Noctilux Type 3 (E58) vs Type 4 (E60)

[Tony C.]

OK guys, you were all so helpful in response to my previous question, I'd like to refine my approach to buying a Noctilux. The research that I've done suggests that the previous (E58) version may be preferable given the detachable lens hood. Do you consider this to be the case?

Is the lens hood on the newest version a big problem? Is it worth paying a premium for a used E58, and going without warranty protection?

And setting the lens hood issue aside, are there any real qualitative differences between the various versions?

Thanks again!

Tony C.

 

[Sailor Ted]

On my lens (the version with the detachable- "lug" version lens hood) it's the Noctilux that blocks my view- on the newer Noctilux you have that to deal with along with it's huge and fantastic lens hood.

Hope this helps- want to buy mine? : )

 

[MikeL]

If I ever were to purchase one, I'd get either lens and sh-tcan the hood on the one I bought. For the conditions I'd use it in, I wouldn't be using the hood since I'm not looking for image perfection and the lens is very flare resistant anyway. Loose the hood.

 

[peter_n]

A member of photo.net cut the hood off his current model Noctilux a couple of years ago, and everyone seemed aghast. I thought it was a pretty practical thing to do, but I also thought that he might have been a lot better off buying an earlier version.

Two earlier versions have separate lens hoods, you don't have to get the 58mm, it also comes in 60mm. The current version (also 60mm filter) started production in 1994. The Noctilux has such flare resistance a hood is a bit of a question mark on the lens to be honest. The 58mm is slightly smaller than the 60mm and 58mm filters are much easier to come by. (It is a consideration if you want to use an ND filter to shoot wide-open in sunlight.) I believe all versions are optically the same.

 

[Harry Lime]

My Noct had the round clip on hood, which is vented like an oversize 12585 hood for the Summicron. There was some intrusion into the viewfinder, but for some reason I found it less distracting than the square hood for the 35 Lux ASPH.

One good feature of the clip on Noct hoods is that they can be clipped on the lens in reverse. This takes up a lot less storage space and offers an extra layer of protection for the lens barrel.

My main complaint about the Noct with the built in hood, is that it can't be locked into the extended position. So, if you bump into it, it simply slides in and viola, your front element is exposed.

 

[peter_n]

[snip] My main complaint about the Noct with the built in hood, is that it can't be locked into the extended position. So, if you bump into it, it simply slides in and viola, your front element is exposed.

This is a "feature" of many of the Leica built-in hoods, not just the one on the Noctilux.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

This is a "feature" of many of the Leica built-in hoods, not just the one on the Noctilux.

Agreed ... all the more reason to get the 50 Lux-asph which has a built-in hood that locks

 

[peter_n]

Except that you will not get the look of the Noctilux with the 50 ASPH Tom.

 

[Harry Lime]

This is a "feature" of many of the Leica built-in hoods, not just the one on the Noctilux.

Yes, one of my pet peeves.

 

[peter_n]

Mine too!

Leica does a poor job on hoods and finders IMO.

 

[Harry Lime]

Except that you will not get the look of the Noctilux with the 50 ASPH Tom.

I think you will get most of it, except of course the ultra shallow depth of field at f1.

Part of the Noct look is the total lack of flare of any kind. The Lux-ASPH appears to perform very similar in this respect.

Personally I didn't care for the Noct bokeh. At times it can get a little crazy and distraction looking. The Lux-ASPH appears to produce very smooth bokeh, like the 35 Lux ASPH.

Having owned a Noct I would go with the Lux ASPH. I switched from the Noct to a pre-ASPH Lux, for several reason and have found this to have been a very practical decision. If I had the cash I would grab the 50 Lux-ASPH.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Except that you will not get the look of the Noctilux with the 50 ASPH Tom.

You're right ... I was being devilish

The noctilux is a very big lens with a singularly unique signature at 1.0. Unless that specific look and speed is something one uses consistently, the Lux-pre asph or Lux-asph are far better performers both in ergonomics and utility. I really encourage you to rent one or see if someone close to you has one so you can handle it for a day. Then decide if the size and weight is prohibitive.

I've seen some really stunning work from people who've stuck with the Noctilux. But I've seen far more people who merely turn it over My impression is that people keep their Lux's more often than not.

 

[Tony C.]

Tom (and others):

Thanks very much for your input. I have no doubt that you are right about the advantages of going with a 50mm 1.4 or even 2.0, as opposed to the Noctliux. In my case, however, I am very eager to explore night (and low light) opportunities, and I also happen to really like the Noctilux "signature".

I may well, at some point, supplement it with one of the other 50mm lenses, but I sincerely doubt that I will be in a hurry to give up the Noctilux, as it seems to be uniquely suited to applications in which I have a high interest.

Best regards,

Tony C.

 

[peter_n]

[snip] Personally I didn't care for the Noct bokeh. At times it can get a little crazy and distraction looking. The Lux-ASPH appears to produce very smooth bokeh, like the 35 Lux ASPH. [snip]

The Noctilux OOF is definitely an acquired taste and many people don't like it. Personally I love it and it is the f1.0 drawing of the lens that makes it so unique. I've never seen anything like it.