I have had lots of Nikon, Canon, Sony and Leica lenses over the decades. I now have built up a pretty good stable of Leica lenses. All I can tell you is that there is a 'Leica look'. It is not on every image. It's far more apparent in a print; on a screen it often can be a 'so what'. Now go and print them, put them on a table, and let others pick their favorites; more often than not it will be the Leica lens. Especially in B&W- that's mostly no contest. I have also weaned myself from the 'sharpness' race. Sharpness is quantifiable, and way easier to market. It surely is important (Birds!). But once you get over sharp and start looking at the total image, it changes your thinking. How does that image make you "feel" is the proper question. Took me a long time to de-program myself. Besides, how does one market 'total image' and 'feel' without being able to see me waving my arms? (Uhhh, RUclips?) And even if one was to send a file, again the screen doesn't do it most of the time. Have to print it with a really good printer. Talk about the dinosaur days. If my left hand hadn't been damaged by crass stupidity, I would gladly- gladly- trade it all for a M10 monochrom and the 50mm/f2 APO. It wouldn't leave the camera. Maybe I'd throw in a 50/.95 Noct. I had to give up my 'regular' M10P (the hand thing), and withdrawal still pains me. And to really mix it up, I found a while back (3 ~ 4 years) that Capture One became a necessity; LR just didn't do it for Leica images. No idea why- maybe a raw processor rather than a pixel editor handles the micro contrast better? LR certainly respects the Leica cropping better than CO, and does have better rapour with Leica and lens corrections (although CO and Leica seem to be making hugs these days). However, I still prefer CO's hand tuning- they really do that for each lens and body; it's an extraordinary effort. Took me a long time to believe that wasn't just marketing. I dunno. For what it's worth!
I disagree a little bit about why we use fast lenses now days. I agree that bokeh is A reason to use fast lenses, but lowering the ISO is definitely also part of it. At least for me. Right now I own a 50mm f1 and a 56mm f1.2 APD. The APD filter in the 56mm lens does contributes to how much light it lets through of course, but still, I reach for the 50mm lens most of the time because I know I can get lower ISO with it. This Leica lens looks really nice and fun to use! Glad you're doing reviews of lenses like this that I will never get myself.
When shooting for a wedding studio in the 80s , it was considered Risky business to go to 400 iso, Blads were all equipped with Metz CT-60 & power packs , the boss used his little Leica with his fast 50 for those natural look low light shots , often flash was banned during the ceremony Today’s gear makes life so easy, it really is a different world
Man your verbiage is pure gold! You mention so many educational aspects of the lens, it’s creation, the why in literary under a minute that others fail to relay. Very captivating indeed.
I got my name on the waitlist for one of these the day it was announced, so I managed to lock in its pre-increase price (though that wasn't a huge margin). I still didn't get mine until the 15th of June, still a win though as it showed up 4 days before my sister's wedding. I absolutely love the way it renders on both my M10 and my M10M, if you're chasing a vintage look, this lens does not disappoint (And at these prices it really shouldn't anyway).
@@MrSSm140 Me too! Been hunting for good sample images on this Noctilux paired with the M10 Monochrom for some time. I’d love to see it wide open in black and white.
I wouldn’t throw it away if someone gave me this lens, but I really like my 7Artisans 50mm f/1.1 Sure, there’s a plentitude of chromatic aberrations and no one would accuse the lens of being sharp, but when used for what it does well, the lens is really nice. I’m guessing this Noctilux has some qualities that make it a great tool for the people who feel those qualities are worth the money.
If I'm not willing to work with the characteristics of this lens it might be a deal breaker, he said!? Brother! The deal breaker was an 8 followed by three zeros!
It is worth mentioning the much earlier fast lenses. The very rare 1953 Zunow 50mm f/1.1, the very rare Nikkor-N 50mm f1.1 from 1955 and the 50mm Canon f/1.2 also from 1955. The first two are in $10,000ish range. But the Canon can be had for a few hundred dollars. A really clean Canon, free of fungus, haze and scratches is not too easy to find though. I am lucky to own two, both of which I consider fine lenses. I find them quite usable wide open and carefully focused and I enjoy using them, both on a digital Fuji and on a Canon 7. You should acquire and test one. Some day I will talk a Leica friend with the Noktilux 50 f/1.2 into testing it against the Canon 50 f/1.2. I would be curious about the results.
When buying a Leica lens you shouldn’t get the new one. Always go for the used one and there is always some rich dudes who bought this Noctilux, use it several times, got frustrated by its manual focus, then sell it at 20-30% discount. I got my used Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 (if bought new it is almost $13,000) for less than $9,000. When the local camera shop owner showed it to me, the box still smells new, the lens looked like it was never used before, everything is smooth (focusing ring and aperture ring). And several months after I bought it, the same shop owner asked whether I want to sell it cuz there’s someone who wants to buy it for $9,500. Thus I consider Noctilux as some kind of term deposit that I can use for photoshoots. Same thing as Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 which I got for $4,000 last year but now is around $4,500 in local market. The price of these lenses are insane but their ability to retain their value over time make them attractive (at least for me) 😊
Great review thank you. I tried it out in local Leica boutique on my M10R last weekend. It is beautiful to handle once you get used to the lack of focus tab. The depth of focus wide open is wafer thin and the bokeh is very unique, it almost seems inconsistent across the rest of the image, and that creates a unique look. Although it is no comparison in terms of quality it reminds me a little of the effect with my Helios 58mm f2. Anyway must start saving before Leica discontinue it again..
Something to consider when comparing Leica to other lenses, does Leica are priced too high and overvalued? It is marvelous lens ,but Instead buying expensive 1.2 i preferred ttartisan 50/0.95. This lens makes comparable results for 1/12 of 50/1.2 price.Thanks for good review!
Thank you for this video. I appreciate art, photography, and well made equipment. Leica equipment is top notch no doubt, but a $8,000 lens does not make sense to me, the difference between this and a $2,000 lens for example is probably 2% in image quality and resolution, can a 2% justify a $6,000 premium? Not to me. Top quality lenses and mirrors can cost an arm and a leg, in astronomy for example this 2% will allow you to see the Andromeda galaxy (as a small white patch not as Hubble Space Telescope sees it) or not seeing it, but in photography this 2% difference is very subtle. Lens development can get quite expensive and the $8,000 price tag reflects that, however it does not reflect the image quality, essentially you are paying for R&D but not for the visuals, especially with the lack of sharpness.
Exactly. This is something that people miss so often… “it’s better!”. Ok, but how much better and at what cost? Climbing that “improvement in quality” ladder at the far edge of the envelope is insanely expensive-and the question is, “when is it going to make a difference?”. If you’re shooting stuff for billboards and posters the answer might be “right now”, but for the average photographer is probably, “never, and the lessons you need to learn are hurting you more than any gear can help.” Fortunately Ted knows this-so it’s easy to enjoy his gear reviews.
What you are talking about here is what we call the "law of diminishing returns". Also, comparing it to an other considerably less expensive lens is kind of like comparing a Ferrari F8 tributo to a base-line Porsche 911: they are both great at what they do, but they aren't made for the same purpose.
I agree. I am returning again to photography after a short hiatus in this on again-off again relationship that I have with the art. And I have decided to embrace the old and to put aside the new, for the time being at a least. This means I've decided to start looking at my old lenses passed down to me by my father. In many ways, I've been lucky in that regard. The crown jewel of his collection is an old Rolleiflex 2.8f which was gifted to him by his sister. He used it with great enthusiasm on the campuses of Cal Berkeley in the 60s, much to my mother's chagrin at the time. Dad was pointing that thing at pretty girls and they seemed to all indulge him. I still have those negatives, hilariously enough. But he had other more "humble" names too. I have his old Pentax Spotmatic and the m42 lenses that come along with it. One of the lenses that was mated to that body as the well as the K1000 was the Super Takumar SMC series of lenses. At the time, they were quietly adored by a small number of photographers whose later opinions as old timers would cement those and other Japanese lens makers' names in the photo history books. A few of those lenses, i.e., the 50mm 1.4 SMC were radioactive, so I have my two lenses stored away in a distant part of my living space. My father always coveted Leica and Hasselblad; but he died before ever holding on in his hands. He, like many others today, conferred an almost talisman-like power to Hasselblad. It's incredible what branding can do to people's minds. I've shot on a Hasselblad and I've shot on a Leica. I can honestly say that the images one gets out of a Mamiya 647 rivals that of a 'Blad' in almost all aspects. Similarly, the image quality using a Leica lens is not that much better than that of another competitor's, at least with my limited experience. Photography, like so many other pursuits is riddled with gear-elitism. You know what I'm talking about: Rolex is better than Omega, Hasselblad is THE name in medium format, Italian wool is superior to the next--you get my point. Most of this is due to marketing. And human beings are surely susceptible to otherwise romantic but misleading advertising. This is perhaps why advertising is so effective: because it pushes a narrative that embellishes that which is objectively factual. Hasselblad is particularly funny, come to think of it. The iconic 500 series of modular medium format cameras is essentially nothing more than a box. If any credit is to be dished out, most of that credit should given to Carl Zeiss. But most consumers don't make that distinction. Somehow, people think of a camera with the lens attached as being a single unit. So the camera body -- essentially a glorified matte box with low reflectivity -- gets to enjoy a ride upwards and ascend to iconic status. But today? Hasselblad is just like any other company, at least so far as it comes to digital photography. The sensor is made by another company. I think it is fair to declare that whatever celebration the company enjoys today, it is far less "deserving" than the name was from yesteryear. I'll admit to lens snobbery. But that's since died away. And the only reason I was able to mature *past* that myopic viewpoint was because I had the privilege of being able to shoot from a Rolleiflex and not a *mere* Rolleicord. I've shot from a Hasselblad that was given to me by a good friend of mine. And after having examined the images from them both, I can say that they are not that much better -- it at all -- than images taken from a moniker of less dazzling name-recognition. I've been humbled by some of the shots people have taken on their TLR Yashicas and Mamiyas. I've seen shots uploaded from negatives that were taken on Russian camera bodies and lenses. Frankly, I was stunned. With post-editing software these days, the process has become more of less egalitarian. Almost anyone can take a "middling" brand of camera and produce knockout images. These photographs convinced me that truly talented photographers make their equipment. Either that, the difference is so small that constant obsession of these technical nuances do not lead to anything meaningful. In my bag, I have an Olympus RC 35. I also have my father's Rollei 35 with which I shoot using zone-focusing. The street photographs I have shot on these cover the gamut of what I want for the foreseeable future. If I need a rangefinder and pin sharp focus that I can count on, I reach for the Olympus. The Zuiko lens gives any Planar a run for its money. And when I'm looking for something somewhat abstract at times, I'll reach for the Rollei 35's Tessar. Don't get bamboozled by lens porn. It's happened to many people I know and they are still mediocre photographers. For those who've romanticized the Rolleis because of Vivian Maier, had she picked up Yashica, she would have made that camera an icon. Your old lenses are fine. Treat them well, clean them. They'll capture the images you're looking for -- and do so while leaving you enough to pay your mortgage.
I'm always amused that people scream about the price of the new Nikkor S 50/0.95 yet consider the old design Leica Noctilux lenses to be fairly priced. Oh, and it's worth noting that not long after the Noctilux, Nikon produced the 10mm OP-Fisheye with an aspheric front element that was also hand ground.
Great Video! I still have my 55mm F1/1.2 that came with my Canon FT-QL, which I still have. I bought an adaptor and currently I’m using this lens with my digital Canon. Nice lens still with amazing results and a wonderful bouquet
Never owned a Noct but I have a boatload of Summicrons and will never get rid of them. Clinical sharpness has ruined photography. Zeiss has shared some of its secret sauce with Sony which is the only reason I went mirrorless with Sony.
I have 35mm f1.2 7Artisans on an ASPC Fuji, seems the same - lots of character, soft wide open. Oh, the 7Artisans focus distance is much shorter and it cost me 150$ :D
@@longrider9551 Od course, I've got nothing to say about someone's money. I'm just happy you can get a similar experience for far less (considering it's still about photos 😉). This is an interesting piece of photography history though, for sure.
Hello Ted! Thanks a lot for your review of the reissued f1.2 Noctilux. I really like the design of the lens and wish Leica would use it more often, but, that said I have to admit that I personally don’t like the Bokeh that much. Quite often it’s pretty “swirly” and if one looks to long at a photo you almost get seasick from it. I appreciate the original lens from 1966 - at that time a technical masterpiece -, but today it’s just one more so called character lens, and one has to pay a very high price for an antiquated, inferior performance. Voigtlander provides intentionally “flawed” lenses at a much more realistic price point - if I want a specific nostalgic look. So, while I appreciate the original lens from 1966 and its relevance at that time (!), the re-release appears to me a mere marketing gag to milk rich HCB wannabes😇.
Excellent review! I own the lens and love it. You describe the pros and “cons” of this lens very well. Since I own it it has not left my M10R. Besides the special look it creates, one hast to invest some time to really get used to the lens.
In its original iteration this lens would have been a practical, if expensive tool for low light photography. Now it's something for rich people to photograph cobwebs. For the lens's original purpose the modern photographer would rate their ISO a stop higher, with virtually no penalty in image quality.
I just paid close to 1000 for the Fuji 56 f/1.2 - and i thought that was expensive! It's optically brilliant and l love it but it has a shelf life and will quickly depreciate. 20 years from now it's unlikely it will be serviceable if its circuit boards become corrupted. This is not the case with Leica. It's heirloom quality stuff, it won't depreciate, has the best optics and will outlast everyone alive today if looked after. It's a huge outlay but for my money is a sound investment.
Way back in the 60's I had a 50mm nikkor mounted on a Bronica. That lens had that beautiful low light cinematic quality that is so undefinable. Never had a lens like it since.
@@sclogse1 That was a 2 1/4 square format camera. Therefore the 50mm was a wide angle lens. That lens was made for that camera. It was a huge piece of glass.
Doubtless, any pictures taken by me with beautifully designed and made Leica bodies and glass would not be a significant improvement from my present quite modest achievements. That said, there is an indefinable quality about the feel of the bodies and lens made in Solms. If I won a lottery, would purchase best digital body, 35/2 Asph, TriElmar and superb Summicron 50/2 lens. For distance & true wide angle, will happily use my Canon 6D and L glass etc.
Fortunately Noctigirl already made comparisons of all 4 Noctilux lenses in her latest video. Personally, I have a Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.1, and while it does cover the corner of the viewfinder in my M5, it's not a big problem in my opinion.
Fantastic video as always! I hope to be able to see this lens for myself one day, thank you for spending you time compiling this informational video and presenting it so well
man, that price just isn’t justifiable. no one can’t convince me otherwise . i recently purchased a Speedmaster 50mm .095 for $450 as opposed to the Leica 50mm 1.4mm ($2500) Summilux and it does amazing work. can’t seem to wrap my head around the $8,000 price tag. sorry not sorry
Hey Ted, this is Ted, Can you tell me at what Magnification of a photo is "tack Sharp" considered? I want Tack Sharp photo's but there seems to be many different standards like " as shot" "100%" magnification or somewhere in between. I can shoot very good photo's "as shot" but when magnified to 100% they get blurry.
If you want to test drive this look longer than a rental or want to spend 8x less and get close to spirit of this lens go Voigtlander Heliar Classic 50mm f/1.5 Lens over the 1.2 from Voigtlander. I own the 1.2 but think the new Heliar is closer look. I am hoping the issue the 1.5 in a MC version as now it is just SC and I get it - super old school.
I have the Canon 50mm f/1.2L which needs a little skill to use. There was also a 50mm f/1.0L which Canon discontinued. I wondered if many people thought their f/1.0 was a “bad copy” as the DoF was razor thin at f/1.0 and soft at the edges. I was fascinated to read about Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon movie which used a f/0.7 lens at the candle lit party scene in an old castle and the actors couldn’t move a muscle or they’d get out of focus.
5:32 Sorry, slightly off from topic, but... What f value should it be positioned to get that nicely circular-shaped iris? Wide open + ½ stop? Plus... does this lens focus-shift when aperture value changed?
The Summilux 50mm pre asph is a bargain relatively speaking compared to this noctilux and renders in a very similar way. Its quite sharp though and has loads of character wide open. For me a third of a stop difference and the larger size just does not make sense... The summilux pre asph is only about 1-3mm longer than the summicron rigid with a nearly identical diameter of 43mm compared to the standard 39mm.
Great video. Of the lenses I own, by far my favorite is the Nikon 50mm f1.2 manual focus. Not an easy lens to use on a modern camera in terms of either settings or nailing focus, and definitely not a sharp lens when wide open, but oh my lord the buttery warmth of colors and the smooth and creamy bokeh. Are you familiar with it? Obviously a fraction of the price, but how would you say it compares?
I enjoyed the video a lot. A slight correction. At 5:35 you mention that the f/1.2 lens has 16 aperture blades and that it is most in any lens produced today. The Leica Thambar-M 90mm f/2.2, a re-issue like this Noctilux, has 20 aperture blades. And it is still made. Mine was made in January this year.
I think it is absurd a price tag such as 8000 dollars...you can tell me it is hand made, the precision and all...but at this point a watch like a Panerai (just to name one), that has a mechanical gear of an absolute precision, done by unbelievable small gears and parts, how much should it cost? not really 6-7000 dollars how it does...
@J K no doesn't worth the money...and a iWatch, Garmin or name it, are more precise respect a Panerai or IWC or others mechanical watch. My point was another. It was that in terms of mechanical precision to make a clock it's more complex than to create a lens.
Kodachrome film was either ISO 25 or later, an added ISO 160 version. Panatomic X was ISO 32 (black and white). I sold many rolls of all of them at Winnetka IL’s long-gone Stern’s Camera in the 1970s.
What I think -Lens baby for $500-700 US. Just joking. I don't know if you did much in post but, the book store photos where beautiful work. When I look at those photos, I can guess I know why people pay the bucks for Leica. And if not much work in post that camera & lens combo renders beauty! Nice work.
@@fotografo4295 not sure what happened with my previous comment. Probably RUclips didn't like that I mentioned the place of rentals. it was ~$700+tax for two weeks, but I used discount.
Thanks for your thoughts on this lens. It’s not a lens for a working photographer. It’s a lens that won’t be available in large numbers, the silver version is even limited to 100 pieces, therefore it’s highly collectible and as it says Leica and “limited” a bargain in terms of an investment. This will surely keeps its value and if you got money laying around so why not?
@@weplaywax You couldn’t be more wrong. This lens is pure socialism. While my 60’s original lens is collecting dust in its vault this guys at Leica bring up a remake for the average joe to enjoy as well pouring water into my wine. Hell no. I knew “se Germans” could not be trusted. 😉
@@weplaywax I love my Minolta MC 58mm f1.2 I mount on my old Sony A7s among others.Some might say you could have saved money by getting the f1.4 version but I don't worry each to their own & this is the same.For 8 big ones I can do a lot, to others it is pocket money but invariably does not translate into better photos.Photography is hard & disappointing at times, out in the elements late nights, early mornings, some parts of town that you should keep the car nearby.It is fun not being overly worried about your gear on the street.
The joy of using fast lenses on film days is worth keeping and still they haven't lost all the charm of those days when it comes to photographing on films in situations they are still come as tool one cannot do without. But as you mentioned the astronomical price of the lenses are limited to certain people only and the it's always a good advice to rent one and use but you are constrained by the fact that these lenses are not as easily available as they can be in certain parts of the world and if you need them in desperation even money cannot buy or borrow them. Now the question is if we really need such lenses to make some bokeh effect to seperate the subject from the background making a picture, to me though, rather cliche vintage look or do we need them for getting sharper images or creating some kind of atmosphere to the picture and these are the areas when we need such classical lenses and we are always ready to pay for them for the purposes. But you see digital technology has come a long way to give your picture tremendous sharpness at once unimaginable higher ISO but then again for the sake of overall clarity fast lenses are still holding their ground in place. And we still prefer faster aspherical and aberration free chromatic expensive lenses for the purpose of good photography and renting such lenses is always a good idea than paying highly to purchase them.
Great review! I just subscribed your channel! So concise, easy to understand review. Love that i didn't have to spend 20+ min for the same conclusion. Thank you! Btw, I currently own 50mm Summilux F1.4 asph, and I'm thinking this 50mm Noctilux F1.2 asph. Is it somewhat redundant? How are they different, and would you recommend it? Or which other "character lens" would you recommend? (I currently own 28mm Summicron and 50mm Summilux) Thank you!
Great video as always Ted! If you’re independently wealthy I can see a purchase like this but there are so many lenses with character for 1/10 of the price and spending those $$$ traveling somewhere is probably more meaningful. Cool that you’ve rented it though.
I achieve similar or better results on my Fuji X-H1 using a Metabones speed booster and CONTAX 50mm F1.7 which gives full frame performance of Fuji 23mm F1.2 i.e. depth of field of a few cm wide open and fantastic bokeh
For 8 grand, I'd start thinking of cinema lenses. And thanks for using the term "gain". My question is, are we always looking at gain when we look at the screen? We obviously are when we overexpose and the image on the back screen is brighter than the actual subject. What are we really seeing?
I've always felt that everyone should be allowed to shoot what they want. If they are capable and willing to shell out eight grand for a 2021 rehash of a 1960s lens that may be close to mechanical perfection but possibly less sharp than my 2012 plastic-fantastic nifty fifty F1.8, then so be it. Clever marketing on Leica's part, I guess. That said, I do get that there must be a place for imperfection in art, that certain effects even depend on it, but it does get a bit silly when $8,000 imperfection is considered art, and $20 imperfection, or anything less pricey than the Noctilux, is somehow inherently "inferior". Ted knows enough about art to not fall for that kind of BS, but the fact that certain types of Leica owners cultivate these pretensions has certainly shaped the way they are perceived.
As a low budget enthusiast this is photography talk on a whole different planet and reality It does not compute. :) As a fact of the capitalist reality where a thing is worth exactly what a person is prepared to pay for it this makes total sense. Enough people will pay 8000 USD for this lens to make it worth manufaturing. That it happens to take nice photos is a neat little bonus.
Very cool that Leica have made this old design available, and "affordable" once again. It's tempting, but I must say that I am quite happy with the Leica look my Summilux 50mm produces. Love your videos!
I get a very similar look from my voigtlander nokton classic 40mm 1.4, and it’s only a few hundred dollars. Edit: and then he mentioned the nokton classics haha
New prices are a bit high because the market bears it. They will sell every lens they make. Some of these lenses will end up on eBay or in a local shop for 1/3 off MSRP, that is a bargain. I have Leica R lenses that are worth more now than what I paid for them, so yes, Leica gear is worth it. Used SL cameras and used R lenses work great. The M series need recalibration as do all digital rangefinders.
I always thought Thompsons would be a great set for a super stylized portrait shoot. Also the cocktails are great. I love seeing Fort Worth in your videos.
Wonder if Leica want an almost blind photographer to test this lens and a few others along with a few camera bodies as well, long term of course. Never know it might work
@@sclogse1 but in front is sensor that is producing analog signal that is boosted ('iso') and then converted to digital that is shown on your back screen. More over, to show anything on your back screen, digital signal has to be converted back to analog.
is it worth it? the better question is whether you'll see one outside of youtube even if you've got the cash to burn. it also competes with the 50 apo which id argue is the better buy. but this is leica so its more about catching them all, right?
As always your review is on point good sir. Because of it’s “soft” rendering I’ve found it a great match for the m10 monochrome . The rendering just works with black and white . However, it’s also nice on the sl2 with the evf so u can mail the focus at 1.2 should u fancy a color image
After I sell my car I will still need to come up with an additional $7500. This is not a joke. It’s just the way it is. Oh, and I will still need a camera for this lens. Ouch!
But you are correct, you can buy Helios or Takumar lenses for $200-500 that also have a nice intage look about them. The Super Multi-Coated Takumar 8 element 50mmf1.4 is a stellar lens for under $500.
Lol. At the "I can't afford it, so it can't be worth it" comments. I can't afford it either, mind you, but I am sure that it would be awesome if I could.
Good for that 16x20 in a funeral at a distance. (We used to scan snapshots at my lab to reproduce them just for that.) Film grain plus paper grain..But from across the street...looked good!
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Voigtländer 50mm F1.2. Fantastic.
I have learned so much from your channel over the years.
I have had lots of Nikon, Canon, Sony and Leica lenses over the decades. I now have built up a pretty good stable of Leica lenses. All I can tell you is that there is a 'Leica look'. It is not on every image. It's far more apparent in a print; on a screen it often can be a 'so what'. Now go and print them, put them on a table, and let others pick their favorites; more often than not it will be the Leica lens. Especially in B&W- that's mostly no contest.
I have also weaned myself from the 'sharpness' race. Sharpness is quantifiable, and way easier to market. It surely is important (Birds!). But once you get over sharp and start looking at the total image, it changes your thinking. How does that image make you "feel" is the proper question. Took me a long time to de-program myself. Besides, how does one market 'total image' and 'feel' without being able to see me waving my arms? (Uhhh, RUclips?)
And even if one was to send a file, again the screen doesn't do it most of the time. Have to print it with a really good printer. Talk about the dinosaur days.
If my left hand hadn't been damaged by crass stupidity, I would gladly- gladly- trade it all for a M10 monochrom and the 50mm/f2 APO. It wouldn't leave the camera. Maybe I'd throw in a 50/.95 Noct. I had to give up my 'regular' M10P (the hand thing), and withdrawal still pains me.
And to really mix it up, I found a while back (3 ~ 4 years) that Capture One became a necessity; LR just didn't do it for Leica images. No idea why- maybe a raw processor rather than a pixel editor handles the micro contrast better? LR certainly respects the Leica cropping better than CO, and does have better rapour with Leica and lens corrections (although CO and Leica seem to be making hugs these days). However, I still prefer CO's hand tuning- they really do that for each lens and body; it's an extraordinary effort. Took me a long time to believe that wasn't just marketing.
I dunno.
For what it's worth!
So what happened to your left arm?
I disagree a little bit about why we use fast lenses now days. I agree that bokeh is A reason to use fast lenses, but lowering the ISO is definitely also part of it. At least for me. Right now I own a 50mm f1 and a 56mm f1.2 APD. The APD filter in the 56mm lens does contributes to how much light it lets through of course, but still, I reach for the 50mm lens most of the time because I know I can get lower ISO with it.
This Leica lens looks really nice and fun to use! Glad you're doing reviews of lenses like this that I will never get myself.
Ted Forbes has exceptional videos for learning.
RS Canada
When shooting for a wedding studio in the 80s , it was considered Risky business to go to 400 iso, Blads were all equipped with Metz CT-60 & power packs , the boss used his little Leica with his fast 50 for those natural look low light shots , often flash was banned during the ceremony
Today’s gear makes life so easy, it really is a different world
"It is always best to show up to photograph a riot wearing a suit."
We should bring this back!
Man your verbiage is pure gold! You mention so many educational aspects of the lens, it’s creation, the why in literary under a minute that others fail to relay. Very captivating indeed.
I got my name on the waitlist for one of these the day it was announced, so I managed to lock in its pre-increase price (though that wasn't a huge margin). I still didn't get mine until the 15th of June, still a win though as it showed up 4 days before my sister's wedding. I absolutely love the way it renders on both my M10 and my M10M, if you're chasing a vintage look, this lens does not disappoint (And at these prices it really shouldn't anyway).
May i get some samples wide open close up images? thanks much
@@MrSSm140 Me too! Been hunting for good sample images on this Noctilux paired with the M10 Monochrom for some time. I’d love to see it wide open in black and white.
At that price, who would admit that it disappoints?
I wouldn’t throw it away if someone gave me this lens, but I really like my 7Artisans 50mm f/1.1 Sure, there’s a plentitude of chromatic aberrations and no one would accuse the lens of being sharp, but when used for what it does well, the lens is really nice. I’m guessing this Noctilux has some qualities that make it a great tool for the people who feel those qualities are worth the money.
If I'm not willing to work with the characteristics of this lens it might be a deal breaker, he said!? Brother! The deal breaker was an 8 followed by three zeros!
It is worth mentioning the much earlier fast lenses. The very rare 1953 Zunow 50mm f/1.1, the very rare Nikkor-N 50mm f1.1 from 1955 and the 50mm Canon f/1.2 also from 1955. The first two are in $10,000ish range. But the Canon can be had for a few hundred dollars. A really clean Canon, free of fungus, haze and scratches is not too easy to find though. I am lucky to own two, both of which I consider fine lenses. I find them quite usable wide open and carefully focused and I enjoy using them, both on a digital Fuji and on a Canon 7. You should acquire and test one. Some day I will talk a Leica friend with the Noktilux 50 f/1.2 into testing it against the Canon 50 f/1.2. I would be curious about the results.
When buying a Leica lens you shouldn’t get the new one. Always go for the used one and there is always some rich dudes who bought this Noctilux, use it several times, got frustrated by its manual focus, then sell it at 20-30% discount. I got my used Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 (if bought new it is almost $13,000) for less than $9,000. When the local camera shop owner showed it to me, the box still smells new, the lens looked like it was never used before, everything is smooth (focusing ring and aperture ring). And several months after I bought it, the same shop owner asked whether I want to sell it cuz there’s someone who wants to buy it for $9,500. Thus I consider Noctilux as some kind of term deposit that I can use for photoshoots. Same thing as Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 which I got for $4,000 last year but now is around $4,500 in local market. The price of these lenses are insane but their ability to retain their value over time make them attractive (at least for me) 😊
Good advice. Used leica glass is the way to go!
Great review thank you. I tried it out in local Leica boutique on my M10R last weekend. It is beautiful to handle once you get used to the lack of focus tab. The depth of focus wide open is wafer thin and the bokeh is very unique, it almost seems inconsistent across the rest of the image, and that creates a unique look. Although it is no comparison in terms of quality it reminds me a little of the effect with my Helios 58mm f2. Anyway must start saving before Leica discontinue it again..
Something to consider when comparing Leica to other lenses, does Leica are priced too high and overvalued? It is marvelous lens ,but Instead buying expensive 1.2 i preferred ttartisan 50/0.95. This lens makes comparable results for 1/12 of 50/1.2 price.Thanks for good review!
I'd love to see a head2head image comparo with TTA 0.95 at F1.2 against the Leica Noct reissue. Now that would be some fun.
Thank you for this video. I appreciate art, photography, and well made equipment. Leica equipment is top notch no doubt, but a $8,000 lens does not make sense to me, the difference between this and a $2,000 lens for example is probably 2% in image quality and resolution, can a 2% justify a $6,000 premium? Not to me. Top quality lenses and mirrors can cost an arm and a leg, in astronomy for example this 2% will allow you to see the Andromeda galaxy (as a small white patch not as Hubble Space Telescope sees it) or not seeing it, but in photography this 2% difference is very subtle. Lens development can get quite expensive and the $8,000 price tag reflects that, however it does not reflect the image quality, essentially you are paying for R&D but not for the visuals, especially with the lack of sharpness.
Exactly. This is something that people miss so often… “it’s better!”. Ok, but how much better and at what cost? Climbing that “improvement in quality” ladder at the far edge of the envelope is insanely expensive-and the question is, “when is it going to make a difference?”. If you’re shooting stuff for billboards and posters the answer might be “right now”, but for the average photographer is probably, “never, and the lessons you need to learn are hurting you more than any gear can help.” Fortunately Ted knows this-so it’s easy to enjoy his gear reviews.
It isnt all about sharpness. If you are creating Special photos (soft but with high contrast) with this Leica lens you would by it
I’m saving my coins now. $8,000……..meh money comes money goes. Pictures last a lifetime.
What you are talking about here is what we call the "law of diminishing returns". Also, comparing it to an other considerably less expensive lens is kind of like comparing a Ferrari F8 tributo to a base-line Porsche 911: they are both great at what they do, but they aren't made for the same purpose.
I agree. I am returning again to photography after a short hiatus in this on again-off again relationship that I have with the art. And I have decided to embrace the old and to put aside the new, for the time being at a least.
This means I've decided to start looking at my old lenses passed down to me by my father. In many ways, I've been lucky in that regard. The crown jewel of his collection is an old Rolleiflex 2.8f which was gifted to him by his sister. He used it with great enthusiasm on the campuses of Cal Berkeley in the 60s, much to my mother's chagrin at the time. Dad was pointing that thing at pretty girls and they seemed to all indulge him. I still have those negatives, hilariously enough.
But he had other more "humble" names too. I have his old Pentax Spotmatic and the m42 lenses that come along with it. One of the lenses that was mated to that body as the well as the K1000 was the Super Takumar SMC series of lenses. At the time, they were quietly adored by a small number of photographers whose later opinions as old timers would cement those and other Japanese lens makers' names in the photo history books. A few of those lenses, i.e., the 50mm 1.4 SMC were radioactive, so I have my two lenses stored away in a distant part of my living space.
My father always coveted Leica and Hasselblad; but he died before ever holding on in his hands. He, like many others today, conferred an almost talisman-like power to Hasselblad. It's incredible what branding can do to people's minds.
I've shot on a Hasselblad and I've shot on a Leica. I can honestly say that the images one gets out of a Mamiya 647 rivals that of a 'Blad' in almost all aspects. Similarly, the image quality using a Leica lens is not that much better than that of another competitor's, at least with my limited experience.
Photography, like so many other pursuits is riddled with gear-elitism. You know what I'm talking about: Rolex is better than Omega, Hasselblad is THE name in medium format, Italian wool is superior to the next--you get my point.
Most of this is due to marketing. And human beings are surely susceptible to otherwise romantic but misleading advertising. This is perhaps why advertising is so effective: because it pushes a narrative that embellishes that which is objectively factual.
Hasselblad is particularly funny, come to think of it. The iconic 500 series of modular medium format cameras is essentially nothing more than a box. If any credit is to be dished out, most of that credit should given to Carl Zeiss. But most consumers don't make that distinction. Somehow, people think of a camera with the lens attached as being a single unit. So the camera body -- essentially a glorified matte box with low reflectivity -- gets to enjoy a ride upwards and ascend to iconic status.
But today? Hasselblad is just like any other company, at least so far as it comes to digital photography. The sensor is made by another company. I think it is fair to declare that whatever celebration the company enjoys today, it is far less "deserving" than the name was from yesteryear.
I'll admit to lens snobbery. But that's since died away. And the only reason I was able to mature *past* that myopic viewpoint was because I had the privilege of being able to shoot from a Rolleiflex and not a *mere* Rolleicord. I've shot from a Hasselblad that was given to me by a good friend of mine. And after having examined the images from them both, I can say that they are not that much better -- it at all -- than images taken from a moniker of less dazzling name-recognition.
I've been humbled by some of the shots people have taken on their TLR Yashicas and Mamiyas. I've seen shots uploaded from negatives that were taken on Russian camera bodies and lenses. Frankly, I was stunned. With post-editing software these days, the process has become more of less egalitarian. Almost anyone can take a "middling" brand of camera and produce knockout images. These photographs convinced me that truly talented photographers make their equipment. Either that, the difference is so small that constant obsession of these technical nuances do not lead to anything meaningful.
In my bag, I have an Olympus RC 35. I also have my father's Rollei 35 with which I shoot using zone-focusing. The street photographs I have shot on these cover the gamut of what I want for the foreseeable future. If I need a rangefinder and pin sharp focus that I can count on, I reach for the Olympus. The Zuiko lens gives any Planar a run for its money. And when I'm looking for something somewhat abstract at times, I'll reach for the Rollei 35's Tessar.
Don't get bamboozled by lens porn. It's happened to many people I know and they are still mediocre photographers. For those who've romanticized the Rolleis because of Vivian Maier, had she picked up Yashica, she would have made that camera an icon.
Your old lenses are fine. Treat them well, clean them. They'll capture the images you're looking for -- and do so while leaving you enough to pay your mortgage.
I'm always amused that people scream about the price of the new Nikkor S 50/0.95 yet consider the old design Leica Noctilux lenses to be fairly priced.
Oh, and it's worth noting that not long after the Noctilux, Nikon produced the 10mm OP-Fisheye with an aspheric front element that was also hand ground.
Yea I love Leica but their stuff, especially in the modern era, is so overrated.
Great Video! I still have my 55mm F1/1.2 that came with my Canon FT-QL, which I still have. I bought an adaptor and currently I’m using this lens with my digital Canon. Nice lens still with amazing results and a wonderful bouquet
Never owned a Noct but I have a boatload of Summicrons and will never get rid of them. Clinical sharpness has ruined photography. Zeiss has shared some of its secret sauce with Sony which is the only reason I went mirrorless with Sony.
I liked the little bit of history lesson behind this lens and your photos really showed the character of this lens too.
You mean I can keep my soft prime lens and call it a "LOOK" who knew, mine was only $159 🤣
TTartisan can do that too for $99.99
$8,000 for a lens is ridiculous.
I have 35mm f1.2 7Artisans on an ASPC Fuji, seems the same - lots of character, soft wide open. Oh, the 7Artisans focus distance is much shorter and it cost me 150$ :D
@@MD-vy9jb If someone wants to spend money on a Leica God Bless them but they are selling a lifestyle not a camera lol
@@longrider9551 Od course, I've got nothing to say about someone's money. I'm just happy you can get a similar experience for far less (considering it's still about photos 😉). This is an interesting piece of photography history though, for sure.
I thought you were saying “not deluxe” and I was very confused why they would name a lens that lol
Oh it definitely IS a deluxe lens! ;D
Hello Ted! Thanks a lot for your review of the reissued f1.2 Noctilux. I really like the design of the lens and wish Leica would use it more often, but, that said I have to admit that I personally don’t like the Bokeh that much. Quite often it’s pretty “swirly” and if one looks to long at a photo you almost get seasick from it. I appreciate the original lens from 1966 - at that time a technical masterpiece -, but today it’s just one more so called character lens, and one has to pay a very high price for an antiquated, inferior performance. Voigtlander provides intentionally “flawed” lenses at a much more realistic price point - if I want a specific nostalgic look.
So, while I appreciate the original lens from 1966 and its relevance at that time (!), the re-release appears to me a mere marketing gag to milk rich HCB wannabes😇.
Good story around the past of these lenses and the use of fast aperture with lenses back in the day. Thank you
You deserve several million subscribers … you will very soon have em :)
Excellent review! I own the lens and love it. You describe the pros and “cons” of this lens very well. Since I own it it has not left my M10R. Besides the special look it creates, one hast to invest some time to really get used to the lens.
In its original iteration this lens would have been a practical, if expensive tool for low light photography. Now it's something for rich people to photograph cobwebs. For the lens's original purpose the modern photographer would rate their ISO a stop higher, with virtually no penalty in image quality.
🤣
I just paid close to 1000 for the Fuji 56 f/1.2 - and i thought that was expensive! It's optically brilliant and l love it but it has a shelf life and will quickly depreciate. 20 years from now it's unlikely it will be serviceable if its circuit boards become corrupted. This is not the case with Leica. It's heirloom quality stuff, it won't depreciate, has the best optics and will outlast everyone alive today if looked after. It's a huge outlay but for my money is a sound investment.
Way back in the 60's I had a 50mm nikkor mounted on a Bronica. That lens had that beautiful low light cinematic quality that is so undefinable. Never had a lens like it since.
So your image projected was smaller than the format?
@@sclogse1 That was a 2 1/4 square format camera. Therefore the 50mm was a wide angle lens. That lens was made for that camera. It was a huge piece of glass.
Looks just like my Voightlander Noktons. Love that vibe.
Doubtless, any pictures taken by me with beautifully designed and made Leica bodies and glass would not be a significant improvement from my present quite modest achievements.
That said, there is an indefinable quality about the feel of the bodies and lens made in Solms.
If I won a lottery, would purchase best digital body, 35/2 Asph, TriElmar and superb Summicron 50/2 lens.
For distance & true wide angle, will happily use my Canon 6D and L glass etc.
Fortunately Noctigirl already made comparisons of all 4 Noctilux lenses in her latest video. Personally, I have a Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.1, and while it does cover the corner of the viewfinder in my M5, it's not a big problem in my opinion.
Fantastic video as always! I hope to be able to see this lens for myself one day, thank you for spending you time compiling this informational video and presenting it so well
man, that price just isn’t justifiable. no one can’t convince me otherwise . i recently purchased a Speedmaster 50mm .095 for $450 as opposed to the Leica 50mm 1.4mm ($2500) Summilux and it does amazing work. can’t seem to wrap my head around the $8,000 price tag. sorry not sorry
Hey Ted, this is Ted, Can you tell me at what Magnification of a photo is "tack Sharp" considered? I want Tack Sharp photo's but there seems to be many different standards like " as shot" "100%" magnification or somewhere in between. I can shoot very good photo's "as shot" but when magnified to 100% they get blurry.
Wow, that was the best way to make a video about this lens. Thank you so much!
Olympus 25mm f1.2 is staggeringly superb.
If you want to test drive this look longer than a rental or want to spend 8x less and get close to spirit of this lens go Voigtlander Heliar Classic 50mm f/1.5 Lens over the 1.2 from Voigtlander. I own the 1.2 but think the new Heliar is closer look. I am hoping the issue the 1.5 in a MC version as now it is just SC and I get it - super old school.
I have the Canon 50mm f/1.2L which needs a little skill to use. There was also a 50mm f/1.0L which Canon discontinued. I wondered if many people thought their f/1.0 was a “bad copy” as the DoF was razor thin at f/1.0 and soft at the edges.
I was fascinated to read about Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon movie which used a f/0.7 lens at the candle lit party scene in an old castle and the actors couldn’t move a muscle or they’d get out of focus.
5:32
Sorry, slightly off from topic, but...
What f value should it be positioned to get that nicely circular-shaped iris?
Wide open + ½ stop?
Plus... does this lens focus-shift when aperture value changed?
The Summilux 50mm pre asph is a bargain relatively speaking compared to this noctilux and renders in a very similar way. Its quite sharp though and has loads of character wide open. For me a third of a stop difference and the larger size just does not make sense... The summilux pre asph is only about 1-3mm longer than the summicron rigid with a nearly identical diameter of 43mm compared to the standard 39mm.
Very nice review of a wonderful lens. I appreciate the honesty of the review and the lens which clearly isn’t for everyone.
i've been using a Canon LTM 50mm f1.2 and still get that vintage look all for under $500 haha
Great video. Of the lenses I own, by far my favorite is the Nikon 50mm f1.2 manual focus. Not an easy lens to use on a modern camera in terms of either settings or nailing focus, and definitely not a sharp lens when wide open, but oh my lord the buttery warmth of colors and the smooth and creamy bokeh. Are you familiar with it? Obviously a fraction of the price, but how would you say it compares?
8000 for an imperfect product, ye gods totally insane.
It’s like the Dre Beats headphones, most of the price tag comes from the name brand
It costs that much because IT CAN :)
@@KNURKonesurYou are not wrong, as long as there are people daft enough to pay silly prices they'll get away with it.
Modern Classic ?
It would be interesting to see Film and digital through this lens. My guess that Film would suit it Best 👍
I enjoyed the video a lot. A slight correction. At 5:35 you mention that the f/1.2 lens has 16 aperture blades and that it is most in any lens produced today. The Leica Thambar-M 90mm f/2.2, a re-issue like this Noctilux, has 20 aperture blades. And it is still made. Mine was made in January this year.
the voigtlander is an f1.1 and can be bought for under $1k. it is a wonderful lens too!
Love the Leica content lately not gonna lie
I think it is absurd a price tag such as 8000 dollars...you can tell me it is hand made, the precision and all...but at this point a watch like a Panerai (just to name one), that has a mechanical gear of an absolute precision, done by unbelievable small gears and parts, how much should it cost? not really 6-7000 dollars how it does...
@J K no doesn't worth the money...and a iWatch, Garmin or name it, are more precise respect a Panerai or IWC or others mechanical watch. My point was another. It was that in terms of mechanical precision to make a clock it's more complex than to create a lens.
As always, a great video Ted!
Kodachrome film was either ISO 25 or later, an added ISO 160 version. Panatomic X was ISO 32 (black and white). I sold many rolls of all of them at Winnetka IL’s long-gone Stern’s Camera in the 1970s.
Actually, it was high speed Ektachrome at ISO 160. Kodachrome’s high speed variant was ISO 200.
"I got a leica"
"Which one"
"The $8000 one"
"Do you have the faintest idea how little that narrows it down"
What strap are you using for the M10-P?
What I think -Lens baby for $500-700 US. Just joking. I don't know if you did much in post but, the book store photos where beautiful work. When I look at those photos, I can guess I know why people pay the bucks for Leica. And if not much work in post that camera & lens combo renders beauty! Nice work.
Rented this lens for 2 weeks. It is beautiful.
How much was that?
@@fotografo4295 not sure what happened with my previous comment. Probably RUclips didn't like that I mentioned the place of rentals. it was ~$700+tax for two weeks, but I used discount.
@@kuzemchik that's actually a reasonable price for an 8k piece of hardware, although it still is a sht load of money haha...
@@kuzemchik not a smart move, save ur money
$8000 Wow, now I’ve spent all this time watching a video on a nostalgia lens.
Love the art of photography to be honest !!
Thanks for your thoughts on this lens. It’s not a lens for a working photographer. It’s a lens that won’t be available in large numbers, the silver version is even limited to 100 pieces, therefore it’s highly collectible and as it says Leica and “limited” a bargain in terms of an investment.
This will surely keeps its value and if you got money laying around so why not?
@@weplaywax You couldn’t be more wrong. This lens is pure socialism. While my 60’s original lens is collecting dust in its vault this guys at Leica bring up a remake for the average joe to enjoy as well pouring water into my wine. Hell no. I knew “se Germans” could not be trusted. 😉
@@weplaywax I love my Minolta MC 58mm f1.2 I mount on my old Sony A7s among others.Some might say you could have saved money by getting the f1.4 version but I don't worry each to their own & this is the same.For 8 big ones I can do a lot, to others it is pocket money but invariably does not translate into better photos.Photography is hard & disappointing at times, out in the elements late nights, early mornings, some parts of town that you should keep the car nearby.It is fun not being overly worried about your gear on the street.
As always a superb video and analysis!
Hello, Do you think should I use uv filter for this noc 50/1.2 lens? Thanks
Pentax K-1+Takumar 50/1.4 8e will be a decent financial compromise me thinks.
Kodachrome was 25 ASA , later they also introduced. 64 & 200 ASA VERSIONS
The joy of using fast lenses on film days is worth keeping and still they haven't lost all the charm of those days when it comes to photographing on films in situations they are still come as tool one cannot do without. But as you mentioned the astronomical price of the lenses are limited to certain people only and the it's always a good advice to rent one and use but you are constrained by the fact that these lenses are not as easily available as they can be in certain parts of the world and if you need them in desperation even money cannot buy or borrow them. Now the question is if we really need such lenses to make some bokeh effect to seperate the subject from the background making a picture, to me though, rather cliche vintage look or do we need them for getting sharper images or creating some kind of atmosphere to the picture and these are the areas when we need such classical lenses and we are always ready to pay for them for the purposes. But you see digital technology has come a long way to give your picture tremendous sharpness at once unimaginable higher ISO but then again for the sake of overall clarity fast lenses are still holding their ground in place. And we still prefer faster aspherical and aberration free chromatic expensive lenses for the purpose of good photography and renting such lenses is always a good idea than paying highly to purchase them.
Great review! I just subscribed your channel! So concise, easy to understand review. Love that i didn't have to spend 20+ min for the same conclusion. Thank you! Btw, I currently own 50mm Summilux F1.4 asph, and I'm thinking this 50mm Noctilux F1.2 asph. Is it somewhat redundant? How are they different, and would you recommend it? Or which other "character lens" would you recommend? (I currently own 28mm Summicron and 50mm Summilux) Thank you!
How does this compare with the 50 1:4 summilux.?
Enjoyed this Ted, cheers!
Great video as always Ted! If you’re independently wealthy I can see a purchase like this but there are so many lenses with character for 1/10 of the price and spending those $$$ traveling somewhere is probably more meaningful. Cool that you’ve rented it though.
No mention of the Nocticron in M43 from Panny? Good lens!
Can you tell us what strap are you using?
I achieve similar or better results on my Fuji X-H1 using a Metabones speed booster and CONTAX 50mm F1.7 which gives full frame performance of Fuji 23mm F1.2 i.e. depth of field of a few cm wide open and fantastic bokeh
Could you please review Minolta lenses? Like 0.05% of your audience can afford leica… many thanks, and love your work
For 8 grand, I'd start thinking of cinema lenses. And thanks for using the term "gain". My question is, are we always looking at gain when we look at the screen? We obviously are when we overexpose and the image on the back screen is brighter than the actual subject. What are we really seeing?
Yeah, I'd use one of those.
By the way, you shoot with your left eye only? If so, how does that work out with the Leica?
I've always felt that everyone should be allowed to shoot what they want. If they are capable and willing to shell out eight grand for a 2021 rehash of a 1960s lens that may be close to mechanical perfection but possibly less sharp than my 2012 plastic-fantastic nifty fifty F1.8, then so be it. Clever marketing on Leica's part, I guess. That said, I do get that there must be a place for imperfection in art, that certain effects even depend on it, but it does get a bit silly when $8,000 imperfection is considered art, and $20 imperfection, or anything less pricey than the Noctilux, is somehow inherently "inferior". Ted knows enough about art to not fall for that kind of BS, but the fact that certain types of Leica owners cultivate these pretensions has certainly shaped the way they are perceived.
How does it compare with the zeiss Sonnar?
Audio and video wasn't matching at the beginning! But as always I enjoy the shows.
As a low budget enthusiast this is photography talk on a whole different planet and reality It does not compute. :)
As a fact of the capitalist reality where a thing is worth exactly what a person is prepared to pay for it this makes total sense.
Enough people will pay 8000 USD for this lens to make it worth manufaturing. That it happens to take nice photos is a neat little bonus.
Very cool that Leica have made this old design available, and "affordable" once again. It's tempting, but I must say that I am quite happy with the Leica look my Summilux 50mm produces. Love your videos!
I get a very similar look from my voigtlander nokton classic 40mm 1.4, and it’s only a few hundred dollars.
Edit: and then he mentioned the nokton classics haha
RUclips would never recommend me a vid about a lens I couldn't afford.... ... ... I stand corrected.
Thanks!
Thank you!!!
From your experience, is Leica a system worth investing in and are their lens prices exaggerated? Please be honest.
New prices are a bit high because the market bears it. They will sell every lens they make. Some of these lenses will end up on eBay or in a local shop for 1/3 off MSRP, that is a bargain. I have Leica R lenses that are worth more now than what I paid for them, so yes, Leica gear is worth it.
Used SL cameras and used R lenses work great. The M series need recalibration as do all digital rangefinders.
I always thought Thompsons would be a great set for a super stylized portrait shoot. Also the cocktails are great. I love seeing Fort Worth in your videos.
At least 1,000,000 photographers would approve this video.
I have quite a few soviet lenses under 20-30$ that have 9-16 blades.
if i want a old vintage look i prefer to take the helios 44-2 or the original helios 44 with 13 blades
Expensive, but if they only make a limited run on them, then that 8k will seem like a bargain at some point in the future...
Wonder if Leica want an almost blind photographer to test this lens and a few others along with a few camera bodies as well, long term of course. Never know it might work
It’s high-time Leica made a 35mm Noctilux.
No digital gain, it's still analog gain, before A/D conversion...
Whatever is on your back screen is a digital conversion.
@@sclogse1 but in front is sensor that is producing analog signal that is boosted ('iso') and then converted to digital that is shown on your back screen. More over, to show anything on your back screen, digital signal has to be converted back to analog.
is it worth it? the better question is whether you'll see one outside of youtube even if you've got the cash to burn. it also competes with the 50 apo which id argue is the better buy. but this is leica so its more about catching them all, right?
That lens is so not worth it's price
Kodachrome came in iso 25 and 64... thx, Steve from Indy
From over here in Japan- Bokeh is pronounced BO-KAY, same as Special K. Never BO-KA. ' )
As always your review is on point good sir. Because of it’s “soft” rendering I’ve found it a great match for the m10 monochrome . The rendering just works with black and white . However, it’s also nice on the sl2 with the evf so u can mail the focus at 1.2 should u fancy a color image
After I sell my car I will still need to come up with an additional $7500. This is not a joke. It’s just the way it is. Oh, and I will still need a camera for this lens. Ouch!
To John Krill: Please do not take it personally, once I’ve read reply to someone that complained about high cost of Leica ‘stop being poor’.
Try the equivalent Voigtlander and ask yourself if Leica is worth 8x the price. The same applies to the 50 Apo…
Yeah, but it's a LEICA!!!
But you are correct, you can buy Helios or Takumar lenses for $200-500 that also have a nice intage look about them. The Super Multi-Coated Takumar 8 element 50mmf1.4 is a stellar lens for under $500.
Lol. At the "I can't afford it, so it can't be worth it" comments. I can't afford it either, mind you, but I am sure that it would be awesome if I could.
At 12,500 ISO, what would a 30x40" print look like? Ever done that?
Good for that 16x20 in a funeral at a distance. (We used to scan snapshots at my lab to reproduce them just for that.) Film grain plus paper grain..But from across the street...looked good!