gavinsan wrote:
I've bought one and I'm pretty impressed so far, note that I've only tested it around the house due to heavy storms this week. I traded in the Summilux 35 FLE (pre Close Focus).
Not as sharp as the APO 35, but what is really? But it is plenty sharp in the center, much more so than the Summilux.
any chance you have an accurate gram scale and can let us know what it weighs without caps?
I think the difference in background blur between the 35 Noct at 1.2 and the FLE II at 1.4 will be greater than people think. I continue to hear that Leica can design the focus fall off to be non- liner.. i.e. greater than normal.
I also appreciate the longer focus throw for this type of lens/look- to help nail the most precise focus possible.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree, adding a tab to a lens not designed for one can hurt ergonomics, especially on a fat barrel, so I get why you removed it. My point is slightly different. I am not saying Leica should add a tab to the Noct as it exists, but they could have designed it from the start with a tab and a shorter throw, like the 35/1.4 Lux (FLE)
The "f/1.2 needs a huge throw because of super thin DOF" argument doesn't hold much water. f/1.2 vs f/1.4 is only a 14–15% DOF difference. Real, but not enough to justify a massive throw on its own. Distance matters more than that small aperture change.
Maybe there is an engineering reason, like tighter tolerances and the need for finer focus control, that led Leica to go with a longer throw. I wouldn't really call it a "feature". For me, the lack of a tab, the very long throw (for a modern lens), and the rings being so close together are more of a downside/compromise...perhaps a consequence of pushing to f/1.2, even though going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 makes very little difference in blur, especially when the background is closer to the subject....Show more →
The visual difference in background blur really comes down to how close you are to the subject. If you shoot closeup the difference will be marginal, if you shoot further away, the difference will be more noticeable.
RustyRus wrote:
I really like the look he created-
I honestly think this is where a Noctilux 35 will shine for me. I love vignetting, un crisp edges etc for landscape use. We can all go out and use a Medium format camera and get sharp results of a landscape at f/8.
These are much more in my wheelhouse then al ot of the stopped down images I see that gets rinse and repeated when you go to a location like this.
Rambling here but I like what he did-
I like the look of the images, but I don’t think you need that lens for that style.
I don’t like the images on his website at all. Makes me think that he’s not a pro at all, actually.
JohnKraus wrote:
I think the difference in background blur between the 35 Noct at 1.2 and the FLE II at 1.4 will be greater than people think. I continue to hear that Leica can design the focus fall off to be non- liner.. i.e. greater than normal.
I also appreciate the longer focus throw for this type of lens/look- to help nail the most precise focus possible.
---------------------------------------------
Jorge Torralba wrote:
The visual difference in background blur really comes down to how close you are to the subject. If you shoot closeup the difference will be marginal, if you shoot further away, the difference will be more noticeable.
Camera distance to the subject affects blur for both f/1.2 and f/1.4, but it's really the distance between the focused subject and the out of focus background that dictates the difference between a 35mm f/1.2 and f/1.4. Basically, the closer the OOF background is to the focused subject, the smaller the difference will be. It's just physics...you can even test it yourself with a Leica 35mm f/1.2 wide open and stopped down to f/1.4.
Of course, comparing different lenses with different rendering styles adds another layer, so results can vary.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree, adding a tab to a lens not designed for one can hurt ergonomics, especially on a fat barrel, so I get why you removed it. My point is slightly different. I am not saying Leica should add a tab to the Noct as it exists, but they could have designed it from the start with a tab and a shorter throw, like the 35/1.4 Lux (FLE)
The "f/1.2 needs a huge throw because of super thin DOF" argument doesn't hold much water. f/1.2 vs f/1.4 is only a 14–15% DOF difference. Real, but not enough to justify a massive throw on its own. Distance matters more than that small aperture change.
All good points. I just wonder with a long focus throw would a tab be in an upward position? Then if they did not want a tab sticking out near the top of the lens should they have shortened the total throw so a tab could be included?
We will never know. The VM 21/1.4 and 35/1.2 both have no tabs and I must say I never missed one either. I never miss not having focus tabs on my 50 Noctiluxes and for that matter on long lenses either. My 24/1.4 and 21/1.4 do not have focus tabs which I never missed or even thought about until this discussion came up.
I can understand focus tabs on smaller lenses.
P.S. Fred-Our LLL 1966 50/1.2 has no focus tab and I don't miss it either.
Focus throw design seems to come in two extreme schools: short (90-130 degrees) for high speed of initial approximate focus - the time savings can then be used for fine-tuning focus; and long (220-300 degrees) for greater exactitude at the point of final focus acquisition, at the cost of fast approx focus gain.
What matters is personal taste and experience with both types, leading to haptic preference; and the kind of photography the lens is to be used for. Modern Zeiss and Leica (both heavily involved in cine) opted for long throws; Cosina and the Chinese opted for short throws.
Precision can be obtained in both forms, but extent of throw does indicate the kind of work the maker thinks the lens will be used for. Less time-sensitive photography (still lifes, studio, product, commercial, paid modeling, landscapes, objets d'art, architecture, interiors, tripods) can use long throws.
Short throw work includes mid-aperture street (zone), found portraits, impromptu decisive moments, rapidly unfolding compositions in markets, night life, crowds, strange angles and ground level screen compositions etc., usually wide open using fast lenses. Shooting simply has to happen immediately after final focus and often even before. Fleeting expressions, that certain smile, blocking of NPCs in the frame..
Long throws can work well for familiar lenses, where you don't get lost in the ring turns and can preset the ring region for an appearing shot or series of comps. Short throws are fine for changing environs with a mix of near-middle-far focus distances.
The 0.7m detent helps, and to be fair, quite a lot of rotation is used up in the closer MFDs we see appearing these days. But it is not a macro so like most things, it is a balancing act. Quick throws help those who use quite different FL lenses, with frequent swaps.
The lens weighs exactly 416 grams without any front or back caps. I've taken a picture but don't know how to upload here.. do I have to be a subscriber?
Yes it's a shame it is not as light as some people have said on the internet. Regardless, the lens ergonomics feel fantastic and the centre of gravity is not too bad when mounted on the camera (M EV1) in my case.
I've attached a clear bw filter since this picture but might take that off and buy an e49 lens cap instead.
johnvanr wrote:
I like the look of the images, but I don’t think you need that lens for that style.
I don’t like the images on his website at all. Makes me think that he’s not a pro at all, actually.
You don’t need the 35 Noctilux for anything really You can say that for just about any modern lens that is created though.
I am going back and forth on picking this one up- When my name is called it will be telling if I pull the trigger or not. My guess as of now, I am leaning towards I prefer the 35 Lux over this one….
RustyRus wrote:
You don’t need the 35 Noctilux for anything really You can say that for just about any modern lens that is created though.
I am going back and forth on picking this one up- When my name is called it will be telling if I pull the trigger or not. My guess as of now, I am leaning towards I prefer the 35 Lux over this one….
Time will tell though!!
You might have a long time to make a decision if you did not put your name on a list well before it was known.
On paper, these new $10K Leica lenses sound outrageous. Yet - if you don't get in line early, you may be waiting many months to actually get one!
It's not that demand is necessarily insane..Production seems slow and extremely meticulous. Leica also plays the exclusivity game very well with our minds. Of course, the hope is that the payoff is a lens that isn't rushed, built properly, and made with the tight tolerances. Does that make the price and the wait easier to justify? Probably not, but it does make us feel better about handing over the credit card and then patiently refreshing our inbox for shipping notice.
You may have noticed that even though I sometimes earn a commission from links, I share my own impressions...like early reviewer errors on lens weight, aperture and focus rings being too close (potentially causing accidental changes), corner astigmatism, or the small real-world difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 in a 35mm. I also share how impressive this 35/1.2 Noct is...truly one of a kind. It's just my personal take, not driven by profit or any special Leica relationship.
I have an ongoing musing on whether the 35 FLEII or the the 35 Noct is better as an everyday working-pro lens. So often lenses with the most exciting specs, or some wonderful sample photos, are not actually the ones that win for day to day use.
The Noct is bigger, heavier, doesn't focus as close and has a longer focus throw. What this is telling me- for fast acting situations with all day carry- photojournalism, all day street and travel.. the FLE II might have the edge. For fashion, portrait and shallow focus landscape, if that's your thing.. the Noct wins.
My build date was 11/15/25, wonder how long it takes to build just one of these lenses. 2 1/2 month build date before release, and still hardly anything available immediately
well....either my copy or body is off. Will have to do testing tonight. f/1.2 sure shows if things aren't perfectly calibrated. I've primarily been using my 35 Cron APO stopped down at distance lately, so may not have noticed my camera is out of alignment
rsolti13 wrote:
My build date was 11/15/25, wonder how long it takes to build just one of these lenses. 2 1/2 month build date before release, and still hardly anything available immediately
I’m guessing it’s to build up some inventory for the initial rush and to work out early production kinks. Also they’re not selling in the volumes of the mainstream brands yet have a pretty extensive product catalog, so probably a lot of small batch production.
You can say that for just about any modern lens that is created though.