Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux-M Heritage vs Original vs 50 Lux

A while ago, I came across this YouTube recommended video in which seven popular YouTube gear reviewers were asked whether they could tell the difference between Canon or Sony in ten different comparison photos. In short, they couldn’t. On average, they guessed and ended up with what you would have expected - roughly half - or as much as you would get by flipping a coin. Given that reality, what was the point of conducting such a trivial undertaking? Was it for the sake of demonstrating the futility of comparisons or entertaining viewers?

Of course, none of this is new to the readership of this dog and pony show. That erroneous belief that different sensors render differently has already been debunked before on many previous blog posts. And even if there were any differences, the limit of our visual ability would not be able to perceive them. Thus, it was no surprise that those seven hapless YouTubers as an aggregate did no better than a random coin toss. There was no way for them to do any better because all modern digital sensors render reality the same way - as real as possible.

That said, with the release of the Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux-M ASPH II - being the redux greatest hits edition - I thought it might be useful to do something different. Of course, I would have likely done a vanilla run-of-the-mill first impression review, had the Leica Store Soho in New York sent me the first copy and not selfishly kept it for themselves. But, they did. So in the months after their first delivery from Wetzlar and the months after my own delivery, the 50 Noct II became old news. As a result, I had to pepper up this post to make it newsworthy.

Leica 50mm f/1.4 Noctilux-M ASPH Version I + Fujifilm Natura 1600 - at minimum focusing distance.

Leica 50mm f/1.4 Noctilux-M ASPH Version II + Fujifilm Natura 1600 - at minimum focusing distance.

Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH + Fujifilm Natura 1600 - at minimum focusing distance.

Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux-M ASPH Version I + Fujifilm Natura 1600

Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux-M ASPH Version II + Fujifilm Natura 1600

Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH + Fujifilm Natura 1600

Besides, the main question everyone wants to know is if the 50 Noct II (the redux version) is really the same as the Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux-M Aspherical (the original version to be abbreviated as the 50 Noct I). Well, they are almost the same. Cosmetically, the 50 Noct II has filter threads while the 50 Noct I has a space for a filter in its lens hood. However, what is less known in the Leica world is the difference in lens coating between the two lenses. The 50 Noct I has yellow lens coating while the 50 Noct II has clear lens coating. Isn’t that something!

For that reason alone, I felt a comparison was in order. I mean, who knows what other secrets would fall out of the woodwork, given greater scrutiny. For example, is it possible that the 50 Noct II is a modern interpretation of the 50 Noct I? Logically, the difference in lens coating would suggest that this is the case - that is to say that the 50 Noct II is made for digital sensors (requiring a more neutral lens coating), while the 50 Noct I was made for film (requiring a more biased lens coating made to reduce high intensity blue light glare - I’m guessing).

But then, I felt that a simple 50 Noct I versus 50 Noct II did not answer the question that I wanted to answer on this blog post. You see, over the last few months, while I was so unceremoniously made to wait for my copy of the 50 Noct II, I had been giving my heart to my trusty Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH. For the last year or so, before I received my 50 Noct II, the 50 Lux was my constant one and only. As such, the question that I truly wanted to answer was whether the 50 Noct II was worth getting - given how similar the 50 Lux is. It really is!

For example, the 50 Lux is only a ½ stop slower than the 50 Noct II (and 50 Noct I). I mean really, how different could ½ a stop be? In terms of low light use, I can’t imagine it being a game changer. Moreover, how different could a ½ stop be in terms of rendering bokeh? That said, what is painfully clear is what a ½ stop is in terms of barrel distortion in the case of the 50 Noct II. Well, it is very noticeable. In fact, it is terrible. By comparison, the 50 Lux captures lines across the frame and aperture range like any precision lens from the folks at Wetzlar.

Next, there is the issue of their focusing throw. The focusing ring on the 50 Noct II (like the 50 Noct I) is tight. It is really a pain to hit tack focus with it - especially when shooting wide open in low light. As for the 50 Lux, it is not a pain to hit tack focus when shooting wide open in low light. On top of that, the 50 Lux has a focusing tab, which makes hitting tack focus even less of a chore - in my opinion. As for the 50 Noct II, it doesn’t have one. I for one prefer a focusing tab on my lens. However, there are those who prefer no focusing tab on their lens.

Moreover, the Noct II (like the Noct I) only has a minimum focusing distance of 3 ft (or 1 m). By comparison, the 50 Lux has a much shorter minimum focusing distance of 2.3 ft (or 0.7 m), consistent to all contemporary Leica lenses. In my opinion, the inability of the 50 Noct II to focus as close as any modern Leica is its most annoying handicap. After all, I am a photographer who routinely isolates details as close up as possible. So as you could imagine, I am not happy with that oversight. It makes the 50 Noct II comparatively less usable than the 50 Lux.

Clearly, the case for the 50 Noct II seems less convincing - given the usability and relative precision of the 50 Lux. The 50 Noct II exhibits visible optical aberrations. It is mechanically and ergonomically more rigid. And, it cannot focus as close as the 50 Lux. Aside from the ½ stop advantage in speed, the 50 Noct II does not seem to have any other tricks up its sleeves. In fact, the 50 Noct II doesn’t even have a built-in retractable lens hood, which the 50 Lux has. Instead, it is hamstrung by the same enormous clip-on lens hood that the Noct I has.

Given that, is there really a reason to pick the 50 Noct II over the 50 Lux? Objectively, the 50 Lux is almost like the 50 Noct II - only more usable, more optically precise, and much more sensible as an investment. Still, that does not mean the 50 Lux is better. Subjectively, I believe the 50 Noct II is better in some contexts. Despite its many flaws, compared to the 50 Lux, the 50 Noct II is distinctive. It does not take cookie-cutter-vanilla-run-of-the-mill images. Instead, what it offers in documentation is really the stuff of legend that prompted its revival.

The 50 Noct II (like the 50 Noct I) is a special lens. Unique and uniquely Leica. It is not perfect. The thing is, the 50 Noct really exemplifies the best traits of Leica M-mount lenses. The rendering of micro-contrast and bokeh at maximum aperture is its selling point. I mean, who really cares about barrel distortion and the absence of a built-in retractable lens hood when shooting the 50 Noct II. Seriously, there’s only one worthwhile undertaking when shooting the 50 Noct II - and that is to take photos wide open in low-light-deep-background situations!

Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux-M ASPH Version II + Fujifilm Natura 1600 - I forgot to photograph a comparison photo with the 50 Lux 😖 So, I included this photo as a placeholder because the color rendering was so different. Like I said, when the 50 Noct II gets it right, it really gets it right. I had to do a double take when I saw this shot.

Not surprisingly, I believe the 50 Noct II is worth it. I mean, I have the original one. It is addictive to shoot. And, I have been shooting it as my default lens since the start of July. Other than my complaints about its minimum focusing distance, I have not had any major issues shooting it. Why would I? It has a red dot. But when the 50 Noct II gets it right, it really gets it right. It is strangely subtle, but it hits you like a sledgehammer. It makes you do a double-take when it happens. It might not be immediately evident in these sample photos. But, it’s there.

That is the problem with comparison photos. You look at them all - and unless there is an obvious difference - they all look the same. In that way, I cannot fault those seven YouTubers. They were all set up to fail - otherwise demonstrating the futility of comparisons would not be entertaining. As for the comparison on this blog post, I really didn’t expect any profound discoveries. But, it does make for good fun. And, I suppose that the shootout could have been more precise, if I conducted it with a digital sensor. But then, where would the fun be in that?

In any event, I’m still on the fence with the 50 Noct II. If only it could shoot closer than 2.3 ft. That said, I’m truly elated that I can now affix a UV filter on a version of the 50 Noct without the encumbrance of that horrendous clip-on lens hood. And without the lens hood, I am over the hill that the 50 Noct II is almost the same height as the 50 Lux - give or take a hair width. Unfortunately, I cannot get over the minimum focusing distance of the 50 Noct II. Therefore, I am thinking of going back to my 50 Lux - sacrificing that ½ stop of speed and uniqueness.

By the way, in case I haven't made myself perfectly clear, the 50 Noct II and the Noct I are really 99% the same. It is obvious that the folks at Wetzlar didn’t bother fixing its barrel distortion or any of its other quirks. That said, I wonder if the aspherical elements of the 50 Noct II are also hand ground, like the 50 Noct I. Reputedly - since every 50 Noct I has hand ground aspherical elements - they all produce slightly different renderings. Because of that, the 50 Noct I is particularly extraordinary - even amongst other fabled lenses from the folks at Wetzlar.

As for the 50 Noct II, I suspect it has precision machine ground aspherical elements. As a result, it is likely that the redux version is less unique in rendering compared to the original version. That said, the 50 Noct II is likely more compatible with digital imaging than the 50 Noct I - given no yellow lens coating. In that way, I suppose the 50 Noct II is a modern interpretation of the Noct I. Unfortunately, that is about it, with regards to the folks at Wetzlar updating the 50 Noct II for today. Thus, it made no sense to limit my comparison to just the two Nocts.

Parenthetically, it should be noted that the yellow coloration on the glass is not thorium - the radioactive glass used on the Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron-M, Version I.

Parting shots - I liked this photo because of the placement of the mask. 50 Lux.

Last, the Fujifilm Natura 1600 I used may have suffered a little degradation as a consequence of being expired for three years. I have stored it in a freezer before the expiration date. But, such is the uncertainty of using film.

Would have killed for another two stops 😭

Thank you Lenka for accompanying me on this photowalk. You were a true trooper for this boring comparison.

Disclaimer

Oct 15 Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux-M Heritage vs Original vs 50 Lux

Disclaimer

Oct 15 Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux-M Heritage vs Original vs 50 Lux

Oct 22 Photography Is About The Experience

Oct 12 Humanizing The Photo Taking Process