Re: [Leica] nokton v. summilux

[Tom Finnegan <tomf@piengr.com>]

B.D. Colen wrote:
I don't doubt that a modern Summilux wouldn't
be better....But at this point, the inexpensive modern off-brand Japanese
lens is better than the Leica lens...Sorry bout that...

I have been following this thread with some interest since I recently went 
through a bit of a process in deciding which 50 to buy. The lenses I 
considered were: 50/2 DR, 50/2 with clip on hood, current 50/2, 50/1.4, 
50/1.5 Summarit, 50/1.0, and the 50/1.7 Nocton.

Actually, the lens I really wanted was the 75/1.4, but the cost was 
prohibitive, and realistically, probably would not have been as versatile 
for me. Luckily, Patrick McKee hasn't run any special 6 months same-as-cash 
specials lately on the 75, or temptation may have overwhelmed me and my 
credit card balance would be quite different today. The 50/1.0 was also 
quickly ruled out for me due too cost considerations. If I only shot in B&W 
I probably would have been tempted to get the 50/1.5 Summarit since it is 
relatively cheap and has wonderful bokeh that can be seen in Stephen 
Holloway's great pictures.

So now I was down to the various flavors of the Summicron, the Summilux, 
and the Nocton. I read Erwin's reviews, recent posts here, articles on the 
LHSA website, and fumbled through several hundred posts in the archives. 
Each of the different lenses seemed to have it's proponents. I think it 
would be safe to say that all of them are 'excellent' lenses, but with 
varying strengths and characteristics. It seems that it is more a case of 
matching the interests and objectives of the photographer to the 
appropriate lens, rather than deciding which lens is ultimately 'best'.

In Erwin Put's review of the Nocton he notes, "At f/2 the image becomes 
more contrasty and especially the edge definition improves in the field. 
But it is not up to the quality you expect from a topclass f/2 design. In 
itself the image quality is very good. Very fine detail is now detectable 
with slightly soft edge definition. At f/2.8 the contrast again improves 
and now extremely fine detail can be recorded. At f/4 we find an excellent 
quality over the whole picture area. Extremely fine detail is now rendered 
with good clarity. A very critical look will reveal that the overall 
contrast and micro contrast are lower than the contemporary Leica designs 
and some veiling glare also reduces the recording ability of the finest 
details."

In his conclusion he states, "The basic optical design of this lens is 
outstanding and it will certainly be studied by several optical departments 
over the world. Mechanically and from an engineering standpoint it gives 
mixed feelings. The decentring is an indication of mounting tolerances and 
the economics of manufacturing. You get what you pay for. The image quality 
in most practical situations is impressive. Flare is quite pronounced in 
backlightning and when recording specular highlights or small lightpoints.
The Summilux-M as comparison has at full aperture higher contrast on axis 
but its performance in the outer zones is not as good and the recording 
ability of very fine detail over the picture area is also not as good. But 
its engineering is superb and its flare reduction is also better. So which 
lens is best?
My list would be. Number 1 is the Summilux-R new, the number 2 with a fair 
gap is the Nokton and the number 3 is the Summilux-M, which is better 
engineered but optically not as good. Do you really see these optical 
differences? Thats the 10.000 dollar question,...But face to face with the 
Summilux-M the Nokton wins on points, not by knock out."

 In Erwin's review of the Noctilux he notes,"When stopping down to f/2,0 we 
can compare the contrast of all three 50mm lenses, Noctilux-M, Summilux-M 
and Summicron-M. The Summicron-M is best, but the Summilux is very close as 
to be indistinguisable is most picture taking situations. The Noctilux has 
a slightly lower contrast."

So, from these reviews I gather that from an technical optical perspective, 
the current Summicron would rate best, followed by the Nocton, then the 
Summilux, and finally the Noctilux. Yet, in most picture taking situations 
the differences are so slight that they are almost indistinguishable. Since 
99.9999% of all my 35mm is handheld, and since I typically keep my 
enlargements (scans and inkjets?) to 8x10 or smaller, the fact that the 
Nocton can record very fine detail slightly crisper in the outer zones 
compared to the Summilux is totally inconsequential.

So, what is important to me? I prefer a lens that gives a "smooth sharp" 
rendition to one that gives a "wiry sharp" rendition. The lens needs to 
provide a pleasing rendition of out-of-focus areas. The lens should be very 
rugged since it will be dragged hiking, climbing, skiing, biking and 
everywhere in between on almost daily basis for the next 20-30 years. The 
lens should have excellent flare resistance and a neutral color cast.

For me, based on my criteria, the Summilux is the "better" lens. For Erwin, 
based on his criteria and preferences, the Nocton wins by a slight margin 
over the Summilux, but the current Summicron would be rated "best". For Ted 
and Tina, based on their criteria and preferences, the Noctilux is the 
"best" lens. Michael Johnston, Ed Buziak and others prefer the 50 DR. 
Stephen Holloway takes wonderful pictures with the 50/1.5 Summarit.

The Nocton is an excellent lens at a great price, that in my mind is kind 
of a poor man's Summicron. If  I didn't feel like I would use the 50 FL 
very much, but still felt compelled to have one, then I probably would have 
considered the Nocton more seriously. It's also a great introductory lens 
for someone who is interested in rangefinder photography and who wants a 
modern 50, but doesn't have a lot of money. Of course, for a true starving 
student type I'd suggest going for a 50/1.5 Jupiter-3 off of Ebay for about 
$75, and for another $75 you could pick up a Zorki IId to stick it on.

Tom (sorry for the long post) Finnegan
Seattle