Yogifi wrote:
I imagine Jimmy Cheng might do some good comparisons. Though usually he does like for like, so maybe nokton and summilux...
Ask em about the price difference between regions?
Hong Kong prices tend to be the best right, but you get kind of screwed with warranty I imagine.
One of the great thing about Leica is that warranty is World Wide as long as you by from a authorized seller, and register the purchase in your on line Leica account. In fact they add free warranty extension and other perks when you do.
Not only that the warranty transfers when you buy or sell on the used market as long as you get the original sales documents. It also requires that the origional purchaser removes the item from his on line registry, and you then add it to yours.
Spending $10,000 on a manual focus 35mm lens with a 1.2 aperture is *definitely* going to make you the next Cartier-Bresson. Totally normal and sane thing to do.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The 35/1.2 Noct appears to have one triplet and four doublets, where the elements are cemented "glued" together. While this design can translate to improvements in IQ and aberration correction, it could pose a long-term concern. Cement can degrade or separate over time, particularly in humid conditions or high temperatures. We've seen with lenses from the past where it can cause fogging, yellowing, or bubbles between the elements. Some of this shows up in the images... These issues are difficult to address with a standard CLA.
I had the same immediate thought when I heard the cementing—I have had several pieces of gear that relied on glueing—I was always nervous to purchased them used and old because of the known issue.
They can come apart overtime like a Contax 100-300, Leica 19/2.8 v1 or the Mamiya 7 lenses. And often the CLA’s are quite expensive…or can’t even be performed like the 19/2.8 v1 I purchased and had to return after a fix wasn’t even possible.
Context in this optical design comes from an unlikely source, perhaps - the APO-Summicron-M 35/2. But first the near universal use of doublets, besides being a welcome return to traditional achromat correction (the flint-crown effect), is something in which technology has a huge role to play - in adhesive R&D, element shaping fabrication, element retention, fab machinery, etc.
But it's rather old technology at heart: 'The first achromat doublet, designed to correct chromatic aberration using flint and crown glass, was invented by English lawyer and optician Chester Moor Hall in 1729.'
Leica feels very confident about their quantum leap in this usage for its high-end lenses. They have had almost five years of in-market usage of the 35/2 APO now, to evaluate the wisdom (or otherwise) of any longevity issues that may arise. And it's Leica, so be confident on this front.
We usually see on or maybe two-three cemented doublets in high end lenses. G/AI puts it this way:
'Based on optical design principles and typical lens constructions, a very high proportion—likely over 90%—of high-end, interchangeable photographic lenses feature at least one cemented doublet.
Cemented doublets are foundational components used to correct chromatic aberration and improve image sharpness, particularly in fast lenses (wide apertures)..'
It's coming back into vogue, and Leica serves as an example to other developers. There is a baffling reluctance to separately report HRI in most - almost all - modern lens specifications at sites like B&H, even in official MTF data sheets. People see it all as 'special glass' but it helps to explain it more accurately.
The APO-Summicron-M 35/2 is a marvel of design miniaturisation - a 10/5 design with one triplet ($$) and four doublets, almost certainly cemented together. It has only one element that stands alone, the last asph element used to tie down' the major aberrations.
Some speculate that APD (and ED) glass increases SA, thereby necessitating the final asph element as the 'fixer'. Four of the last five elements before the ashp fixer are APD, so it may be true.
Anyway, if you look at the actual block diagram of the 35/2 APO, we see pairs of HRI/APD used in the three doublets, with the middle placed triplet being all APD glass. It's an audacious design that needed the APD for dispersion control (APO) but then how to attend to the other side of correction? Matching HRI glass!
ftllens wrote:
Oh wait, it looks like you can get one from the official store in a few days? Doesn't seem like you can reserve for store pick-up though. Or is this just pre-order?
I'm pretty satisfied with my FLE as well and don't have a black M atm, but still curious on the availabilities.
Wait! What? This lens is 8950 Euros in Netherlands, Germany, etc but 9130 Euros on France?! I'm emailing one of the store managers I know.
'Under the hood, the Noctilux-M 35mm f/1.2 ASPH features a floating element design in ten elements in five groups, including three aspherical elements.'
It's a modified 35/2 APO design, with three doublets and a central triplet, some rearrangement at the front (L1-L4, element shape swapping). I can't find the glass composition at present, but Leica have a habit of re-using existing designs - which helps amortise the horrendous R&D costs - in later issue lenses, so we can expect a similar breakdown.
Three asph elements (surfaces count unstated from my looking) fabricated using a new in-house technology for glass moulding (PGM). This is likely to be a big deal, we see mainstream makers rushing into moulded plastic asphericals (PMOs), but glass matters in a high end lens.
Red Dot is the source for the technical information and my thanks go to them.
PS Over the central half of the frame, performance will very likely be indistinguishable from the 35/2 APO by f2.8. 40lpmm jumps from high 60s to high 80s from f1.2 (itself already very sound) to f2.8. It indicates they constrained the design at f1.2, held it back.
Fred, what we might call 'trailing astigmatism' in the outers seems to be 'well-hidden' from final image quality. You can't cheat MTF, it is true, but as long as the sag line stays strong, all is well (enough). I hate to say it but this one appears to be worth the money - for its intended user group certainly. An astonishing optic at f1.2.
philip_pj wrote:
What do we see in this Noctilux design?
'Under the hood, the Noctilux-M 35mm f/1.2 ASPH features a floating element design in ten elements in five groups, including three aspherical elements.'
It's a modified 35/2 APO design, with three doublets and a central triplet, some rearrangement at the front (L1-L4, element shape swapping). I can't find the glass composition at present, but Leica have a habit of re-using existing designs - which helps amortise the horrendous R&D costs - in later issue lenses, so we can expect a similar breakdown.
Three asph elements (surfaces count unstated from my looking) fabricated using a new in-house technology for glass moulding (PGM). This is likely to be a big deal, we see mainstream makers rushing into moulded plastic asphericals (PMOs), but glass matters in a high end lens.
Red Dot is the source for the technical information and my thanks go to them.
PS Over the central half of the frame, performance will very likely be indistinguishable from the 35/2 APO by f2.8. 40lpmm jumps from high 60s to high 80s from f1.2 (itself already very sound) to f2.8. It indicates they constrained the design at f1.2, held it back.
Fred, what we might call 'trailing astigmatism' in the outers seems to be 'well-hidden' from final image quality. You can't cheat MTF, it is true, but as long as the sag line stays strong, all is well (enough). I hate to say it but this one appears to be worth the money - for its intended user group certainly. An astonishing optic at f1.2.
Philip, you always do a great job digging into the optical design and comparisons, and I appreciate the depth of your analysis.
First, I'm not disputing that the Leica 35mm f/1.2 Noctilux is an amazing lens. That said, the MTF graph doesn't lie, and it's perfectly reasonable to point out issues when they exist. The separation between the sagittal and tangential lines is clearly visible.
The tangential (dotted) lines stay weak in the corners, both wide open and stopped down (see MTF graphs below), which likely means the corners won't look as crisp as the Leica 35/2 APO you are comparing it to. I'm not going to argue over whether you call it "astigmatism", but that separation clearly shows an off‑axis imbalance that stopping down doesn't fully resolve. Whether that matters to a shooter is another question entirely..
Having a maximum aperture of f/1.2 versus f/2 does come with trade‑offs in color and aberration correction, and stopping down doesn't always fix every issue. For example, off-axis lateral CA doesn't improve when you stop down, and that corner imbalance doesn't disappear either. The Leica 35/2 APO Summicron will almost always outperform this lens at most apertures because its design doesn't carry the same wide‑open compromises.
Here are the released MTF graphs. Take a look at how they compare at f/2.8 and f/5.6:
Fred, will you be doing a comparison between this lens and the voigtlander 35mm f/1.2? Would love to see your thoughts on those two lenses side by side.
Side by side with the FLE II also reviewed by Keith it's once again clear the noct offering something extra to the rendering, but again the lack of tab and worse corner performances going to separate this lens' identity further away from the regular lux. I dig the deep richness yet modern rendering of the 35 noct if I have to be honest... patotts wrote: https://keithwee.com/2026/01/29/leica-noctilux-35mm-f1-2-asph-review-the-daily-noctilux/
The daily Noctilux. I like that way of articulating it.
And yes, that might have been Cam's best video yet.
Milan can make any lens look good, but this is a really nice write-up with beautiful environmental portraits, which is exactly what I think this lens is made for:
I agree with him about the 50/1 Noct. To me, it's by far the best Noctilux Leica ever made, not because it's technically great but because of the emotion it brings out through its imperfections. The smaller 50/1.2 is my runner up. I never really warmed up to the 50/0.95 and honestly find it a bit overrated. The 75/1.25 and 35/1.2 Noctilux lenses fall into that same modern look category for me, even though I know plenty of shooters prefer that style.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Milan can make any lens look good
Indeed and my guess is it could have shot the same review with a 1000$ Voigt 1.2 or even a 800$ Voigt 1.5, pretend it was with the Leica Nocti and I wonder if anybody would have been able to tell.
The pictures told me more about him than about the lens.
P.Sl agree about the 50 Noct being something special, the others less so.
Not sure about the whole idea of comparing 35APO with 35Noct. They are lenses with different target and different compromises. The 35APO is among the sharpest 35mms money can buy, but its compromise was a F2 aperture.
The Noct wanted a fast 35mm with rendering that Noct are known for. Its compromise was that it couldn’t produce the same level of sharpness or definition that 35APO could do.
Even when we go for extreme examples where lenses were designed with as little synthetic constraints as possible (price, material… etc), the lens would ultimately be hit with physics limitations. Look at Nikon 58mm F0.95 Noct, it’s a freaking F0.95 with Otus level of definition power wide open, but the trade off was weight and MF only.
I think Leica decided that they wanted a fast yet relatively small and light lens (320g vs 416g), and I think they achieve it nicely from all the reviews I’ve read so far. Could Leica make a 35 noctilux with apo rivaling level of sharpness? I don’t doubt for even a second. But the end product might not be something people want.
Anyway, one is on order. Let’s see when it gets here to really see if it lives up to the hype.
