[Leica] Re: FS Noctilux

[richard at ogdenonline.co.uk (Richard Ogden)]

Mark Rabiner wrote:

  > Yea but how good was the Noct 1.2? I heard not so good.
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> 

A short-lived British magazine called 'Creative Photography' ran a test 
report in their February 1982 edition comparing the 50mm f1.2 lenses 
then available. They came to some interesting conclusions:

- 'Our test target is perfectly flat and simply not the kind of target 
for which these lenses are made. Depth of field is so limited at f1.2 or 
f1.0 that you don't need to understand a lot about optics to realise 
that edge resolution will look awful when the centre is focused.'

- 'Fact: fast lenses may take better pictures in the field than in the 
test lab, especially at the edges of the field at full bore.'

- The magazine identified what it called 'a fatal flaw' in using f1.2 
lenses - 'the inability of the 35mm film track to hold film flat enough 
for all parts to stay in perfect focus.'

- They conducted 'Star Tests' to check how these lenses resolved point 
sources of light - common elements in the subject matter for which these
lenses might commonly be used. They concluded that 'it is very clear 
that the Noctilux and the Noct-Nikkor have a significant head over the 
opposition.'

- In their opinion 'you would only be advised to spend nearly ?600 on a 
Noctilux (1982 prices!!!) . . . if you intended to use the lens at 
nothing but its full aperture, because it has no significant advantage 
over any other lens when you stop down to f2. If anything, the 
performance in general terms of the very high cost lenses was 
disappointing. . . . . for general, as opposed to night time or low 
light news shots, the Nikkor standard f1.2 was actually better than the 
Noct-Nikkor.'

MTF figures for the lenses tested (average of readings) was as follows:

                        Centre (10 lpm) full aperture    2 stops down

Leitz Noctilux F1.0 50mm        62% (@ f1.0)            73% (@ f2.0)
Nikon Noct-Nikkor f1.2 58mm     64% (@ f1.2)            80% (@ f2.4)

                         Edge (40 lpm) full aperture     2 stops down
Noctilux                        16%                     22%
Noct-Nikkor                     15%                     30%

Incidentally, in view of the recent discussion regarding the replacement 
of the 50mm Summilux, I checked their test report in the January 1982 
edition.

                        Centre (10 lpm) full aperture    2 stops down

Leitz Summilux-M F1.4 50mm        71%                     88%
Leitz Summilux-R f1.4 50mm        73%                     90%

                         Edge (40 lpm) full aperture     2 stops down

Leitz Summilux-M F1.4 50mm        23%                     38%
Leitz Summilux-R f1.4 50mm        26%                     43%

They concluded that 'Leitz achieved staggeringly high full contrast in 
both their lenses (M and R types) but they clearly design for good 
central performance at the expense of edge quality where the Japanese 
makers go for overall even coverage with less full aperture bite.'

Their overall conclusion was that 'the ultimate lens for low light 
photography on very fast film . . . is the Leitz SDummilux-R 50mm f1.4.'
Looking at their results the Summilux-M is only a tiny margin behind, 
with both lenses clearly ahead of the competition if open aperture 
performance is the main criterion. The new Summilux has something to 
beat to improve on the current version!

Hope this is of interest.
Richard

****************************************************************************
From:             Richard Ogden

e-mail:           richard@ogdenonline.co.uk
BABY PAW:     http://mysite.freeserve.com/babypaw/thumbnails.html

*****************************************************************************