Fred Miranda wrote: rsolti13 wrote: Fred Miranda wrote:
I keep hearing that the huge focus throw, and the lack of a focus tab, is justified because it's a 35mm f/1.2 lens with super thin depth of field. But f/1.2 vs f/1.4 on a 35mm lens is only about a 14 to 15% difference in DOF. That's real, but it is not some night and day change that automatically requires a long throw. I think Leica could have included a tab and used a shorter throw, and it would still be totally fine to nail focus, just like it is with a 35mm f/1.4.
I initially thought the same thing with the 24 Lux and added one of the 7Artisans aftermarket tabs, which fit really well. However, after using the lens with that tab for a few months, I ended up removing it. The ergonomics actually felt like they took a hit when I added the focus tab. I think because it’s so fat, it works really well without the tab.
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.
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.
Feb 04, 2026 at 04:13 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Fred Miranda wrote: rsolti13 wrote: Fred Miranda wrote:
I keep hearing that the huge focus throw, and the lack of a focus tab, is justified because it's a 35mm f/1.2 lens with super thin depth of field. But f/1.2 vs f/1.4 on a 35mm lens is only about a 14 to 15% difference in DOF. That's real, but it is not some night and day change that automatically requires a long throw. I think Leica could have included a tab and used a shorter throw, and it would still be totally fine to nail focus, just like it is with a 35mm f/1.4.
I initially thought the same thing with the 24 Lux and added one of the 7Artisans aftermarket tabs, which fit really well. However, after using the lens with that tab for a few months, I ended up removing it. The ergonomics actually felt like they took a hit when I added the focus tab. I think because it’s so fat, it works really well without the tab.
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.
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-Out LLL 1`966 50/1.2 has no focus tab and I don't miss it either.
Feb 04, 2026 at 04:13 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Fred Miranda wrote: rsolti13 wrote: Fred Miranda wrote:
I keep hearing that the huge focus throw, and the lack of a focus tab, is justified because it's a 35mm f/1.2 lens with super thin depth of field. But f/1.2 vs f/1.4 on a 35mm lens is only about a 14 to 15% difference in DOF. That's real, but it is not some night and day change that automatically requires a long throw. I think Leica could have included a tab and used a shorter throw, and it would still be totally fine to nail focus, just like it is with a 35mm f/1.4.
I initially thought the same thing with the 24 Lux and added one of the 7Artisans aftermarket tabs, which fit really well. However, after using the lens with that tab for a few months, I ended up removing it. The ergonomics actually felt like they took a hit when I added the focus tab. I think because it’s so fat, it works really well without the tab.
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.
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.
