aside from wide open, which the Nikon clearly wins, (and after all that is the point of these lenses), but aside from that, the image Quality has to go to Leica, for me its not even close. It is the way contrast falls off with an incredible gradient from the point of focus to the area of out-of-focus. Also the Leica has better color on my graded monitor, but that is really hard to judge because so much is between the raw file and what we are seeing.
@@annenominous7220 I disagree, this video empirically shows that the Nikon has better sharpness at every aperture, less colour fringing, and smoother bokeh. The sunstars at f/16 on the Nikon are also much nicer than on the Leica. The only advantage of the Leica is size and weight. And what is a graded monitor, do you mean calibrated monitor?
@@Bayonet1809 Hi, a "graded" monitor is a professional monitor with 100 percent of the color gamut accurately displayed. A normal monitor, calibrated, only approximates this. Unfortunately "graded" monitors are very very expensive, and are mostly used in hi-end advertising work, print photography, and video editing. I have 40 years of experience with Nikon and Leica glass. As i stated earlier, I would take the Leica, the images just look better to me, not sharper, better.
@@annenominous7220 Sorry, but your terminology is incorrect. There is no such thing as a "graded" monitor, there are monitors designed for colour grading (of video) which cover typical gamuts such as Rec. 709 or DCI-P3. Likewise there are colour gamuts used in photography, with AdobeRGB being the professional standard.These are known as "wide gamut" monitors. However, all gamuts (and therefore all monitors) are just an approximate representation of the colours in an image, a "normal" monitor (assuming you mean one with insufficient coverage of AdobeRGB) can still provide a decent representation of an image if it covers exactly 100% of the sRGB gamut, is properly calibrated, and the software used is displaying content in sRGB. Is this perceived better contrast due to the lens, the camera, or the raw converter? Have you performed double blind tests to confirm the source of this look? Excuse me doubting your claims as I don't notice a difference myself, and have seen people make similar claims before, that some modern lenses lack "3D pop" or "micro-contrast", are too "sterile" and the like, but these claims are never quantified. So I would appreciate it If you could point me to a direct comparison demonstrating this phenomena you perceive with all other variables accounted for. Only once a difference has been identified, and its source isolated can we then decide what is desirable in our photography and also what we can manipulate for artistic effect.
@@kiyoshim9593 The Leica lens a real 0.95 as the F-stop is based on physical attributes. The T-stop, however, measures light transmission and in this department it seems (by looking at the difference in shutter speed while displaying similar brightness) like the Nikon lens is a lot closer to a T0.95 than the Leica lens.
I can’t believe how many people are shocked that the Nikon is sharper. Just look at the size of the thing!!! Obviously, it’s using more of the center of the glass.
@@noenken Let's say everything, the Leica is 4K bucks more expensive than the Nikon and the light transmission seems to be much lower with the Leica (look at the shutter speeds). Anyway, I'm a big fan of portable lenses (but can't afford this ridiculous prices for a hobby) and most of my lenses were selected with the light weight/general performance in mind.
@@aravindmj920 Over two lenses that I would buy neither of? No worries. ;) Just wanted to give a bit perspective. I have another comment somewhere here talking about the differences in purpose for these two.
Owning both the Noct-Nikkor and the Noctilux lenses, and Nikon and Leica systems, I believe this is a very fair test. The Nikkor glass seems to be sharper, better contrast, and excellent detail in the shadows.
Very interesting. I am very surprised that the Nikon NOCT is sharper when shot fully open. It's pretty obvious even after TH-cam compressen. Thanks for making the comparison video.
Nikkor, for IQ & price. Leica Noctilux, for portability. I think Leica need to get the drafting table ready. Hey thanks, for taking the time to produce this article.
At f/0.95 - 12:45 in your video - the Nikkor is very obviously sharper on my 4k stream and monitor. I was surprised when you said they were both "pinpoint" sharp because, very clearly, they were not.
@@terrywbreedlove That's just marketing rubbish though. Leica had 0.95 12 years ago with a small mount. Look at the size difference between this Noct and the Leica. It's ridiculous!
Little Dua No it is not you can see in every test even the kit lens is sharper edge to edge than even the more expensive new lenses from other manufactures. Canon and Nikon both went with these large and shallow mounts for a reason they work.
@@terrywbreedlove No. Wider mounts make it easier and cheaper to design faster lenses, that is all. Look at the Leica 75mm Noctilux, it blows anything from Nikon out of the water with a small mount. Some Sony G Master lenses are exceptional also, again a small mount. You are just falling for the marketing. This lens is a monstrosity, almost useless for what you use a Leica Noctilux for and is incredibly expensive too and not significantly better. The size of it, it should be far better because bigger lenses are always easier to design.
Nikkor lens makes some amazing out of focus areas, better balls and also much better at controlling chromatic aberration and that kind of thing...Now where did I put that 8k? Also time to hit the gym so I can carry it.
Bei 0.95 scheint das Noct rein technisch haushoch überlegen. Das Noctilux mag trotzdem in vielen Situationen schöner rendern. Gleicher Bildausschnitt und eine realistischere Bewertung bei 0.95 wären schön gewesen, hätte hier fast abgebrochen, die Unterschiede sind riesig und es wird nichts dazu gesagt. Mir scheint die Fokussierung auch nicht sauber gewesen zu sein, vmtl. wurde nach abblenden nicht neu fokussiert?
Thank you for this! not many of us have the where with all to buy both lenses/systems to compare. Very nice shoot out. I would buy the Leica for the smaller size and the (in my opinion) superior color and micro-contrast. That said, the Z is a fantastic system and that lens is butter wide open.
The first Leica NOCTILUX F/0.95 was manufactured 2008 and are still on the assembly line, when is the Leica lens made you are comparing in the video? The first Nikon NOCT F/0.95 was released (....thinking...) nov - dec 2019... We are talking up to eleven (11) years here, I think much progress have being done making the glas to the lenses...
12:51 You have to be kidding right ? Pointing at the IQ4 logo and said " They are both pin point sharp". Anyone see that would instantly point out the IQ4 logo is much sharper on the Nikon Noct image, come on.
Because same F stop number (the diameter of the entrance pupil) does not mean the same T stop number(the amount of light coming in). A perfect F1.4 lens with complete transparent glass will have T1.4 as its T stop number, yet if you have a lens made out of low-level glass, the amount of light coming in will be reduced. Another factor is that the actual ISO of the camera is not what is labeled as iso100. Different camera companies with different sensor will have different base iso marked as iso100( which might actually be iso72 or even lower)
@@midfidelity7180 it's funny to hear "low level glass" about Leica lens 12k cost :) Yes, i know all what you are talking about. My point is that this fact is important, as well as the sharpness. Especially when we're talking about 0,95 lens. And we should know, that in low light conditions leica lens give your a shutter speed is about at the nikon level at 1.4. That's... Interesting.
@@SlonikSmile Because this Leica lens's optical performance is very weak compared to many other lenses. Its resolution, CA, color fringing and distortion control are not desirable with regard to that price. It's more like a luxury toy than an actual tool. Leica lenses are kinda like those expansive mechanical watches: old fashion way of build, looks great, expensive, and outperformed by modern quartz watches.
I read somewhere when the Z line was first introduced that S-lenses transmit more light at given aperture that it may actually be half a stop better than rivals. Effectively 1.8 aperture in S-lenses is more like 1.4 with others. Read first materials that came out from Nikon. Didn't believe it first. But this a second video that shows this in reality.
@@faisalalha1786 It is somewhat true that some Z lenses have relatively better light transmission than comparable lenses, but it is really more like f/1.4 lenses (such as Sigma's) are T/1.6, while Nikon's f/1.8 are T/1.8, so the 1.4s are still better. This Leica is not designed for low light usage like the Nikon is, but for creamy bokeh and rendering. The fact that the Nikon has such better light transmission is a result of the much larger front element, and the employment of advanced lens coatings not available when the Leica was designed.
Hello and thank you for this very interesting review. In a different vein, would you say that the Nikon Z7 is "superior" to the Leica SL2? I'm an old user of M (M3, M6 and M10) but framing with the 90mm gets harder! So I wonder about hybrids and their technologies because I would like to shoot more pictures of landscapes, pose-longs ...
I think it is very hard to say that the SL2 is better than the Nikon Z7 or vice versa. Both are excellent cameras. I probably should do a video on the comparison and mention all the differences and pros and cons but I have not found the time yet. Maybe I come to it in the course of the year.
I would be interested comparing the Z 50mm 1.8 with the 58 0.95, I know it's an odd comparison, I want to see th $7000 difference. The Nikon 1.8 is most likely sharper that the Leica 0.95.
That would be difficult to asses as the SL2's sensor stack differences would have a non-zero effect on the old Noctilux's corner sharpness, while testing on an M10 would put it at a megapixel disadvantage, and comparing that to an equivalent megapixel Nikon Z6 would then introduce problems due to the Z6's heavy AA filter. So not possible to do it real justice.
Nice test but I feel you were conservative with appreciating how good Nikon is. Definitely way better than Leica...considering how old the Leica is, they are charging quite a lot more. Not to mention Z7 seems to be a terrific body!
Thank you for the video. A couple of things, worth mentioning. I realise you are comparing the Noct and Noctilux side by side but the difference in focal length does make a difference and if you compensated for the extra focal length by moving the Noct back slightly, so the subject is the same size, you should see the Noct has even creamer bokah. In the real world, which the Noct is going to be slightly better optically, most of this is go to be lost unless pixel peeping and no client is ever going to notice. Oddly, this reminds me of the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4e vs the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art. The Nikkor is optically smaller and lighter but the Sigma is optically slightly better but cheaper. Every day of the week, I would probably go for the Nikkor because of the weight size difference. In the end, the Noct is really a test bed/marketing lens for Nikon. Yes, it is great but very few are going to buy it (though I do see some rental potential) and most people don't pixel peep or really notice that much smoother background. Really we will see what Nikon are capable with with the Z mount, when they release a 50mm f/1.2z, which should be far superior wide open than most 50mm lenses but at a 1/3 of the price of the 58mm.
Great comparison. I think the thing we’re missing here is the understanding that the Leica has to be graded on a slight curve. Although it’s adapted to a mirrorless camera in the video, its intended use is on an M rangefinder camera. I’ve used one on my M6 and let me tell you, if this thing were even one gram heavier, one millimeter larger, it’d be too much. Lenses for these cameras have to be as compact as possible, a constraint not present on the Nikon Z series. Leica achieved a technical miracle when they made it so compact, but to make it a true apples-to-apples comparison, we’d have to wait for Leica to make a native lens for the SL. Still though, great video, very informative!
That's exactly what you'd expect considering the size and weight difference. The Noctilux is already huge on an M Body and it wouldn't really make sense for Leica to build a bigger and better version (at least for M line)
Excellent job as usual, mate! Would be magnificent see a comparison (on SL2 and S1R) between: Lux SL 50mm f/1.4, Lumix S Pro 50mm f/1.4, Cron SL 50mm f/2.0, Sigma 40mm f/1.4 all @ f/2.0 at least What do you think? P.S. you could add Nikkor S 50mm f/1.8 of course, but it might be a bit over the top.
The Nikon appears to be optically superior at 0.95 and 1.4 and I have no idea what is going on with the non circular out of focus bits of the Leica but, if money was no object I'd still choose the Leica lens. That thing on the Nikon is larger than my 30 year old 80~200 F2.8 AF-ED zoom. Who the hell is going to hold that thing in the dark and take photos?
I own the noctilux and the canon 0.95, both are decent size and compact, the canon being crazy small! Nothing compares to it, I still love the image of the canon and it is quite sharp in the middle with heavy ghosting and creamy bokeh, again I think price is very comparable but the huge size of the Nikon will raise eyebrows, not the Noct being sharper than the noctilux
@@ronitsingh85 I agree. I also would like to point out that sharpness is not the right parameter to gauge the quality of the these specialized lenses with. These are clearly designed to work handheld in near darkness and that is where and how they should be tested. This is like comparing vehicles only on the basis of which drives faster without considering handling. That is why I stated that if need was there and money was no object I'd still choose the Leica without hesitation. It may not be as optically perfect as the Nikon @ F0.95 and F1.4 but it is a superior lens. I still can not comprehend what is going on with those out of round defocused points of light though. Perhaps another sample should be tested.
lensman57 indeed, you can see that the vloger mentions that hdmi on the bottom is not as clear on the Leica, maybe it’s because it’s shallow depth of field!? But you can see that the number 4 is in sharp focus, it could be the range of sharpness the Leica has vs the Nikon, indeed the bokeh has me thinking, Leica has 10 aperture blades and indeed its not perfectly rounded. I don’t mind, the lens is sharp enough for me and I will not use the noct as it’s so big and although the focus throw is so precise, it will take forever to focus on a moving or still image, Leica made it 120 degrees for a reason, I wish they had done 180 at least like the canon 0.95, now that is even more creamier with even the focus bits so dreamy, I like that too and appreciate the shape and size, that is one of the reasons I have it and use it, 5 elements only.
lensman57 he may but the vloger is a Leica user and I am sure he did good on focusing both the lenses. Certainly someone should test both out in low light conditions
12.50: The Nikkon is clearly a lot sharper with much more contrast and no chromatic abberations. The Leica looks soft, hazy due to spherical abberations, has purple fringing all along contrasting edges and even the bokeh has strong green outlining whereas the Nikkon remains neutral. They don't look comparable at all to me.
I mean, in Germany these lenses are pretty close in price and honestly, they are both made for people that don't have to look at price tags anyway. But they are designed for very different purpose. The Noct is supposed to render a specific way with smooth out of focus areas at all cost (in terms of size and weight). The Leica is designed to enable handheld photography in the dark. So ... kinda pointless comparison. More interesting would be the Noct against the Otus 55mm.
If the Leica is designed for the dark then why is its light transmission so much worse than the Nikon's? Leica could have relaxed the aperture constraints to f/1.4 and gotten a lens that performs the same in the dark. So smooth bokeh must have been a priory for Leica too. I do agree that the Nikon is probably intended for use on a tripod though.
@@Bayonet1809 Please keep in mind that the design for the leica was done with film in mind. While the SL does a fine job with M lenses (I do use mine for that but the 601, not the SL2), there is still light being lost due to the grid/filter array.
@@noenken The Noctilux was released in 2008, two years AFTER the Leica M8, the first digital M. I doubt that Leica would have not considered their digital sensors when developing this lens.
@@Bayonet1809 The M8 was made as an APS-C camera because Leica wasn't sure to ever be able to fit a full frame sensor into an M body. The Noctilux is clearly not designed with APS-C in mind, is it? Also the fact that Leica is still modifying their M sensors with microlenses to work better with those lenses should tell you something. Sure, designing and building a new camera (and the first digital M at that) takes time. But trust me, designing lenses takes more time. And right at the start of that process you have to decide what the lens should be made for. If you just glance over some dates you could easily think that it must be for digital. But when you dig a little deeper it just doesn't add up. The Noctilux was made for film.
@@noenken I disagree that the light transmission loss is due to the SL2's digital sensor. My understanding is that the light transmission loss is inherent to the lens design and coatings. And even if it is not what relevance does the Noctilux's performance on film have to do with the digital world today? If the Noctilux only fulfills its original design goal (of night use according to you) on film (which is much less light sensitive than today's digital sensors) then what reason is it still sold for? I would argue that it is for bokeh and rendering, which is exactly why this comparison with the Noct is relevant, because they compete in the same area.
Very interesting video and thank you for taking the trouble to produce it. For me, the overall rendering is the main issue. Plus the weight. Overall, I prefer the Noctilux.
Also one advantage the Nikon has is the Lens function button, with an option to set this to MAGNIFICATION, 1:1, 100%, etc. to further aid in accurate focus, and to use this feature FAST!! via custom control assignment, not by menu access.
Hard to tell with TH-cam obviously but the Nikon looks dramatically sharper - or at least free of ghosting - at f/0.95 (and yes, before everyone reacts with anger at this observation, this is as you'd expect for a newer, heavier lens).
Very thorough and objective evaluation. Most people would buy these to shoot wide open, but it's nice to know how they perform otherwise. Weight and size are a big deal to me, especially at night when I don't want to be lugging around heavy stuff.
I have little need for such a lens but the Nikon is a spectacular achievement . Weight not withstanding :-) . On the pro side the Nikon costs less, is sharper, has better bokeh , and clearly a better T/stop . The more shots I see from the Nikon { real life shooting not tests } the more my interest increases. Do I have £8000 worth of interest , that is a different question . Apart from size I do not see much to justify the Leica.
Interesting review. Thanks. Also I see some geometric distortion from the Leica - the sides of picture frame in the background are not parallel , whereas on the Nikkor, they are closer to.
Did the Spider-Man fall on the ground after taking shots with the Leica because on the Nikon pics his horizontal chest crack is bigger. To me the Nikon looks obviously better but somehow the blacks look better on the leica. All in all I wouldn’t pay 11000€ today for an old leica Noctilux and for sure I wouldn’t buy the Nikon because it’s way to heavy. Being a Sony User I wouldn’t buy any manual focus lens because the viewfinder in Sony cams suck.
yea you cant compare them. Peter Karbe said he could make a better and fringe free 0.95 noct but it would be 30% bigger and 10% heavier. And it would still be a LOT smaller than the Nikon. But thats not the point of the M... the main thing is the constraint in the design of the Leica lens (which makes it so unique as well). The size of the entrance pupil has to be constrained. Its meant to be mounted on a range finder.... try that Nikon on a range finder LOL :). the M system isnt just the camera or just the lens its a whole thing that is represents a lifestyle. I wouldnt carry all day long that Nikon kit..... the Leica is small, discrete.... you can carry that
If it is your pleasure to put up with the ridiculous leica prices, and you like rangefinders, go ahead. But i doubt a 0.95 lens is easily focusable trough a rangefinder. I personally don't care about weight, and hate rangefinders, that's why i love what nikon is doing with the Z mount, people are complaining about how lenses are becomming bigger and heavier, but for me performance is the point, i don't mind a 5-6 kg photo setup. Too bad i can't afford it...
Leica 095 can be adapted to SONY a serie with Techart autofocus adapter with less than 50cm of close focus disatance and Leica Noc seemed a stop of shutter speed slower than NIkon's.
Vielen dank! Interesting results, I would have guessed the results would be even more different in favor of the Noct. I have the Noctilux as well as the Otus 55, I see a difference, but the intended use is different and for the kind of pictures the Leica is made for, its an absolutely wonderful lens. I thought the Otus was a beast.
in other words, having chromatic aberrations is not always a bad thing, because it gives something to the perception as well as takes. Same could be said about sharpness. Noctilux is more compact and has a Rock'n'Roll character to it, Noct is more Techno. (:
Leica Noctilux has a 120 degree focus throw, but its weighted focus so to aid in precise and fast focusing, the canon 0.95 has 180 degree focus, throw. The noctilux is small and compact and easily usable as a street lens or everyday lens, a 2008 design vs a 2019 design here, Leica is coming with a new 50mm 0.95 soon though.......... one of the issues the noctilux has is purple fringing and Leica even compares the IQ of the the noctilux to one of their most popular lenses - summilux 50mm f1.4, they say that stopped down to 2.8, the IQ of the noctilux equals the IQ of the summilux at 1.4, I guess a compact lens design at 0.95 is quite a challenge and hats off to Leica for making something that small and SHARP, it is plenty of sharp for my taste. The Noct has been designed with IQ in mind and hats off to Nikon for this, but at the cost of size and weight, Not an everyday lens, than you can say the same for the Leica noctilux, dont let the small size fool you, its a very dense lens indeed. All M lenses perform better with M bodies, the sensor has micro lenses on the edges of the sensor to align the light coming off the lens since the lens sits so close to the sensor. I wonder if Nikon does that since they lens sits even closer?? at 18mm vs 23mm for Leica M
one thing good about that large throw for the focus knob, as the dof gets smaller the MORE accurate and the smaller the movement of lens elements as any motion could de-focus the shot, the Leica is well known for this, (why you yourself mounted it on an MF leica, as it has focus Peiking on it, as opposed to the 'M' it is designed for!), so the easier it is to focus, the MORE LIKELY you are to USE it!!, that saves wasting shots on such a high MP camera, which if film is a tradgedy.
@@BananaCake26 - to continue the LOL, I now must assume you are of German nationality? Another LOL outside the German language realm is that speaker is Swiss - of the Confederation of Helvetians that is and never was part of Germania. Yes, his accent is strong, but I have worked with much worse and often told them "I can speak and read your language, but would think it is much more fair if we both speak a foreign language." German educator: 1) Educator with German nationality. 2) ...?
@@jpdj2715 Yes, I am German. What exactly is the purpose of mentioning Helvetia and Germania? What does that have to do with accents and linguistics? Are you Swiss and feel insulted that I assumed someone with a German accent is German? Germany has by far the largest community of native speakers, it's the logical assumption to make.
Leica makes pleasant lenses with character at a small size with the drawback of sharpness/quality/price/minimum focusing distance(which has a huge impact on size), while Nikon makes a technically more perfect lens at the expense of size/weight.
The Leica lens is made for cameras like the M10. That's a viewfinder-camera. From Leica there are for the SL-system only the Summilux-SL f 1.4/50mm or the APO Summicron as 50mm lenses available right now. The sensor of the M10 is constructed to be used with Leica M-lenses. However on the SL there will be a little loss of quality. Adapting Leica M-lenses to Sonys cameras ist similar: They perform better at the M10. 4.900,00 € *
@@w.scholz9705 Yes I do wonder a about the distance from sensor to lens and about pixel well pitch and such... Would have liked to see this test with the M10 instead of the SL2
The Leica lens is however made for cameras like the M10. The SL-cameras have different sensors. So the question remains how the Leica compares to the Nikon when mounted to an M10.
@@Bayonet1809 In most cases nobody needs more than 24MP. The point is, that a lens that is made for a view-finder camera like M9, 240 or M10 behaves different on sensors of other cameras. Put certain M-lenses on Sonys A9 or A7 R III and they perform like cheap glass ... Also on Leicas SL they are less good ... I think in the future Leica will produce comperable lenses for the SL2.
@@w.scholz9705 You may not need more than 24MP, but lots of other people do. If you don't care about resolution then why even care about comparing lens sharpness? If you compared the Noctilux on an M10 then the lack of megapixels compared to a Z7 would make it look even less sharp than on an SL2. I know there are sensor stack differences between rangefinder and EVF cameras, however these are minimal in the center of the frame on a non-wide angle lens, especially on a Leica SL. This video only tested central sharpness, if it tested corner sharpness then you would have a valid complaint.
@@Bayonet1809 If sharpness is relevant on uses not an f/0.95 Noctilux, but rather lenses like a 2.0/50mm APO Summicron. Sharpness is however not identical to resolution and also not the only criteria of a lens. The Noctilux belongs to an M10. It works also on a decades old analog M3, that doesn't even need any battery. ... I am sure, that - when it comes to high resolution - the 1.4/50 SL-Lens from Leica performs better on the SL2 than the Noctilux. A f0.95/50mm SL-lens, (that could benefit from the advantages of the SL-mount) does at the moment not exist at all. The Nikon-lens is - so to speak - uncomperable. And if there is one thing Nikon engeneers know to do, then it is building lenses.
@@w.scholz9705 I know sharpness is not the same as resolution, but that it is one element of it, with the others being contrast and sampling rate (pixels or film grain). I never claimed that sharpness is the only criteria of a lens, only that you are contradicting yourself by discarding the relevance of better sampling (more megapixels) but still comparing sharpness. This is ridiculous precisely because the two are linked! One moment you question how this comparison would go if the Noctilux was on an M10 (with the inference here being that the SL2 is compromising its performance) then you claim that sharpness is not relevant and that if it was the APO cron should be used. Do you not see another contradiction here. If you don't care about the Noctilux's sharpness then why complain about this test using it on an SL2! I think this comparison was very logical, they are both f/0.95 lenses and a lot of people are interested to see how they compare (as proven by the view numbers). I also think this comparison is the best that could be done under the circumstances, with good practice taken to present each lens in its best light. The only issue I have with the parameters is that for a base ISO test it should be using ISO64 on the Nikon, but that is an inconsequentially minor issue.
Nicely done comparison. Nikon wins in term of technical image quality but with size penalty, while Leica wins in practicality but if you can live with some aberations (some people call it characters). For me, I think I'll stick with f/1.4 - f/2 lenses for practicality (DOF, size, and weight).
but leica fans says Nikon doesn't have the soul and character of the leica ,i shoot Fuji gfx and nikon d810/d850 i have tried leica lenses on my gfx ,in my eyes the Leica has better microcontrast that is not sharpness but how well it records shadows tonality the noct from nikon is more like zeiss otus Sharp and nothing more than that the leica images looks darker that is not because its underexposed but it records more shadows than the nikon does, or the nikon is not brighter but has less shadows recorded
Matt! It's clear the Nikon was way sharper! Might as well put the Nikon Noct on the Leica :-) Perhaps it's time for Leica to update their glass since the Leica Noct is now old
Noctilux is 12y old lens and made specifically for small M-mount camera with all underlying physical limitations. It is stellar for its size. And remember, sharpness is not the only thing what makes lens good. When SL mount Noctilux will be released - that will be a fair comparison.
If they both weighed the same, I would sell the Leica nocti and buy the Nikon outfit. I prefer a 60mm (58mm) to 50mmnand the Nikon is buttery smooth and sharper.
I have the Leica Noctilux so I MAY be slightly biased, but - for shooting on the street - the Nikon lens is a monster by comparison. Henri Cartier-Bresson's Leica 3f was, I imagine, very, very small and light compared to my M10 with the f0.95 Noctilux attached. Imagine what Henri would think of this Nikon lens!
@@logitech4873, no, there really are some things you can do with the f0.95 Noctilux that you can't do with lesser lenses, like shoot at ISO 100 and, at the same time, a shutter speed of 1/250 sec. Even the Leica Noctilux weighs a ton.
My impression as you said is thet the time of conception for each lens makes a difference. The difference in the rubber engraving is axctually explained by an improved color contrast in the newer Nikon. The Leica Noctilux has always yielded best quality imagery around F8 even in the earlier iterations. But why buy this lens, or the Nikon. It is purchased for low light and extreme shallow depth of field shooting. So it was a nice test and each photographer will choose which he likes. As the review stated, you pays your money and makes your choice.
as a leica fanboy, the noct is technically a better lens for sure. but the noct doesn't fit on a Leica M body. you have to really peep to see the superiority of the noct.
You should consider how much BIGGER the Nikon Noct is! It is way more optically corrected and it is a newer lens. For its size and age, the Leica Noctilux is very impressive. Lets face it though, the potential buyer of either lenses is never going to be comparing them on a sharpness scale!!! They are made for different types of photographers...
One big difference, the Leica noctilux is optimized for the M rangefinder camera not for the Sl 2 body. The Nikon lens is optimized for the Nikon body, so that’s why it’s sharpness is a tiny bit better almost not noticeable.
Good point, that might have contributed to the tiny little differences since Leica indeed optimizes lenses for the system they are made for and the Noctilux has not been calculated for the SL system but for the M system. Good catch, should have mentioned! The Noctilux is also newly developed, I think I mentioned that, and clearly calculated for the Nikon sensor.
His adaptator ring has no impact on image quality since it have no glass, Lenses are optimized to make an image at a certain distance of the mount, as long as this distance is respected, there will be no impact on image quality (the differences will be on the number of megapiwels and the size of the sensor). The nikon is just better, cheaper, and the difference in sharpness, bokeh, and fringing is obvious, even after youtube compression. And it was to be expected since nikon noct is newer, bigger and heavier. Leica did a miracle with this lens, packing so much quality and aperture in a tiny lense, but it can't keep up with a bigger and heavier design.
I like your methodical approach to testing these lenses, it's so important to be accurate when you're in an ultra precision field like these specialized lenses. However, I think diving so deep also sets certain expectations regarding your own scrutiny. As many people have pointed out, there are clearly visible differences between the Noct and Noctilux. The sharpness wide open, and the quality of the bokeh balls when stopped down. I think I understand where you're coming from however. This is pixel peeping, and in real life situations it would probably be very hard to spot differences. It's just that when you pay this much money for these very high end lenses, you probably care a lot about those last few differences. Also, given that you pointed out how much larger the Noct is, but then failed to draw the lines between that last bit of image quality and size, your review sadly comes across as slightly biased towards the Noctilux.
12:50 I’m sorry, but no. They are not at all equally sharp. The Nikon is, looking purely at IQ, the superior lens. You can clearly see it, from wide-open to stopped down. Not saying that sharpness is everything, because it definitely is not. But if there HAD to be a choice between the two, lucky fellow, I think it really comes down to the type of shoot you’re going after. Spontaneous and flexible? -> Leica Noctilux. IQ and tripod work? -> Nikkor Nocr.
The Nikon is impressive. Seems to be a little higher in local contrast than the Leica, which gives the impression of higher resolution. But the size & weight… 😮 And when it came out I thought the Noctilux was a big lens! Thanks for doing this. It’s fun to make (and watch) these comparisons.
weizenobst müsli Yes, smaller than a typical modern SLR 50/1.4. The current Leica 50/1.4 Summilux is smaller still…one of the pluses of using the M system.
Just want to note that the Nikon and Leica are designed with very different philosophy in mind. Also: 1. Leica noctilux is designed to be used on a very portable system (Leica M). Not the Leica SL2. So at best, it is only an adaptive lens. NOT designed to be used on the SL2. 2. Noct nikkor is made to demonstrate the capability of Nikons lens making prowess. It is not meant to be use widely in the consumer market. Leica noctilux is a nod to the past. One looking forward, one looking back. 3. The lens design. One is designed in modern era with aspherical elements, ED glass and extreme coatings on lens elements. the other is based on a old lens formula.
Interessanter Bericht über zwei Exoten den man nicht alle Tage sieht. Würde mich eher aus Gewichtsgründen für das Leica -Objektiv entscheiden. Könnte mir auch vorstellen, das dass Noctilux wertstabiler ist. In Deutschland ist der Preisunterschied nicht ganz so groß. 9000e zu 10600e. Gruß. Wolper.
He missed the focus with the Leica on f0.95, you can see by the made in Germany and focal range of the lens In the Leica, the focal range is more in focus and in the nikon the made in Germany is more in focus
When I see this video, on TH-cam which is heavily compressed which will benefit the weaker lens, the Nikkor still completely crushes the Leica at f0.95. Look at the sharpness of the white text against the black rubber, the Leica has haloing, the Nikon doesn't, The Nikon is clearly sharper. Look at the distance scale on the lens showing how the Nikon is clearly sharper moving away from the centre. Look at the purple fringing on the Leica which isn't there on the Nikon. There's a huge difference, and you say the look the same? On what planet? How?
"A little more sharper..." Say what? It's a LOT more sharper. LOL
yeah nikon has like 2X sharpness. maybe
In my view at 0.95 aperture, the Nikon looks sharper.
Jose A De Leon yes, much sharper
@ Absolutely. He just said they look the same and I had to laugh. What a joke.
After the comment I re-watched it on a 4K screen and defenetly the Nikon is much sharper.
It definitely would be, the Nikkor makes no compromises, it’s pure quality at the expense of weight, size and cost etc.
Agreed. Nikon is beast but for street "including street on both" 2kg is very impractical lol.
The noct destroyed the leica, especially @ wide open.
as it should, because its a 2kg lens
aside from wide open, which the Nikon clearly wins, (and after all that is the point of these lenses), but aside from that, the image Quality has to go to Leica, for me its not even close. It is the way contrast falls off with an incredible gradient from the point of focus to the area of out-of-focus. Also the Leica has better color on my graded monitor, but that is really hard to judge because so much is between the raw file and what we are seeing.
@@annenominous7220 I disagree, this video empirically shows that the Nikon has better sharpness at every aperture, less colour fringing, and smoother bokeh. The sunstars at f/16 on the Nikon are also much nicer than on the Leica. The only advantage of the Leica is size and weight. And what is a graded monitor, do you mean calibrated monitor?
@@Bayonet1809 Hi, a "graded" monitor is a professional monitor with 100 percent of the color gamut accurately displayed. A normal monitor, calibrated, only approximates this. Unfortunately "graded" monitors are very very expensive, and are mostly used in hi-end advertising work, print photography, and video editing. I have 40 years of experience with Nikon and Leica glass. As i stated earlier, I would take the Leica, the images just look better to me, not sharper, better.
@@annenominous7220 Sorry, but your terminology is incorrect. There is no such thing as a "graded" monitor, there are monitors designed for colour grading (of video) which cover typical gamuts such as Rec. 709 or DCI-P3. Likewise there are colour gamuts used in photography, with AdobeRGB being the professional standard.These are known as "wide gamut" monitors. However, all gamuts (and therefore all monitors) are just an approximate representation of the colours in an image, a "normal" monitor (assuming you mean one with insufficient coverage of AdobeRGB) can still provide a decent representation of an image if it covers exactly 100% of the sRGB gamut, is properly calibrated, and the software used is displaying content in sRGB.
Is this perceived better contrast due to the lens, the camera, or the raw converter? Have you performed double blind tests to confirm the source of this look? Excuse me doubting your claims as I don't notice a difference myself, and have seen people make similar claims before, that some modern lenses lack "3D pop" or "micro-contrast", are too "sterile" and the like, but these claims are never quantified. So I would appreciate it If you could point me to a direct comparison demonstrating this phenomena you perceive with all other variables accounted for. Only once a difference has been identified, and its source isolated can we then decide what is desirable in our photography and also what we can manipulate for artistic effect.
Wow. Nikon blows Leica away in every aspect except size.
Your idea of blows away is funny. Exaggerate much.
Also the nikkor is almost a stop brighter. maybe the Leica is not a real 0.95
You really do pay for the red dot. Damn, and so much better transmittance.
@@kiyoshim9593 The Leica lens a real 0.95 as the F-stop is based on physical attributes. The T-stop, however, measures light transmission and in this department it seems (by looking at the difference in shutter speed while displaying similar brightness) like the Nikon lens is a lot closer to a T0.95 than the Leica lens.
@@duodua4130I agree and the Leica has the better contrast. I don’t read anybody about that.
I can’t believe how many people are shocked that the Nikon is sharper. Just look at the size of the thing!!! Obviously, it’s using more of the center of the glass.
15:00 Nikon is way better than Leica
Nikon is way better and cheaper.
They're both compared in the centre, so you're point isn't valid.
Florin Gilca I have no time to school you, if you say it isn’t valid, then you don’t know what I mean.
Not to mention, 12 years newer
Is it me or does they Leica look less sharp compared to the Nikon
Is it me or does they Leica look 1/3 the weight and 12 years older compared to the Nikon? ;)
@@noenken Let's say everything, the Leica is 4K bucks more expensive than the Nikon and the light transmission seems to be much lower with the Leica (look at the shutter speeds).
Anyway, I'm a big fan of portable lenses (but can't afford this ridiculous prices for a hobby) and most of my lenses were selected with the light weight/general performance in mind.
@@noenken wow , don't get offended man
@@aravindmj920 Over two lenses that I would buy neither of? No worries. ;) Just wanted to give a bit perspective. I have another comment somewhere here talking about the differences in purpose for these two.
yes it is and a lot of finging
I will take the one with the best auto focus.
I laughed
That'll be the leica with a techart auto focus adapter then
Owning both the Noct-Nikkor and the Noctilux lenses, and Nikon and Leica systems, I believe this is a very fair test. The Nikkor glass seems to be sharper, better contrast, and excellent detail in the shadows.
looking at the shutter speed the nikon lets more light through. Do you have the T values for both lenses?
Very interesting. I am very surprised that the Nikon NOCT is sharper when shot fully open. It's pretty obvious even after TH-cam compressen. Thanks for making the comparison video.
How is that surprising? It's a huge lens without compromises!
The Leica is mostly expensive because of its name.
Hi Markus please take notice to my reply 👋🏻
@@Leicashootr 😊
So not only is the Nikon lens sharper wide open, it is one stop brighter and the same apertures.
and more bokeh
i cant afford neither, why am i watching this at midnight 2 o clock
Best comment!!!!
LOL right 😝
12:08 - results at f/0.95
Nikkor, for IQ & price. Leica Noctilux, for portability. I think Leica need to get the drafting table ready. Hey thanks, for taking the time to produce this article.
At f/0.95 - 12:45 in your video - the Nikkor is very obviously sharper on my 4k stream and monitor. I was surprised when you said they were both "pinpoint" sharp because, very clearly, they were not.
Interesting, will have a look. Clearly when I record this live on my macbook pro I see the Retina screen and not the 4K stream ...
I love nikon camera and lenses....
The Z Mount showing all its potential here.
Marketing rubbish. The Leica is 12 years old. The 75mm Noctilux is significantly better because it's new.
Little Dua Also because of the Z mount size
@@terrywbreedlove That's just marketing rubbish though. Leica had 0.95 12 years ago with a small mount. Look at the size difference between this Noct and the Leica. It's ridiculous!
Little Dua No it is not you can see in every test even the kit lens is sharper edge to edge than even the more expensive new lenses from other manufactures. Canon and Nikon both went with these large and shallow mounts for a reason they work.
@@terrywbreedlove No. Wider mounts make it easier and cheaper to design faster lenses, that is all. Look at the Leica 75mm Noctilux, it blows anything from Nikon out of the water with a small mount. Some Sony G Master lenses are exceptional also, again a small mount. You are just falling for the marketing. This lens is a monstrosity, almost useless for what you use a Leica Noctilux for and is incredibly expensive too and not significantly better. The size of it, it should be far better because bigger lenses are always easier to design.
nikon 58 0.95 vs otus 55 1.4?
The Nikon NOCT is an awesome lens. 🤪
Nikkor lens makes some amazing out of focus areas, better balls and also much better at controlling chromatic aberration and that kind of thing...Now where did I put that 8k? Also time to hit the gym so I can carry it.
Bei 0.95 scheint das Noct rein technisch haushoch überlegen. Das Noctilux mag trotzdem in vielen Situationen schöner rendern. Gleicher Bildausschnitt und eine realistischere Bewertung bei 0.95 wären schön gewesen, hätte hier fast abgebrochen, die Unterschiede sind riesig und es wird nichts dazu gesagt. Mir scheint die Fokussierung auch nicht sauber gewesen zu sein, vmtl. wurde nach abblenden nicht neu fokussiert?
@mathphotographer
maybe you could use the noctilux with an m10 as the lens was made for M mount.
The Leica M10 is only 24MP, so it would be unfair to compare it with a 45MP Nikon.
Would love to see you adapt one of these to a gfx 100s. Can you measure depth of field in microns :-)
Thank you for this! not many of us have the where with all to buy both lenses/systems to compare. Very nice shoot out. I would buy the Leica for the smaller size and the (in my opinion) superior color and micro-contrast. That said, the Z is a fantastic system and that lens is butter wide open.
The first Leica NOCTILUX F/0.95 was manufactured 2008 and are still on the assembly line, when is the Leica lens made you are comparing in the video?
The first Nikon NOCT F/0.95 was released (....thinking...) nov - dec 2019...
We are talking up to eleven (11) years here, I think much progress have being done making the glas to the lenses...
Yes, as we can clearly see in this comparison.
12:51 You have to be kidding right ? Pointing at the IQ4 logo and said " They are both pin point sharp".
Anyone see that would instantly point out the IQ4 logo is much sharper on the Nikon Noct image, come on.
Yeah, I saw that and am wondering if this guy got sponsored by Leica to review this lens. The Leica looks soft.
Did anyone notice that Leica image has 2x time longer exposure at wide open? At same ISO. WHY?
Because same F stop number (the diameter of the entrance pupil) does not mean the same T stop number(the amount of light coming in). A perfect F1.4 lens with complete transparent glass will have T1.4 as its T stop number, yet if you have a lens made out of low-level glass, the amount of light coming in will be reduced. Another factor is that the actual ISO of the camera is not what is labeled as iso100. Different camera companies with different sensor will have different base iso marked as iso100( which might actually be iso72 or even lower)
@@midfidelity7180 it's funny to hear "low level glass" about Leica lens 12k cost :)
Yes, i know all what you are talking about. My point is that this fact is important, as well as the sharpness. Especially when we're talking about 0,95 lens. And we should know, that in low light conditions leica lens give your a shutter speed is about at the nikon level at 1.4.
That's... Interesting.
@@SlonikSmile Because this Leica lens's optical performance is very weak compared to many other lenses. Its resolution, CA, color fringing and distortion control are not desirable with regard to that price. It's more like a luxury toy than an actual tool. Leica lenses are kinda like those expansive mechanical watches: old fashion way of build, looks great, expensive, and outperformed by modern quartz watches.
I read somewhere when the Z line was first introduced that S-lenses transmit more light at given aperture that it may actually be half a stop better than rivals. Effectively 1.8 aperture in S-lenses is more like 1.4 with others. Read first materials that came out from Nikon. Didn't believe it first. But this a second video that shows this in reality.
@@faisalalha1786 It is somewhat true that some Z lenses have relatively better light transmission than comparable lenses, but it is really more like f/1.4 lenses (such as Sigma's) are T/1.6, while Nikon's f/1.8 are T/1.8, so the 1.4s are still better. This Leica is not designed for low light usage like the Nikon is, but for creamy bokeh and rendering. The fact that the Nikon has such better light transmission is a result of the much larger front element, and the employment of advanced lens coatings not available when the Leica was designed.
Hello and thank you for this very interesting review.
In a different vein, would you say that the Nikon Z7 is "superior" to the Leica SL2?
I'm an old user of M (M3, M6 and M10) but framing with the 90mm gets harder! So I wonder about hybrids and their technologies because I would like to shoot more pictures of landscapes, pose-longs ...
I think it is very hard to say that the SL2 is better than the Nikon Z7 or vice versa. Both are excellent cameras. I probably should do a video on the comparison and mention all the differences and pros and cons but I have not found the time yet. Maybe I come to it in the course of the year.
Leica is ridiculously overpriced. Go for the nikon.
@@pierrevilley6675 if weight is a matter then I choose the Leica .
I would be interested comparing the Z 50mm 1.8 with the 58 0.95, I know it's an odd comparison, I want to see th $7000 difference. The Nikon 1.8 is most likely sharper that the Leica 0.95.
Great video! Center sharpness is OK on both, would be nice to see the corner sharpness. Also onion rings seem more visible on Leica
That would be difficult to asses as the SL2's sensor stack differences would have a non-zero effect on the old Noctilux's corner sharpness, while testing on an M10 would put it at a megapixel disadvantage, and comparing that to an equivalent megapixel Nikon Z6 would then introduce problems due to the Z6's heavy AA filter. So not possible to do it real justice.
Nice test but I feel you were conservative with appreciating how good Nikon is. Definitely way better than Leica...considering how old the Leica is, they are charging quite a lot more. Not to mention Z7 seems to be a terrific body!
Leica has that Red Dot tax after all...
Thank you for the video. A couple of things, worth mentioning. I realise you are comparing the Noct and Noctilux side by side but the difference in focal length does make a difference and if you compensated for the extra focal length by moving the Noct back slightly, so the subject is the same size, you should see the Noct has even creamer bokah.
In the real world, which the Noct is going to be slightly better optically, most of this is go to be lost unless pixel peeping and no client is ever going to notice.
Oddly, this reminds me of the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4e vs the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art. The Nikkor is optically smaller and lighter but the Sigma is optically slightly better but cheaper. Every day of the week, I would probably go for the Nikkor because of the weight size difference.
In the end, the Noct is really a test bed/marketing lens for Nikon. Yes, it is great but very few are going to buy it (though I do see some rental potential) and most people don't pixel peep or really notice that much smoother background. Really we will see what Nikon are capable with with the Z mount, when they release a 50mm f/1.2z, which should be far superior wide open than most 50mm lenses but at a 1/3 of the price of the 58mm.
Hi
Please take a closer look at the new Huawei p40pro + camera (zoom and night mode, etc.).
Smartphone ? Laughable.
Thanks for the video, very good comparison. It would be highly appreciated if you can review Leica APO Summicron 35mm f/2 lens on SL2 body.
... vs Sigma 35mm f/1.2 @ f/2
2) Lux SL 50mm f/1.4, Lumix Pro 50mm, Cron SL f/2 all @f/2.0
Great comparison. I think the thing we’re missing here is the understanding that the Leica has to be graded on a slight curve. Although it’s adapted to a mirrorless camera in the video, its intended use is on an M rangefinder camera. I’ve used one on my M6 and let me tell you, if this thing were even one gram heavier, one millimeter larger, it’d be too much. Lenses for these cameras have to be as compact as possible, a constraint not present on the Nikon Z series. Leica achieved a technical miracle when they made it so compact, but to make it a true apples-to-apples comparison, we’d have to wait for Leica to make a native lens for the SL. Still though, great video, very informative!
That's exactly what you'd expect considering the size and weight difference. The Noctilux is already huge on an M Body and it wouldn't really make sense for Leica to build a bigger and better version (at least for M line)
Excellent job as usual, mate! Would be magnificent see a comparison (on SL2 and S1R) between:
Lux SL 50mm f/1.4,
Lumix S Pro 50mm f/1.4,
Cron SL 50mm f/2.0,
Sigma 40mm f/1.4
all @ f/2.0 at least
What do you think?
P.S. you could add Nikkor S 50mm f/1.8 of course, but it might be a bit over the top.
Add the Voigtlander 50/2 APO-Lanther into that mix too, as it can be easily adapted to Nikon Z.
Why not adopt the Noctilux to the Nikon z7. So that the test becomes far more evenly poised..
The Nikon appears to be optically superior at 0.95 and 1.4 and I have no idea what is going on with the non circular out of focus bits of the Leica but, if money was no object I'd still choose the Leica lens. That thing on the Nikon is larger than my 30 year old 80~200 F2.8 AF-ED zoom. Who the hell is going to hold that thing in the dark and take photos?
I own the noctilux and the canon 0.95, both are decent size and compact, the canon being crazy small! Nothing compares to it, I still love the image of the canon and it is quite sharp in the middle with heavy ghosting and creamy bokeh, again I think price is very comparable but the huge size of the Nikon will raise eyebrows, not the Noct being sharper than the noctilux
@@ronitsingh85 I agree. I also would like to point out that sharpness is not the right parameter to gauge the quality of the these specialized lenses with. These are clearly designed to work handheld in near darkness and that is where and how they should be tested. This is like comparing vehicles only on the basis of which drives faster without considering handling. That is why I stated that if need was there and money was no object I'd still choose the Leica without hesitation. It may not be as optically perfect as the Nikon @ F0.95 and F1.4 but it is a superior lens. I still can not comprehend what is going on with those out of round defocused points of light though. Perhaps another sample should be tested.
lensman57 indeed, you can see that the vloger mentions that hdmi on the bottom is not as clear on the Leica, maybe it’s because it’s shallow depth of field!? But you can see that the number 4 is in sharp focus, it could be the range of sharpness the Leica has vs the Nikon, indeed the bokeh has me thinking, Leica has 10 aperture blades and indeed its not perfectly rounded. I don’t mind, the lens is sharp enough for me and I will not use the noct as it’s so big and although the focus throw is so precise, it will take forever to focus on a moving or still image, Leica made it 120 degrees for a reason, I wish they had done 180 at least like the canon 0.95, now that is even more creamier with even the focus bits so dreamy, I like that too and appreciate the shape and size, that is one of the reasons I have it and use it, 5 elements only.
lensman57 he may but the vloger is a Leica user and I am sure he did good on focusing both the lenses. Certainly someone should test both out in low light conditions
Very nice test. It would be great to add the Voigtlander 50 F1 into the mix
Thanks Markus. I should actually talk about Voigtlander lenses, good proposal, thanks.
12.50: The Nikkon is clearly a lot sharper with much more contrast and no chromatic abberations. The Leica looks soft, hazy due to spherical abberations, has purple fringing all along contrasting edges and even the bokeh has strong green outlining whereas the Nikkon remains neutral. They don't look comparable at all to me.
I mean, in Germany these lenses are pretty close in price and honestly, they are both made for people that don't have to look at price tags anyway. But they are designed for very different purpose. The Noct is supposed to render a specific way with smooth out of focus areas at all cost (in terms of size and weight). The Leica is designed to enable handheld photography in the dark. So ... kinda pointless comparison. More interesting would be the Noct against the Otus 55mm.
If the Leica is designed for the dark then why is its light transmission so much worse than the Nikon's? Leica could have relaxed the aperture constraints to f/1.4 and gotten a lens that performs the same in the dark. So smooth bokeh must have been a priory for Leica too. I do agree that the Nikon is probably intended for use on a tripod though.
@@Bayonet1809 Please keep in mind that the design for the leica was done with film in mind. While the SL does a fine job with M lenses (I do use mine for that but the 601, not the SL2), there is still light being lost due to the grid/filter array.
@@noenken The Noctilux was released in 2008, two years AFTER the Leica M8, the first digital M. I doubt that Leica would have not considered their digital sensors when developing this lens.
@@Bayonet1809 The M8 was made as an APS-C camera because Leica wasn't sure to ever be able to fit a full frame sensor into an M body. The Noctilux is clearly not designed with APS-C in mind, is it? Also the fact that Leica is still modifying their M sensors with microlenses to work better with those lenses should tell you something. Sure, designing and building a new camera (and the first digital M at that) takes time. But trust me, designing lenses takes more time. And right at the start of that process you have to decide what the lens should be made for. If you just glance over some dates you could easily think that it must be for digital. But when you dig a little deeper it just doesn't add up. The Noctilux was made for film.
@@noenken I disagree that the light transmission loss is due to the SL2's digital sensor. My understanding is that the light transmission loss is inherent to the lens design and coatings. And even if it is not what relevance does the Noctilux's performance on film have to do with the digital world today? If the Noctilux only fulfills its original design goal (of night use according to you) on film (which is much less light sensitive than today's digital sensors) then what reason is it still sold for? I would argue that it is for bokeh and rendering, which is exactly why this comparison with the Noct is relevant, because they compete in the same area.
You ignored the difference in framing and compression between a 50mm and a 58mm lens as being negligeble?
Apart from that a well demonstrated video.
The biggest M lense is still so small.
Then came the 75mm Noctilux F1.25 and 90mm Summilux F1.5...
nikon destroy leica( look for bookeh at 0.95 or 1.4 --- on leica looks like finger prints inside bubbles)
That is probably due to uneven polishing on the aspherical elements.
leica is not a true 0.95. maybe in construction but not in performance
at 13:15 you can see that Nikon is sharper, why he did not mentioned it and keep saying they are the same
Watch again and listen to what he is saying ;) Start at 13:08
Very interesting video and thank you for taking the trouble to produce it. For me, the overall rendering is the main issue. Plus the weight. Overall, I prefer the Noctilux.
Also one advantage the Nikon has is the Lens function button, with an option to set this to MAGNIFICATION, 1:1, 100%, etc. to further aid in accurate focus, and to use this feature FAST!! via custom control assignment, not by menu access.
Hard to tell with TH-cam obviously but the Nikon looks dramatically sharper - or at least free of ghosting - at f/0.95 (and yes, before everyone reacts with anger at this observation, this is as you'd expect for a newer, heavier lens).
Nikon i as good as you'd expect from a 8k lens. But the leica is very, very disappointing considering it costs 12k (except for the color).
Very thorough and objective evaluation. Most people would buy these to shoot wide open, but it's nice to know how they perform otherwise. Weight and size are a big deal to me, especially at night when I don't want to be lugging around heavy stuff.
This is one EXPENSIVE comparison to make!
Amazing review as Always !!!!!! 👍🏿
Leica images have a more contrasty look, and the noct is quite flatering dont you think?
How could you not mention the clear sharper image wide open from nikon? Leica wins quality and size for sure, but that sharpness was crazy.
I have little need for such a lens but the Nikon is a spectacular achievement . Weight not withstanding :-) . On the pro side the Nikon costs less, is sharper, has better bokeh , and clearly a better T/stop . The more shots I see from the Nikon { real life shooting not tests } the more my interest increases. Do I have £8000 worth of interest , that is a different question . Apart from size I do not see much to justify the Leica.
Interesting review. Thanks.
Also I see some geometric distortion from the Leica - the sides of picture frame in the background are not parallel , whereas on the Nikkor, they are closer to.
SG Roadie both lenses benefit from digital adjustments in this regard
Did the Spider-Man fall on the ground after taking shots with the Leica because on the Nikon pics his horizontal chest crack is bigger. To me the Nikon looks obviously better but somehow the blacks look better on the leica. All in all I wouldn’t pay 11000€ today for an old leica Noctilux and for sure I wouldn’t buy the Nikon because it’s way to heavy. Being a Sony User I wouldn’t buy any manual focus lens because the viewfinder in Sony cams suck.
Spot-on, Spiderman had an accident when I switched from one to the other camera and I had to replace the poor hero back onto the subject :)
yea you cant compare them. Peter Karbe said he could make a better and fringe free 0.95 noct but it would be 30% bigger and 10% heavier. And it would still be a LOT smaller than the Nikon. But thats not the point of the M...
the main thing is the constraint in the design of the Leica lens (which makes it so unique as well). The size of the entrance pupil has to be constrained. Its meant to be mounted on a range finder.... try that Nikon on a range finder LOL :). the M system isnt just the camera or just the lens its a whole thing that is represents a lifestyle. I wouldnt carry all day long that Nikon kit..... the Leica is small, discrete.... you can carry that
If it is your pleasure to put up with the ridiculous leica prices, and you like rangefinders, go ahead. But i doubt a 0.95 lens is easily focusable trough a rangefinder.
I personally don't care about weight, and hate rangefinders, that's why i love what nikon is doing with the Z mount, people are complaining about how lenses are becomming bigger and heavier, but for me performance is the point, i don't mind a 5-6 kg photo setup. Too bad i can't afford it...
This Nikon for full length bridal portraits would be amazing.
Leica 095 can be adapted to SONY a serie with Techart autofocus adapter with less than 50cm of close focus disatance and Leica Noc seemed a stop of shutter speed slower than NIkon's.
Vielen dank! Interesting results, I would have guessed the results would be even more different in favor of the Noct. I have the Noctilux as well as the Otus 55, I see a difference, but the intended use is different and for the kind of pictures the Leica is made for, its an absolutely wonderful lens. I thought the Otus was a beast.
in other words, having chromatic aberrations is not always a bad thing, because it gives something to the perception as well as takes. Same could be said about sharpness. Noctilux is more compact and has a Rock'n'Roll character to it, Noct is more Techno. (:
Leica Noctilux has a 120 degree focus throw, but its weighted focus so to aid in precise and fast focusing, the canon 0.95 has 180 degree focus, throw. The noctilux is small and compact and easily usable as a street lens or everyday lens, a 2008 design vs a 2019 design here, Leica is coming with a new 50mm 0.95 soon though.......... one of the issues the noctilux has is purple fringing and Leica even compares the IQ of the the noctilux to one of their most popular lenses - summilux 50mm f1.4, they say that stopped down to 2.8, the IQ of the noctilux equals the IQ of the summilux at 1.4, I guess a compact lens design at 0.95 is quite a challenge and hats off to Leica for making something that small and SHARP, it is plenty of sharp for my taste. The Noct has been designed with IQ in mind and hats off to Nikon for this, but at the cost of size and weight, Not an everyday lens, than you can say the same for the Leica noctilux, dont let the small size fool you, its a very dense lens indeed. All M lenses perform better with M bodies, the sensor has micro lenses on the edges of the sensor to align the light coming off the lens since the lens sits so close to the sensor. I wonder if Nikon does that since they lens sits even closer?? at 18mm vs 23mm for Leica M
one thing good about that large throw for the focus knob, as the dof gets smaller the MORE accurate and the smaller the movement of lens elements as any motion could de-focus the shot, the Leica is well known for this, (why you yourself mounted it on an MF leica, as it has focus Peiking on it, as opposed to the 'M' it is designed for!), so the easier it is to focus, the MORE LIKELY you are to USE it!!, that saves wasting shots on such a high MP camera, which if film is a tradgedy.
This is the most German English I've ever heard xD
Makes me homesick 😊
So you had limited exposure to Germanics speaking English. IMO this man does a great job, relatively.
@@jpdj2715 lol, I am a German educator, that's why I knew he was German right away. Nothing wrong with an accent but this one is very strong.
@@BananaCake26 - to continue the LOL, I now must assume you are of German nationality? Another LOL outside the German language realm is that speaker is Swiss - of the Confederation of Helvetians that is and never was part of Germania. Yes, his accent is strong, but I have worked with much worse and often told them "I can speak and read your language, but would think it is much more fair if we both speak a foreign language."
German educator: 1) Educator with German nationality. 2) ...?
@@jpdj2715 Yes, I am German. What exactly is the purpose of mentioning Helvetia and Germania? What does that have to do with accents and linguistics? Are you Swiss and feel insulted that I assumed someone with a German accent is German? Germany has by far the largest community of native speakers, it's the logical assumption to make.
Thanks for your video. Nikon has won me over Leica.
Leica makes pleasant lenses with character at a small size with the drawback of sharpness/quality/price/minimum focusing distance(which has a huge impact on size), while Nikon makes a technically more perfect lens at the expense of size/weight.
The Leica lens is made for cameras like the M10.
That's a viewfinder-camera. From Leica there are for the SL-system only the Summilux-SL f 1.4/50mm or the APO Summicron as 50mm lenses available right now.
The sensor of the M10 is constructed to be used with Leica M-lenses. However on the SL there will be a little loss of quality.
Adapting Leica M-lenses to Sonys cameras ist similar: They perform better at the M10.
4.900,00 € *
@@w.scholz9705 Yes I do wonder a about the distance from sensor to lens and about pixel well pitch and such... Would have liked to see this test with the M10 instead of the SL2
A test of both lenses on the same sensor would be interesting. Great work, thank you 🙏
Excellent review thanks!
The Leica lens is however made for cameras like the M10.
The SL-cameras have different sensors.
So the question remains how the Leica compares to the Nikon when mounted to an M10.
The M10 only has 24MP, so it would be an unfair comparison.
@@Bayonet1809 In most cases nobody needs more than 24MP.
The point is, that a lens that is made for a view-finder camera like M9, 240 or M10 behaves different on sensors of other cameras.
Put certain M-lenses on Sonys A9 or A7 R III and they perform like cheap glass ...
Also on Leicas SL they are less good ...
I think in the future Leica will produce comperable lenses for the SL2.
@@w.scholz9705 You may not need more than 24MP, but lots of other people do. If you don't care about resolution then why even care about comparing lens sharpness?
If you compared the Noctilux on an M10 then the lack of megapixels compared to a Z7 would make it look even less sharp than on an SL2.
I know there are sensor stack differences between rangefinder and EVF cameras, however these are minimal in the center of the frame on a non-wide angle lens, especially on a Leica SL. This video only tested central sharpness, if it tested corner sharpness then you would have a valid complaint.
@@Bayonet1809 If sharpness is relevant on uses not an f/0.95 Noctilux, but rather lenses like a 2.0/50mm APO Summicron.
Sharpness is however not identical to resolution and also not the only criteria of a lens.
The Noctilux belongs to an M10. It works also on a decades old analog M3, that doesn't even need any battery. ...
I am sure, that - when it comes to high resolution - the 1.4/50 SL-Lens from Leica performs better on the SL2 than the Noctilux.
A f0.95/50mm SL-lens, (that could benefit from the advantages of the SL-mount) does at the moment not exist at all.
The Nikon-lens is - so to speak - uncomperable.
And if there is one thing Nikon engeneers know to do, then it is building lenses.
@@w.scholz9705 I know sharpness is not the same as resolution, but that it is one element of it, with the others being contrast and sampling rate (pixels or film grain). I never claimed that sharpness is the only criteria of a lens, only that you are contradicting yourself by discarding the relevance of better sampling (more megapixels) but still comparing sharpness. This is ridiculous precisely because the two are linked!
One moment you question how this comparison would go if the Noctilux was on an M10 (with the inference here being that the SL2 is compromising its performance) then you claim that sharpness is not relevant and that if it was the APO cron should be used. Do you not see another contradiction here. If you don't care about the Noctilux's sharpness then why complain about this test using it on an SL2!
I think this comparison was very logical, they are both f/0.95 lenses and a lot of people are interested to see how they compare (as proven by the view numbers). I also think this comparison is the best that could be done under the circumstances, with good practice taken to present each lens in its best light. The only issue I have with the parameters is that for a base ISO test it should be using ISO64 on the Nikon, but that is an inconsequentially minor issue.
Nicely done comparison. Nikon wins in term of technical image quality but with size penalty, while Leica wins in practicality but if you can live with some aberations (some people call it characters). For me, I think I'll stick with f/1.4 - f/2 lenses for practicality (DOF, size, and weight).
Very nice work again, thank you!
but leica fans says Nikon doesn't have the soul and character of the leica ,i shoot Fuji gfx and nikon d810/d850 i have tried leica lenses on my gfx ,in my eyes the Leica has better microcontrast that is not sharpness but how well it records shadows tonality the noct from nikon is more like zeiss otus Sharp and nothing more than that the leica images looks darker that is not because its underexposed but it records more shadows than the nikon does, or the nikon is not brighter but has less shadows recorded
8mm extra on the Nikkor helps too.
Noct clearly sharper more detail more contrast wide open. FAR less fringing and abberation. Bro the Noct is clearly performing better wide open
Matt! It's clear the Nikon was way sharper! Might as well put the Nikon Noct on the Leica :-) Perhaps it's time for Leica to update their glass since the Leica Noct is now old
Noctilux is 12y old lens and made specifically for small M-mount camera with all underlying physical limitations. It is stellar for its size. And remember, sharpness is not the only thing what makes lens good. When SL mount Noctilux will be released - that will be a fair comparison.
It is smaller than a regular 50 1.4. Half of Sigma Art. That is crazy.
If they both weighed the same, I would sell the Leica nocti and buy the Nikon outfit. I prefer a 60mm (58mm) to 50mmnand the Nikon is buttery smooth and sharper.
I have the Leica Noctilux so I MAY be slightly biased, but - for shooting on the street - the Nikon lens is a monster by comparison. Henri Cartier-Bresson's Leica 3f was, I imagine, very, very small and light compared to my M10 with the f0.95 Noctilux attached. Imagine what Henri would think of this Nikon lens!
If your subjects aren't instantly intimidated by your lens, you clearly need a bigger one
Hence the Noct
@@logitech4873, no, there really are some things you can do with the f0.95 Noctilux that you can't do with lesser lenses, like shoot at ISO 100 and, at the same time, a shutter speed of 1/250 sec. Even the Leica Noctilux weighs a ton.
My impression as you said is thet the time of conception for each lens makes a difference. The difference in the rubber engraving is axctually explained by an improved color contrast in the newer Nikon. The Leica Noctilux has always yielded best quality imagery around F8 even in the earlier iterations.
But why buy this lens, or the Nikon. It is purchased for low light and extreme shallow depth of field shooting. So it was a nice test and each photographer will choose which he likes. As the review stated, you pays your money and makes your choice.
I agree totally with you,Leica is better in some many ways,and you don't have to carry with a extremely big and heavy lens the Nikon use.
The Leica is clearly much much softer than the Nikon. Not sure why you said there is no difference.
as a leica fanboy, the noct is technically a better lens for sure. but the noct doesn't fit on a Leica M body. you have to really peep to see the superiority of the noct.
You should consider how much BIGGER the Nikon Noct is! It is way more optically corrected and it is a newer lens. For its size and age, the Leica Noctilux is very impressive. Lets face it though, the potential buyer of either lenses is never going to be comparing them on a sharpness scale!!! They are made for different types of photographers...
Fair comment, thanks!
It's not even close. At .95 the Noct outperformed it in every metric. But that's to be expected considering the difference in size
Great vid! Nikon wins by a bit, but that weight is awful. Not to mention style, o la la. I would take Leica if I had the choice.
Both are great cameras and great lenses :)
love the channel 📸
Thanks Adolfo :)
should use m11 or sl3 compare z7
One big difference, the Leica noctilux is optimized for the M rangefinder camera not for the Sl 2 body.
The Nikon lens is optimized for the Nikon body, so that’s why it’s sharpness is a tiny bit better almost not noticeable.
Good point, that might have contributed to the tiny little differences since Leica indeed optimizes lenses for the system they are made for and the Noctilux has not been calculated for the SL system but for the M system. Good catch, should have mentioned! The Noctilux is also newly developed, I think I mentioned that, and clearly calculated for the Nikon sensor.
His adaptator ring has no impact on image quality since it have no glass, Lenses are optimized to make an image at a certain distance of the mount, as long as this distance is respected, there will be no impact on image quality (the differences will be on the number of megapiwels and the size of the sensor). The nikon is just better, cheaper, and the difference in sharpness, bokeh, and fringing is obvious, even after youtube compression. And it was to be expected since nikon noct is newer, bigger and heavier.
Leica did a miracle with this lens, packing so much quality and aperture in a tiny lense, but it can't keep up with a bigger and heavier design.
С такими камерами приятно добиваться прекрасных результатов.
I like your methodical approach to testing these lenses, it's so important to be accurate when you're in an ultra precision field like these specialized lenses. However, I think diving so deep also sets certain expectations regarding your own scrutiny. As many people have pointed out, there are clearly visible differences between the Noct and Noctilux. The sharpness wide open, and the quality of the bokeh balls when stopped down. I think I understand where you're coming from however. This is pixel peeping, and in real life situations it would probably be very hard to spot differences. It's just that when you pay this much money for these very high end lenses, you probably care a lot about those last few differences. Also, given that you pointed out how much larger the Noct is, but then failed to draw the lines between that last bit of image quality and size, your review sadly comes across as slightly biased towards the Noctilux.
if they put more aperture blades on Noctilux for round boke and focus 360 ,will by the same ,easy fix
12:50 I’m sorry, but no. They are not at all equally sharp. The Nikon is, looking purely at IQ, the superior lens. You can clearly see it, from wide-open to stopped down.
Not saying that sharpness is everything, because it definitely is not. But if there HAD to be a choice between the two, lucky fellow, I think it really comes down to the type of shoot you’re going after.
Spontaneous and flexible?
-> Leica Noctilux.
IQ and tripod work?
-> Nikkor Nocr.
Now, I do wonder how the Nikkor Noct compares to Zeiss Otus and Milvus.
Thanks for the video.
The Nikon is better, but the Leica is the one I will actually take outside with me. The Nikon is simple to big for a ~50mm lens.
Thank you for the video it helped me make my buying decission. 😁
The Nikon is impressive. Seems to be a little higher in local contrast than the Leica, which gives the impression of higher resolution. But the size & weight… 😮 And when it came out I thought the Noctilux was a big lens!
Thanks for doing this. It’s fun to make (and watch) these comparisons.
The Noctilux is tiny. Smaller than a regular 50mm 1.4.
weizenobst müsli Yes, smaller than a typical modern SLR 50/1.4. The current Leica 50/1.4 Summilux is smaller still…one of the pluses of using the M system.
Just want to note that the Nikon and Leica are designed with very different philosophy in mind.
Also:
1. Leica noctilux is designed to be used on a very portable system (Leica M). Not the Leica SL2. So at best, it is only an adaptive lens. NOT designed to be used on the SL2.
2. Noct nikkor is made to demonstrate the capability of Nikons lens making prowess. It is not meant to be use widely in the consumer market. Leica noctilux is a nod to the past. One looking forward, one looking back.
3. The lens design. One is designed in modern era with aspherical elements, ED glass and extreme coatings on lens elements. the other is based on a old lens formula.
Interessanter Bericht über zwei Exoten den man nicht alle Tage sieht. Würde mich eher aus Gewichtsgründen für das Leica -Objektiv entscheiden. Könnte mir auch vorstellen, das dass Noctilux wertstabiler ist. In Deutschland ist der Preisunterschied nicht ganz so groß. 9000e zu 10600e. Gruß. Wolper.
He missed the focus with the Leica on f0.95, you can see by the made in Germany and focal range of the lens
In the Leica, the focal range is more in focus and in the nikon the made in Germany is more in focus
But from a chromatic aberration and price perspective the nikon is better and a little sharper
When I see this video, on TH-cam which is heavily compressed which will benefit the weaker lens, the Nikkor still completely crushes the Leica at f0.95. Look at the sharpness of the white text against the black rubber, the Leica has haloing, the Nikon doesn't, The Nikon is clearly sharper. Look at the distance scale on the lens showing how the Nikon is clearly sharper moving away from the centre. Look at the purple fringing on the Leica which isn't there on the Nikon.
There's a huge difference, and you say the look the same? On what planet? How?
The bokeh difference probably comes from 50 vs 58 mm..
Some of it, true, but also the straight aperture blades which tend to give bokeh more structure when stopped down. The Nikon has rounded blades.