the 35 noctilux (i.e., I'm not concerned about the extra cost) if I was convinced that the blur and subject separation of the 35 noctilux is noticeably greater than shooting the 35 APO wide open, AND if I wouldn't dislike using the much heavier 35 noctilux.
The close up portraits I've seen with the 35 noctilux are really nice, but because I almost never do close up portraits, my gut says the extra blur of f1.2 over f2 isn't enough to justify lugging around a heavy lens. And walking around at night with my 35 APO wide open I very much like its background blur as well as it's light weight.
I can't predict how I'll respond when I get the call from Leica L.A. that they're ready to fill my spot in line with the 35 noctilux. Maybe I'll just go for it, but at this point I'm leaning away from it.
brick33308 wrote:
thanks Fred, great list of questions.
I never shoot landscape, and mainly what I shoot is street with an emphasis on candid street portraits. I like shooting wide open for subject separation, indeed many of my favorite images are from my 35 steel rim reissue and 50 pre asph v2, both of which I more often than not shoot wide open, as well as from my 35 APO, all being shot at widest aperture.
I'd be willing to take the hit on selling the 35 APO and replacing it with the 35 noctilux (i.e., I'm not concerned about the extra cost) if I was convinced that the blur and subject separation of the 35 noctilux is noticeably greater than shooting the 35 APO wide open, AND if I wouldn't dislike using the much heavier 35 noctilux.
The close up portraits I've seen with the 35 noctilux are really nice, but because I almost never do close up portraits, my gut says the extra blur of f1.2 over f2 isn't enough to justify lugging around a heavy lens. And walking around at night with my 35 APO wide open I very much like its background blur as well as it's light weight.
I can't predict how I'll respond when I get the call from Leica L.A. that they're ready to fill my spot in line with the 35 noctilux. Maybe I'll just go for it, but at this point I'm leaning away from it....Show more →
I’m using the 35mm APO Lanthar, so there isn’t a size/weight advantage to the Lanthar vs the Noctilux, but the Lanthar lens is sharp from center to periphery at f/2.0, which is my typical setting for this lens. I don’t think that the new Leica will have the same peripheral sharpness. I can say that the Zeiss Distagon comes very close at f/2.0. It will be interesting to see how the Zeiss compares to the new Noctilux at f/1.4.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it is worth mentioning that when you look at the Leica data sheet even at f/1.2 and nearly to the short edge, the MTFs for this new 35 Noctilux has a 90/80/60 percent contrast at 10/20/40 lp/mm. That is very strong performance wide open and basically matches and ever so slightly exceeds in the center the performance of the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 wide open.
The new lens seems to have less axial CA as well and weighs only a tiny bit more (and that weight includes the built-in hood). And the new lens is 15mm shorter than the Zeiss ZM and only 1.4mm bigger in diameter, so smaller. It looks like Leica was able to make a lens half a stop faster, smaller, with slightly better performance (and a shorter MFD) than the already excellently performing Zeiss lens.
This lens is way out of my price range, but there is no denying that it is a notable achievement.
I am a fan of Voigtlander lenses and the CV 35 f/1.2 is a very compelling lens, but it is also very different with nowhere near the level of sharpness wide open, what looks to be substantially more axial CA and purple fringing, and no floating element design and therefore what looks like much worse close focus performance. They obviously don't compare in price either.
Personally, I would go with the CV for price but I wouldn't try to kid myself and suggest the CV lens is comparable. If you can handle the size and deal with the price then I think this new 35 Noct is a super compelling lens....Show more →
It's actually performing at a higher level than that. The Leica lp/mm lines are 5, 10, 20, and 40, but the highest frequency, representing fine detail, exceeds 65 (almost 70 lp/mm) which is significantly higher than the Zeiss 35/1.4 (whose 40 lp/mm line peaks around 58‑59 lp/mm). And this is wide open. By f/1.4, the Leica approaches 80 lp/mm, probably around 77 based on the graph! That's nearly 20 lp/mm more than the Zeiss, which should make a noticeable difference in real-world image sharpness at the center.
Here's the full MTF graph for the Leica 35mm f/1.2 Noct at f/1.2, f/1.4, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8, from Jonathan Slack's review:
(Conveniently, Leica didn't publish the f/2 data — I wonder why )
For comparison with the Leica 35mm f/1.2 Noctilux MTF graphs above, here are the MTF charts for the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM and the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH (FLE).
Personally, I find the Leica 35mm f/1.4 FLE and Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM almost too sharp wide open, and I appreciate their overall rendering and how their sagittal and tangential lines stay closely aligned toward the edges. If I wanted a completely uncompromising, highly corrected, top-performing lens, I'd choose the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar for its value.
That said, the new 35mm f/1.2 Noct is undeniably impressive, offering exceptional resolution and contrast at the center wide open, and even more so by f/1.4.
bwcolor wrote:
I’m using the 35mm APO Lanthar, so there isn’t a size/weight advantage to the Lanthar vs the Noctilux, but the Lanthar lens is sharp from center to periphery at f/2.0, which is my typical setting for this lens. I don’t think that the new Leica will have the same peripheral sharpness. I can say that the Zeiss Distagon comes very close at f/2.0. It will be interesting to see how the Zeiss compares to the new Noctilux at f/1.4.
I can't speak for others, but just for myself, when I'm shooting a fast lens wide open, the thing I'm least interested in is periphery sharpness. I prefer fall off from a sharp or semi sharp center, probably why I prize images from my lux 50 pre asph v2 shot at f1.4.
There are obviously very different genres of lenses made for different purposes, despite the common technologies used here. This is the art lens with near unimpeachable bokeh. The focal plane performance of the Noctilux and its very distinct transitions and bokeh will win over the people it is aimed at. It already is. As ARRI says, 'we stopped looking at charts and started looking at faces'.
Good to see Jono publish these data. Look in particular at the 1.5m at f1.2 to just a half stop down at f1.4. Look at that giant bounce, and in all frequencies to boot. If users are: 'not sharp enough' at f1.2, just a tiny move on the aperture ring is all that you need to get a 60% boost for fine detail. It looks like two or three lenses in one, scanning the aperture charts.
Leica even softened it for close up (high magnification) photography wide open. The second line cross comes at 15mm image height (70% from center), so it's some way past the short side - more than enough for almost all portraits. It's a disservice to users to not publish such data in company data sheets.
Yogifi wrote:
Probably on a leica body it's different but I was told the size difference between the a7cii and m11 wasn't all that significant in practice. Maybe the grip makes it easier to hold larger lenses?
Leica digital M cameras aren't overly small. I'd say they're 'right sized' for the average human hand size. But the critical factor with Leica M and larger/chunkier lenses, is the optical 'window' viewfinder that is not TTL viewing of the scene like it would be with a Sony mirrorless camera. Larger lenses block part of the view through the window and this is compounded when wide angle lenses are large, like the ZM 351.4, which is both long and large in diameter. Naturally, a wider angle of view requires more of the M's viewfinder area. The frame lines are closer to the window's edges and thus more impacted by viewfinder blockage caused by large lenses. This is the primary incentive for Leica to make a lens like the 35/1.2 as short as possible, which to a degree is more important than its diameter. And this is the primary criticism of the ZM when used on an M camera.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here's the full MTF graph for the Leica 35mm f/1.2 Noct at f/1.2, f/1.4, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8, from Jonathan Slack's review:
(Conveniently, Leica didn't publish the f/2 data — I wonder why )
The 1.5m f/1.4 and f/2.8 graphs seem odd, almost like they might be reversed. Or at that distance there actually is some slight focus shift impacting central sharpness at f/2.8...? It wouldn't be the first time Leica mixed up the graphs.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's actually performing at a higher level than that. The Leica lp/mm lines are 5, 10, 20, and 40, but the highest frequency, representing fine detail, exceeds 65 (almost 70 lp/mm) which is significantly higher than the Zeiss 35/1.4 (whose 40 lp/mm line peaks around 58‑59 lp/mm). And this is wide open. By f/1.4, the Leica approaches 80 lp/mm, probably around 77 based on the graph! That's nearly 20 lp/mm more than the Zeiss, which should make a noticeable difference in real-world image sharpness at the center.
Here's the full MTF graph for the Leica 35mm f/1.2 Noct at f/1.2, f/1.4, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8, from Jonathan Slack's review:
(Conveniently, Leica didn't publish the f/2 data — I wonder why )...Show more →
Now this MTF chart has me questioning having both the Cron APO & Noctilux . Hopefully I will have my chance to find out this weekend
