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.
oh geez, that's the kiss of death for me. Same issue with the lux 50 pre-asph v3 that Ye warned me to stay away from. Could it be that Leica didn't learn from known problems of optical cement in that vintage lens degrading over time even if not exposed to temperature extremes
brick33308 wrote:
oh geez, that's the kiss of death for me. Same issue with the lux 50 pre-asph v3 that Ye warned me to stay away from. Could it be that Leica didn't learn from known problems of optical cement in that vintage lens degrading over time even if not exposed to temperature extremes
I think lens cementing has viable fixes without permanently compromising the optical performance assuming one has the right tools and skills. If it's prone to fungus, I'd be worried a bit as even the best equipment in the world cannot bring a bad fungus damaged lens to original/near original performance. Lens cementing, now so much an issue.
Well, it's quite a lens. I like the way the head designer spoke about the process. A lot of focus on the residual flares and ghosts, even Leica do not routinely make f1.2 lenses. Image quality is great thus far, it will be good to follow this one. In BT's video, a lot of emphasis on the final image, bokeh, subject separation, front OOF, smooth fall-off, creamy bokeh. All very good to hear.
He was strong on the constraints imposed by the 'narrow tube' of M lenses. The new hot ticket, as all try to get used to digital, is lens telecentricity, which confers an advantage to the wide throats of Z and RF. His design job was made much harder for this restriction, but look what they got out of it.
The best new lenses for me personally move the game forward and backwards at the same time - modern where it matters, organic for the look. As we get closer to terminal beauty, the amplitude narrows and we'll see more features become common across lenses. Asked for a reference, he made certain to mention the Summilux and the Summicron M lenses. As well as, before mentioning, the Nocts.
Forget about cementing woes, it's in all your lenses. Well, almost. My 35-70 zoom is a 10/10 design, the Loxia 85mm is a 7/7, the ZM Sonnar 85/2 is a 6/6. Few other air gap only lenses, though. And:
'Based on common optical design principles, a very small percentage—likely less than 1% to 5% of modern, high-performance, or mass-market photographic lenses—consist exclusively of standalone (air-spaced) elements with no cemented doublets or triplets.' (G/AI).
'it is estimated that nearly 100% of modern, high-performance, multi-element photographic lenses use cement for at least some of their lens groups.' (G/AI).
It looks like an instant classic to me, this 35/1.2. I'd like to see more of this at a quarter the price. We may yet see it happen, from that other place that has made such a good start. We want to see the next level from them, priced accordingly is OK.
Interesting in the Jono Slack review, the MTF comparison between the Summilux and Noctilux. This Noctilux fits between the Cron APO and the Summilux. Also see he has warmed up to the EV1 and ended up purchasing one. He was quite critical in his review and mentioned how that camera was not for him
Yep, I've already ordered one but I'm third on the list, which means 5 years from now.... What I really want is a unicorn lens - razor sharp at modest aperture (f2.8-f4.0) but the great rendering and small amount of vignetting wide open. Fingers crossed. Jono sure liked it.
What's most surprising to me is the small size and light weight given its aperture. Chunky to be sure, but not bazooka-like
You know the price isn't that much higher than the summilux here in the UK. It's not affordable but I mean if you're spending something like £5.5K for the lux... it's like another 2 or so.
I'd be interested to see direct side-by-side comparisons with the ZM / FLE / Nokton.
There are so many views and samples images already. Would love to have a few top pick sample images to try and duplicate with the distagon and nokton iv. Not saying its a real comparison but at least try to duplicate the scene.
I have a feeling at 1.4 and above, the distagon will win.and will there really be a discernible difference between 1.2 and 1.4 as far as bokeh and rendering goes?
stgrove wrote:
Me too. So when mine comes I can do it.
This would be great. I am sure it is not exactly the same, but I am interested of how much the visible difference really is (in bokeh/DoF, sharpness, flaring etc). I am very happy with my version of the CV 35/1.2, but this doesn't mean it can't be improved in some lens characteristics. The CV is on the warmer side regarding color tones - I am pretty sure the Leica lens is more towards blue here.
It doesn't look that big in these videos, but when you put it side by side with the FLE, it's quite a bit wider. I already feel the FLE is on the bigger side. So spoiled by the Steel Rim. At 1 lb, my shoulder is going to feel it after a while.
Maybe a bit to perfect in OOF areas but I am really looking forward to more scenic shots wide open with this and seeing the flares etc from it. Looks like a winner by Leica in my eyes!
philip_pj wrote:
Forget about cementing woes, it's in all your lenses. Well, almost. My 35-70 zoom is a 10/10 design, the Loxia 85mm is a 7/7, the ZM Sonnar 85/2 is a 6/6. Few other air gap only lenses, though. And:
'Based on common optical design principles, a very small percentage—likely less than 1% to 5% of modern, high-performance, or mass-market photographic lenses—consist exclusively of standalone (air-spaced) elements with no cemented doublets or triplets.' (G/AI).
'it is estimated that nearly 100% of modern, high-performance, multi-element photographic lenses use cement for at least some of their lens groups.' (G/AI).
It looks like an instant classic to me, this 35/1.2. I'd like to see more of this at a quarter the price. We may yet see it happen, from that other place that has made such a good start. We want to see the next level from them, priced accordingly is OK. ...Show more →
Totally fair point, and I agree that cemented groups are in basically every lens today. I'm not saying this 35/1.2 Noct is "bad" because it has so many cemented groups, or that anyone should be worried about it right now.
My only point was that cemented (optical adhesives) elements can be a potential long term failure mode in the far future, like separation, bubbles, haze, or deterioration depending on heat, humidity, and of course time. In normal use it shouldn't be a concern for many decades, but it's still a real possibility. Most companies only offer a 1 to 3 year warranty on their lenses anyway, so they're probably not too concerned about what happens 20 to 30 years from now.
Even if every lens manufacturer does it, physics is physics. Ignoring it isn't wise, and I think it's reasonable to mention it as a "maybe, way down the road" thing rather than pretending it can never happen.
And yeah, I'm with you, this 35/1.2 looks like an instant classic, at least for those who can afford it.
I'm impressed how Leica managed to keep this lens fairly quiet given how many iterations there seems to have been, and how many photographers have been involved in testing it. Then again, I don't really stay on top of Leica or any camera rumours...
The more I read reviews, look at photos, videos by photographers, etc, the more I like it. I have always been a 50mm guy (Summilux) but I am more and more drawn to 35mm. And character glass.
If I could only own 1 manual focus/Leica lens, this would probably be it. #NewGrail But then again, I doubt I will decide to cough up the money needed.
I was looking for some older lenses not long ago, the Mamiya ones for RB67, some of them had issues with the cement but funnily enough slightly older versions didn't - it was the type of glue they used that resulted in increased odds for the later K/L models of lenses.
And many times they said it couldn't be repaired because of that specific type of glue. Same with the Planar for the Rolleiflex 2.8F.
For more recent lenses, when I was searching for the 35/1.7 Ultron, there was another version with LTM mount that kept cropping up that also had the issue iirc, only released in 1999.
patotts wrote:
I'm impressed how Leica managed to keep this lens fairly quiet given how many iterations there seems to have been, and how many photographers have been involved in testing it. Then again, I don't really stay on top of Leica or any camera rumours...
The more I read reviews, look at photos, videos by photographers, etc, the more I like it. I have always been a 50mm guy (Summilux) but I am more and more drawn to 35mm. And character glass.
If I could only own 1 manual focus/Leica lens, this would probably be it. #NewGrail But then again, I doubt I will decide to cough up the money needed. ...Show more →
Not trying to badmouth this lens and the innovative aspect Leica showed here with this one. But at least from my experience owning both fast lenses like the CV 35/1.2 II and slower ones like the Leica 35/2.0 Vers. IV and the Leica 35/2.4 Summarit-M, my favorite and most often used is actually the slowest of these, the Summarit lens. I wonder why many are hyped about this new lens at faster speed - to get some specific bokeh/blurriness?
Decades ago, lens manufacturers tried to compete with faster lenses at f/1.2 or even 0.95 (in case of the Canon 50/0.95 LTM) to cope with ISO speed limitations of film and being able to take photos in darker environments. Some depth of field is lost, but the photographer could still take a photo by being unable to change ISO to several thousand up to tens of thousands like in modern digital cameras. It is interesting to me, that now that fast aperture is no longer required to get "the" shot, even more faster lenses pop up by all kind of lens manufacturers. Also, lenses have become so good in quality, that stopping down one stop from the maximum wide open one is often no longer needed to get significantly better image quality like in the old days. The bokeh circles of fast f/1.2 lenses will differ in size from some slower f/2.0 lenses for example - but does it really change the context of the photo so much especially at wider than 50 mm focal length? There might be some situations where the answer is yes, but in the majority I believe the effect is not very distinguishable for an outside viewer of the final image. Is this the reason why users are willing to pay so much more over a slower f/1.4 or even f/2.0 lens?
retrofocus wrote:
Not trying to badmouth this lens and the innovative aspect Leica showed here with this one. But at least from my experience owning both fast lenses like the CV 35/1.2 II and slower ones like the Leica 35/2.0 Vers. IV and the Leica 35/2.4 Summarit-M, my favorite and most often used is actually the slowest of these, the Summarit lens. I wonder why many are hyped about this new lens at faster speed - to get some specific bokeh/blurriness?
Decades ago, lens manufacturers tried to compete with faster lenses at f/1.2 or even 0.95 (in case of the Canon 50/0.95 LTM) to cope with ISO speed limitations of film and being able to take photos in darker environments. Some depth of field is lost, but the photographer could still take a photo by being unable to change ISO to several thousand up to tens of thousands like in modern digital cameras. It is interesting to me, that now that fast aperture is no longer required to get "the" shot, even more faster lenses pop up by all kind of lens manufacturers. Also, lenses have become so good in quality, that stopping down one stop from the maximum wide open one is often no longer needed to get significantly better image quality like in the old days. The bokeh circles of fast f/1.2 lenses will differ in size from some slower f/2.0 lenses for example - but does it really change the context of the photo so much especially at wider than 50 mm focal length? There might be some situations where the answer is yes, but in the majority I believe the effect is not very distinguishable for an outside viewer of the final image. Is this the reason why users are willing to pay so much more over a slower f/1.4 or even f/2.0 lens? ...Show more →
Photogs are bored and need bokeh is why. Many of us have to glam on to extreme bokeh or other tricks to make our photos feel special or different. Look at how many photos are shot at 1.2 or 1.4 and then what would happen if those photos these photos were taken at f4. Some types of photos (landscape or street for example) are exceptions. Look at most of the photos on FM on IG or where ever—so much crutching on bokeh and shallow DOF. The subjects, photo aesthetic, deeper commentary, processing is lacking IMO.
I also thinks we are seduced by marketing and manufacturing—think of Leica or Thypoch or Zeiss or whoever. Much of their revenue for these high end lenses is built on OOF. Like you said, gone are the days of needing 1.2 lenses because of film limitations and whatnot for much of the time.
Not throwing stones—I love my Noct 50/1 and I really only shoot it WO because that’s where it’s special. But are my photos much meaningful, singular, speaking to larger issues? Nah, I am just a hobbyist photog who likes to shoot photos of my family or hikes and such and needs the OOF to give photos more juice.
What would be very fascinating (and an impossible hypothetical) is if you have everyone a 35mm f4 lens and said go make interesting photos and watch what happens…I think many of us would been quite challenged and disheartened. At least I would be.
