JohnKraus wrote:
Both Kevin Fickling and Noctigirl are saying 366 grams- but they might be using the same scale. All the Leica literature says 416 grams.
I’m sure we’d all appreciate anyone with a copy and accurate gram scale to measure the weight of the lens with front and rear caps off…with thanks in advance.
I think someone is wrong for sure. I found the video (Noctgirl) and she mentions the 35/1.2 Noctilux is 366g and the 50/0.95 is only 630 grams. But...I just measured the Leica 50/0.95 without caps and it's actually 767 grams!
BTW, I just saw that @BastianK measured the Leica 50/0.95 at the same weight (so it's confirmed), so it looks like Noctgirl is sharing incorrect information about both 35/1.2 and 50/0.95's actual weight.
RustyRus wrote:
Honestly man- The amount you post about new lenses and what’s coming out etc- It’s a bummer you call it sad when someone else does it.
We all enjoy photography for different reasons- You clearly enjoy your Voigtlander lenses, checking out new ones etc. Don’t put somebody else down for deciding between 2 lenses.
Sorry for misunderstanding. By no means is my intention to push anyone down. We all have our process and choices. I was just saying that for me, after so many different lenses, I found what works for me and im done with the spec comps. But that's just me. Doesn't mean you should as well.
just for fun, here's what ChatGPT says about the MTF chart that Jono published and Fred included above in this thread:
What this is showing are MTF curves for the Leica Noctilux-M 35mm f/1.2 ASPH at:
• f/1.2
• f/1.4
• f/2.8
• f/4
• f/5.6
• f/8
At infinity and 1.5 m (which is very important).
⸻
The headline: this is NOT a “Noctilux like the 50 Noctilux”
This chart is screaming something very surprising:
This lens is optically corrected like an APO, but allowed to have character wide open.
That’s extremely unusual for a Noctilux.
⸻
Look at f/1.2 (top left)
You’d expect chaos at the edges. You don’t get it.
Center is very high.
Mid-frame is still strong.
Edges fall, but not disastrously.
That’s already far more corrected than any historical Noctilux design.
This is why early reviewers are saying it doesn’t look “dreamy soft” at 1.2 — it looks controlled but atmospheric.
⸻
Now look at f/1.4
This is where it gets wild.
At f/1.4 the curves start looking like what you expect from a modern Summilux/ASPH, not a Noctilux.
This tells you:
f/1.4 on this lens is a serious working aperture, not a compromise.
⸻
The shocker: f/2.8 and f/4
Look at those columns.
They go nearly flat across the frame.
That is APO-like behavior.
This is the part people miss.
This lens is not:
“special at 1.2 but mediocre when stopped down”
It’s the opposite.
It becomes technically excellent very quickly.
⸻
Now the REALLY important row: 1.5 m MTF
This is the distance you shoot street.
Look at f/1.2 and f/1.4 at 1.5 m.
They are MUCH stronger than the infinity charts.
That means:
This lens is optimized for near/mid distance subjects.
Exactly your use case.
This is why people report insane subject separation and “3D pop” in real photos.
The lens is tuned for people distance, not landscapes.
⸻
What this means compared to your APO
Your Leica APO-Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH is:
• flat
• neutral
• ultra consistent
• maximum microcontrast at all apertures
The Noctilux 35 is:
• slightly less microcontrast wide open
• deliberately shaped field
• optimized for subject distance
• becomes extremely corrected by f/2.8
That’s a very different philosophy.
⸻
The hidden message in this chart
Look at the title: “Stop Down For What?”
Leica is telling you something:
You don’t buy this lens to stop it down.
But if you do, it behaves like a top-tier modern Leica lens anyway.
That is very, very rare.
⸻
Why this is relevant to you
You already love the APO for:
• microcontrast
• clarity
• precision
This chart shows the Noctilux will:
• not match that at f/2
• but give you something the APO cannot at f/1.2–f/1.8
• and then behave very well when you do stop down
Which means it is not a niche toy lens.
It’s a dual personality 35.
⸻
The real takeaway
This chart says:
The Noctilux 35 is not a “faster 35.”
It’s a 35 designed for subject separation first, but engineered to still be excellent stopped down.
That is why people who try it say:
“This doesn’t replace my APO… but it makes me question why I ever stop down.”
And that’s the exact decision you’re wrestling with.
brick33308 wrote:
“I finally have two very different 35s instead of two similar ones.”
Without AI, why do you need a 35mm APO (Noctilux at F2.0+) and M11, when you can buy a X2D-2 and XCD 38mm for less and get even sharper shots (and autofocus as o bonus)?
I only like the Noctilux because of its F0.95 or F1.25—it's too heavy to carry for F2.0+.
For me 35/1.2 is not necessary - I have FLE and Noctilux 0.95, I need very fast focusing on the street with 35 FLE (I will not get this with 35mm/1.2) and dream shots with 0.95, which is even better than with 35/1.2, but similar in rendering.
Ne314satel wrote:
Without AI, why do you need a 35mm APO (Noctilux at F2.0+) and M11, when you can buy a X2D-2 and XCD 38mm for less and get even sharper shots (and autofocus as o bonus)?
I only like the Noctilux because of its F0.95 or F1.25—it's too heavy to carry for F2.0+.
For me 35/1.2 is not necessary - I have FLE and Noctilux 0.95, I need very fast focusing on the street with 35 FLE (I will not get this with 35mm/1.2) and dream shots with 0.95, which is even better than with 35/1.2, but similar in rendering.
Fair question but i's rarely that simple though. Some like me don't see autofocus as a plus. I shoot M because it doesn't have a lot of what others want. Great to have choices.
brick33308 wrote:
then I asked ChatGPT why I would still want the 35 APO if I get the 35 nocti, and finally I got the answer I'm looking for:
You know that ChatGPT tends to tell you what you want to hear?
Right now, it looked like what I tell myself during my GAS crisis, i.e. once or twice a week
You should ask "do I really need such lenses?", "Can I use a Voigt instead?" or ask your wife/life partner if you have one (I never ask mine of course).
What I’m struggling to answer -even if somebody gave me a free copy of the nocti, when and for what purposes would I reach for it as opposed to either my 35 SRR or 35 APO.
I primarily shoot street with an emphasis on candid street portraits that aren’t so close up as to benefit by the nocti close focus. And for these images I use the 35 APO unless when I’m often in a vintage mood in which case I reach for my 35 SRR or lux 50 pre asph v2 whose renderings still fill me with joy.
Would the nocti improve any of those images, or am I just chasing a shiny new thing that isn’t going to change the look of what I shoot?
There’s no point comparing the nocti to the 35 SRR or 50 pre asph, because they are totally different beasts.
So that only leaves comparison with the 35 APO. It is superb at night for subject separation with beautiful bokeh/oof area rendering.
So, what extra will the nocti give me over the 35 APO? Arguably even more subject separation and also what ChatGPT says is a more “creative” look - whatever the hell that means?
And finally I’m kinda put off by the nocti size/weight and lack of focus tab versus the delightfully diminutive 35 APO with a focus tab that facilitates easy focusing.
If I thought that real world use of the nocti would give me images markedly better than those of my 35 APO, I’d get it irrespective of price and negative physical differences. But I don’t think that’s the case, so right now I’m leaning away from the nocti.
But who knows, given my oft occurring GAS I may change my mind tomorrow
Can we please stop posting AI ramblings? It’s like copying reviews. We’re interested in YOUR thinking, so just share what you took away from AI, if that’s what you want to use. But please don’t share the whole thing. It’s clutter.
I want to know how people like this guy get advance copies...he gushes about how long he's waited for this lens and then puts up, legitimately, some of the worst photos I've seen a YouTuber post in the last year.
Reviewing an image that is 90% crushed blacks: "it just has that LOOK, you know?"
johnvanr wrote:
Can we please stop posting AI ramblings? It’s like copying reviews. We’re interested in YOUR thinking, so just share what you took away from AI, if that’s what you want to use. But please don’t share the whole thing. It’s clutter.
they are relevant to ongoing evolution of whether I want the lens. And I only posted 2 of those chats. If they offend you, just scroll through.
Kevin is an excellent photographer. The crushed blacks is an artistic choice, you can like it or not.
RoamingScott wrote:
I want to know how people like this guy get advance copies...he gushes about how long he's waited for this lens and then puts up, legitimately, some of the worst photos I've seen a YouTuber post in the last year.
Reviewing an image that is 90% crushed blacks: "it just has that LOOK, you know?"
brick33308 wrote:
they are relevant to ongoing evolution of whether I want the lens. And I only posted 2 of those chats. If they offend you, just scroll through.
That’s exactly the issue: I have to scroll through that drivel that doesn’t add anything to my knowledge of the lens or your insights. You may as well copy and paste a review from some site.
brick33308 wrote:
There’s no point comparing the nocti to the 35 SRR or 50 pre asph, because they are totally different beasts.
So that only leaves comparison with the 35 APO. It is superb at night for subject separation with beautiful bokeh/oof area rendering.
So, what extra will the nocti give me over the 35 APO? Arguably even more subject separation and also what ChatGPT says is a more “creative” look - whatever the hell that means?
And finally I’m kinda put off by the nocti size/weight and lack of focus tab versus the delightfully diminutive 35 APO with a focus tab that facilitates easy focusing.
If I thought that real world use of the nocti would give me images markedly better than those of my 35 APO, I’d get it irrespective of price and negative physical differences. But I don’t think that’s the case, so right now I’m leaning away from the nocti. ...Show more →
I hear you, but it might be worth a quick comparison to the VM 35/1.2. No?
RoamingScott wrote:
I want to know how people like this guy get advance copies...he gushes about how long he's waited for this lens and then puts up, legitimately, some of the worst photos I've seen a YouTuber post in the last year.
Reviewing an image that is 90% crushed blacks: "it just has that LOOK, you know?"
Think he bought it. Seems to be a fan boy who has a lot of Leicas.
johnvanr wrote:
That’s exactly the issue: I have to scroll through that drivel that doesn’t add anything to my knowledge of the lens or your insights. You may as well copy and paste a review from some site.
and so the test of what all of us should post is what it adds to YOUR knowledge??
stgrove wrote:
I hear you, but it might be worth a quick comparison to the VM 35/1.2. No?
from what I've observed/read, the VM 35/1.2, while producing nice separation and OOF areas, lacks the center sharpness of the 35 nocti. If I was interested in the VM 35/1.2 look, I'd probably pull out my 35 SRR which has similar rendering in terms of not being the sharpest in the center, but has the added benefit of both Leica glow and more of a vintage look.
I think people going for the 35 nocti will not find the VM 35/1.2 even close in terms of overall rendering.
