I got to use this lens for a little over a month and had a blast with it. It took some really cool images. I also did quite a bit of astrophotography with it, but when using it at night, I quickly discovered that the lens has one fatal flaw: It has a horrible large circular central reflection and it doesn’t really go away stopping down. It’s not a flare, but a reflection, I assume, from one of the many internal elements. This will show up if you point it at a bright light in a dark scene, but for astrophotography it means you can’t use flat frames to correct vignetting and dust (the reflection is clearly visible in flat frames), but also, even without flat frames, if you start stacking many frames together and stretch them, this central reflection will show up and be uncorrectable.
Joel Miller
January 11, 2025 5:41 am
The Hope Diamond of lenses: a unique, astoundingly superb object with amazing characteristics. I’ve seen the Hope in the Smithsonian, and that’s about as close as I can get to touching the Noct! And, like the Hope, if I had it I’d be afraid to actually touch it. I’ll just have to stick with my beautiful but obtainable Plena. I can actually touch it without alarms going off! It sparkles pretty well itself.
Joe L
January 10, 2025 1:50 pm
I’d be very interested to see a comparison of this lens to the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.
This lens would destroy it, it’s technically a marvel. It’s not only a marvel of engineering, it’s optical perfection. Or as close to it as you can get! I’ve had the pleasure of renting the 58mm f/0.95 Noct and it’s as well built as the 500mm f/4E FL and 180-400mm f/4E FL lenses. If I was a portrait or wedding photographer…I’d definitely consider getting one, mint used. It’s akin to having 600mm f/4 but being able to use it much closer and it’s lighter/smaller. It’s one of few lenses that can give you that incredible sharpness, contrast, separation and bokeh or transitions that are special. The biggest downside is the lack of AF and the reason I’d definitely have to rent one once again before buying it.
I’m decent at manually focusing Nikon lenses, due to being a 30 year veteran wildlife photographer and photojournalist. We almost use or have a super-reel prime or zoom and sometimes you need to manually override to get it where you want. Though those days are long over, I hardly ever need to help my 500mm f/4E FL, it along with my D6 or Z9 and I don’t need it. Both have such great autofocus that it’s like cheating. Anyways, I can tell you the Noct is a stunning lens in every regard. It’s incredibly sharp stopped down just a tad, and it really does produce a uniquely stunning image. I can see cinema photographer’s switching to Nikon/Red in the coming years. So maybe the 58mm 0.95 Noct will a find new user base. Hollywood has bought and used unique and expensive Nikon lenses. The manual focusing ring is super smooth and using with focus peaking on is pretty simple, unless your subjects moving. I doubt I’ll see another in my life, I don’t really see myself getting one, but if I had all the money…I’d buy one!
Richard
January 9, 2025 6:04 pm
And there you have it. Seems like a great lens to rent once in a while.
Robert John
January 5, 2025 10:51 am
Well, I suppose there’s thems who punt £10,000,000 or so on a 250 mph Bugatti. Not much use for getting from A to B in traffic. Or in a 55 mph speed limit.
Michael Lee
January 4, 2025 11:33 am
I genuinely don’t understand who would want to buy this lens even if you have the financial means to do so. Yes it’s fantastic optically speaking but it’s also a manual focus lens only. I honestly think the Nikon Z 50 f/1.2 S lens is a far more practical lens at quarter of the price and you would have to look real hard to notice any tangible difference in sharpness and image quality.
1. I already own a about 20 manual focus lenses that I use on a regular basis on my ZF and they are the reason that I purchased the ZF. They are mostly AIS professional lenses from their day. I also count the 28 1.4D, 85 1.4D and 135 2.0D in this category. I am comfortable shooting manual focus on the Noct for the same reason I am comfortable shooting manual focus on my other lenses.
Shooting manual focus is a joy, for the same reason driving a Bugatti or shooting a Leica is a joy. Too many gearheads cannot wrap their heads around photography being a joy and suck the joy out of the room – which is why people that get joy out of photography can’t stand them. Photography is a joy and that is why I spend a fortune on it – in numerous ways besides manual focus.
Further, if you can’t deal with manual focus, you are lacking a critical technical skill. Even if you master manual focus, and mastering it on the Noct and something like a 200mm 2.8 would be a litmus test for this technical competency, and never use it again, you will be much better at judging the quality of your focus when using af.
2. If you can’t tell the difference between the 50 1.2S and the Noct on image quality without looking too hard, then you will not be able to tell the difference between the 50 1.8S and 50 1.2S without looking to hard. If this is your thinking, then I recommend the 50 1.8S. I own all three of these lenses and use them for different uses, so I know their optical characteristics like the back of my hand. Unless of course dof of field and bokeh are important to you and you can actually see. Then the advantage of the 50 1.2S over the 1.8S is obvious and the further benefit of the Noct is obvious on DOF but only obvious on bokeh if you can see.
3. The Noct is a statement by a company that I love about a passion that I love. On countless levels. Owning a piece of that is a privilege.
The Noct is a niche and certainly not as practical as the 50 1.2S. But I felt bad for you that you were not able to understand it. I hope that you have at least a sense of that now.
You don’t buy it just like cinematographers don’t buy matched sets of $30,000 Cooke movie lenses. You rent when you need them and then send them back.
John D
January 4, 2025 10:26 am
Hi Spencer, thank you for a great review. It looks like a pretty magical lens to me. The shallow DOF samples just look incredible and as mentioned by another commented, those with foreground blur look fantastic with rendering that does not distract in any way, imo. I read your review of the Z50/1.2, but the sample images in that review do not lean into the shallow DOF capabilities, which I would have liked to have seen. I’m really curious now how the 50/1.2 would compare to this magnificent 58/0.95 in terms of the quality of the out of focus areas with similar captures compared side by side. I certainly can’t justify $8000 for my usage but boy it sure looks like it’s worth every penny.
The 50 1.2S is beautiful. When I bought it I had owned the 50 1.8S for a while and I was shocked. The difference is both obvious an subtle at the same time.
The characteristics of the Noct’s are different. The obvious difference is the edges and corners and in this way the Noct was a harbinger for the Plena. Otherwise, it is hard to say if it is better. Despite the bokeh being beautiful like the 50 1.2S, I actually prefer the bokeh on my 85 1.2S and Plena more. But only a little more. These four lenses are in their own class in the Z mount (with the 85 1.8S being a surprising runner up). Kind of like the 28 1.4E, 105 1.4E and 135 DC 2.0, which I also own, are in a class of their own in the F mount.
Tony Studans
January 4, 2025 12:04 am
I thought the whole advantage of mirrorless cameras was to make smaller, lighter and less expensive bodies and lenses. Yet the z8/9 are rather substantial, and this 85mm lens looks to be as long as a 70-200 zoom.
As for less expensive, OMG, look at the prices being asked.
Looks like I am staying with brilliant, inexpensive (by comparison) f-mount lenses for a very long time to come.
The Z8 should be thought of as a D850-like camera (but not exactly, it’s more like a small D6), and it’s lighter than the D850. Second, this lens is just a showpiece lens for specialized applications. The other lenses are much more manageable in size and cost. Third, you can get much smaller mirrorless cameras, like the Z6 III for example. Pretty small camera in my opinion. Fourth, the point of mirrorless is not really to make cameras lighter, they have a whole host of other advantages: silent shutter, lack of mechanical shutter in some cases, IBIS (stabilization through the viewfinder), much better video, superior AF capabilities due to using sensor data for AF, etc. In a few cases, lighter was the objective, but then if you want that, the Sony A7 C is not bad or even a Nikon Z50 II — fairly small and cheap for what it provides.
Some of the Nikon lenses are more expensive that the F-mount versions like the Nikon 50mm f/1.8S versus 50mm f/1.8G, but the latter, while a great lens, is very soft wide open compared to the brilliant performance of the 1.8S so you are getting a lot more for your money.
That narrative of “should be smaller/lighter” was a marketing spin by Olympus around 2010. No other manufacturer ever said mirrorless should mean smaller/lighter. That said, the Z8 with 24-70 2.8 is a smaller and lighter package than a D850 with the 24-70 2.8E. The Z9 with 14-24 is a smaller and lighter package than a D6 with 14-24. A Z6III is smaller and lighter than a D750/780. A Z30 is smaller than an any camera from the D3xxx series. The 58 0.95 Noct is basically a cine lens intended for stills. It’s a statement lens absolutely and has no equal and nothing (modern) to compare it to.
Hi Marvin! Most of the other photos I have are variations on these – shallow DoF aspen photos, the Chinese lantern festival, some classic landscapes, and a few portraits. I did lend the lens to Adam for some additional portrait photography, though. He’s traveling right now, but when he gets back, I’ll ask if he has any more photos I can add to the review.
James
January 3, 2025 8:54 am
Spencer, this was a delightful read, thanks! I have never desired this lens and still don’t, but it’s really fun to see what’s possible in unrestrained lens design!
When you posted the review of the Canon 50mm f/1.2, you included comparisons to the Nikon 50mm f/1.2S and Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM. Would you be willing to add the Canon and Sony to this article? I think it’s interesting for readers to be able compare the flagship optics for each system, even if the other two are AF.
Thank you, James! Sure thing, I’ll post them all here for reference:
The Sony is as close as probably any other lens will get to the Noct in sharpness! The Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM and the Nikon Z 58mm f/0.95 Noct are the two sharpest lenses we’ve ever tested in the lab.
I judge a lens by the mid position. Think about taking a portrait orientated image of a person with the top half of the torso in the frame. The center will be on the models neck at best, or perhaps the chest. I would not pay for superior image quality for a sharper t-shirt. I pay for sharper eyes – the mid position. On this measure the Noct is first, the Sony second and the Canon third.
But here is the thing. The Plena is the equal to the Noct.
Truly technically minded experienced photographers understand these practicalities that gear heads are oblivious to.
I got to use this lens for a little over a month and had a blast with it. It took some really cool images. I also did quite a bit of astrophotography with it, but when using it at night, I quickly discovered that the lens has one fatal flaw: It has a horrible large circular central reflection and it doesn’t really go away stopping down. It’s not a flare, but a reflection, I assume, from one of the many internal elements. This will show up if you point it at a bright light in a dark scene, but for astrophotography it means you can’t use flat frames to correct vignetting and dust (the reflection is clearly visible in flat frames), but also, even without flat frames, if you start stacking many frames together and stretch them, this central reflection will show up and be uncorrectable.
The Hope Diamond of lenses: a unique, astoundingly superb object with amazing characteristics. I’ve seen the Hope in the Smithsonian, and that’s about as close as I can get to touching the Noct! And, like the Hope, if I had it I’d be afraid to actually touch it. I’ll just have to stick with my beautiful but obtainable Plena. I can actually touch it without alarms going off! It sparkles pretty well itself.
I’d be very interested to see a comparison of this lens to the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.
This lens would destroy it, it’s technically a marvel. It’s not only a marvel of engineering, it’s optical perfection. Or as close to it as you can get! I’ve had the pleasure of renting the 58mm f/0.95 Noct and it’s as well built as the 500mm f/4E FL and 180-400mm f/4E FL lenses. If I was a portrait or wedding photographer…I’d definitely consider getting one, mint used. It’s akin to having 600mm f/4 but being able to use it much closer and it’s lighter/smaller. It’s one of few lenses that can give you that incredible sharpness, contrast, separation and bokeh or transitions that are special. The biggest downside is the lack of AF and the reason I’d definitely have to rent one once again before buying it.
I’m decent at manually focusing Nikon lenses, due to being a 30 year veteran wildlife photographer and photojournalist. We almost use or have a super-reel prime or zoom and sometimes you need to manually override to get it where you want. Though those days are long over, I hardly ever need to help my 500mm f/4E FL, it along with my D6 or Z9 and I don’t need it. Both have such great autofocus that it’s like cheating. Anyways, I can tell you the Noct is a stunning lens in every regard. It’s incredibly sharp stopped down just a tad, and it really does produce a uniquely stunning image. I can see cinema photographer’s switching to Nikon/Red in the coming years. So maybe the 58mm 0.95 Noct will a find new user base. Hollywood has bought and used unique and expensive Nikon lenses. The manual focusing ring is super smooth and using with focus peaking on is pretty simple, unless your subjects moving. I doubt I’ll see another in my life, I don’t really see myself getting one, but if I had all the money…I’d buy one!
And there you have it. Seems like a great lens to rent once in a while.
Well, I suppose there’s thems who punt £10,000,000 or so on a 250 mph Bugatti. Not much use for getting from A to B in traffic. Or in a 55 mph speed limit.
I genuinely don’t understand who would want to buy this lens even if you have the financial means to do so. Yes it’s fantastic optically speaking but it’s also a manual focus lens only. I honestly think the Nikon Z 50 f/1.2 S lens is a far more practical lens at quarter of the price and you would have to look real hard to notice any tangible difference in sharpness and image quality.
As an owner, I will answer your question:
1.
I already own a about 20 manual focus lenses that I use on a regular basis on my ZF and they are the reason that I purchased the ZF. They are mostly AIS professional lenses from their day. I also count the 28 1.4D, 85 1.4D and 135 2.0D in this category. I am comfortable shooting manual focus on the Noct for the same reason I am comfortable shooting manual focus on my other lenses.
Shooting manual focus is a joy, for the same reason driving a Bugatti or shooting a Leica is a joy. Too many gearheads cannot wrap their heads around photography being a joy and suck the joy out of the room – which is why people that get joy out of photography can’t stand them. Photography is a joy and that is why I spend a fortune on it – in numerous ways besides manual focus.
Further, if you can’t deal with manual focus, you are lacking a critical technical skill. Even if you master manual focus, and mastering it on the Noct and something like a 200mm 2.8 would be a litmus test for this technical competency, and never use it again, you will be much better at judging the quality of your focus when using af.
2.
If you can’t tell the difference between the 50 1.2S and the Noct on image quality without looking too hard, then you will not be able to tell the difference between the 50 1.8S and 50 1.2S without looking to hard. If this is your thinking, then I recommend the 50 1.8S. I own all three of these lenses and use them for different uses, so I know their optical characteristics like the back of my hand. Unless of course dof of field and bokeh are important to you and you can actually see. Then the advantage of the 50 1.2S over the 1.8S is obvious and the further benefit of the Noct is obvious on DOF but only obvious on bokeh if you can see.
3.
The Noct is a statement by a company that I love about a passion that I love. On countless levels. Owning a piece of that is a privilege.
The Noct is a niche and certainly not as practical as the 50 1.2S. But I felt bad for you that you were not able to understand it. I hope that you have at least a sense of that now.
Also manual focus is the Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH, $13,295 B&H.
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/pro…rical.html
It would be interesting to test this one against the Noct.
I would expect to see noticeably different rendering wide open due to
Nikkor: 17 elements in 10 groups
Leica: 8 elements in 5 groups
You don’t buy it just like cinematographers don’t buy matched sets of $30,000 Cooke movie lenses. You rent when you need them and then send them back.
Hi Spencer, thank you for a great review. It looks like a pretty magical lens to me. The shallow DOF samples just look incredible and as mentioned by another commented, those with foreground blur look fantastic with rendering that does not distract in any way, imo. I read your review of the Z50/1.2, but the sample images in that review do not lean into the shallow DOF capabilities, which I would have liked to have seen. I’m really curious now how the 50/1.2 would compare to this magnificent 58/0.95 in terms of the quality of the out of focus areas with similar captures compared side by side. I certainly can’t justify $8000 for my usage but boy it sure looks like it’s worth every penny.
The 50 1.2S is beautiful. When I bought it I had owned the 50 1.8S for a while and I was shocked. The difference is both obvious an subtle at the same time.
The characteristics of the Noct’s are different. The obvious difference is the edges and corners and in this way the Noct was a harbinger for the Plena. Otherwise, it is hard to say if it is better. Despite the bokeh being beautiful like the 50 1.2S, I actually prefer the bokeh on my 85 1.2S and Plena more. But only a little more. These four lenses are in their own class in the Z mount (with the 85 1.8S being a surprising runner up). Kind of like the 28 1.4E, 105 1.4E and 135 DC 2.0, which I also own, are in a class of their own in the F mount.
I thought the whole advantage of mirrorless cameras was to make smaller, lighter and less expensive bodies and lenses. Yet the z8/9 are rather substantial, and this 85mm lens looks to be as long as a 70-200 zoom.
As for less expensive, OMG, look at the prices being asked.
Looks like I am staying with brilliant, inexpensive (by comparison) f-mount lenses for a very long time to come.
The Z8 should be thought of as a D850-like camera (but not exactly, it’s more like a small D6), and it’s lighter than the D850. Second, this lens is just a showpiece lens for specialized applications. The other lenses are much more manageable in size and cost. Third, you can get much smaller mirrorless cameras, like the Z6 III for example. Pretty small camera in my opinion. Fourth, the point of mirrorless is not really to make cameras lighter, they have a whole host of other advantages: silent shutter, lack of mechanical shutter in some cases, IBIS (stabilization through the viewfinder), much better video, superior AF capabilities due to using sensor data for AF, etc. In a few cases, lighter was the objective, but then if you want that, the Sony A7 C is not bad or even a Nikon Z50 II — fairly small and cheap for what it provides.
Some of the Nikon lenses are more expensive that the F-mount versions like the Nikon 50mm f/1.8S versus 50mm f/1.8G, but the latter, while a great lens, is very soft wide open compared to the brilliant performance of the 1.8S so you are getting a lot more for your money.
That narrative of “should be smaller/lighter” was a marketing spin by Olympus around 2010. No other manufacturer ever said mirrorless should mean smaller/lighter. That said, the Z8 with 24-70 2.8 is a smaller and lighter package than a D850 with the 24-70 2.8E. The Z9 with 14-24 is a smaller and lighter package than a D6 with 14-24. A Z6III is smaller and lighter than a D750/780. A Z30 is smaller than an any camera from the D3xxx series. The 58 0.95 Noct is basically a cine lens intended for stills. It’s a statement lens absolutely and has no equal and nothing (modern) to compare it to.
Z-mount is pretty decently priced.
A Z50II is about 75% of the nominal price of my D7500 6 years ago.
The 100-400 is about the same nominal price as the 80-400 about 8 years ago.
Both Z-mount are much better products.
Used F-mount is very good value now. Used Z-mount isn’t.
If F-mount serves your purposes then it’s a very good place to be.
As an old codger, I prefer my Z5, 14-30 and 24-200 to my old D610, 18-35, 24-85 and 70-200. It’s lighter, less faf and I do like the evf with filters.
Hello Spencer, are there more sample images you can add to the review?
Hi Marvin! Most of the other photos I have are variations on these – shallow DoF aspen photos, the Chinese lantern festival, some classic landscapes, and a few portraits. I did lend the lens to Adam for some additional portrait photography, though. He’s traveling right now, but when he gets back, I’ll ask if he has any more photos I can add to the review.
Spencer, this was a delightful read, thanks! I have never desired this lens and still don’t, but it’s really fun to see what’s possible in unrestrained lens design!
When you posted the review of the Canon 50mm f/1.2, you included comparisons to the Nikon 50mm f/1.2S and Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM. Would you be willing to add the Canon and Sony to this article? I think it’s interesting for readers to be able compare the flagship optics for each system, even if the other two are AF.
Again, thanks for the hard work!
Thank you, James! Sure thing, I’ll post them all here for reference:
The Sony is as close as probably any other lens will get to the Noct in sharpness! The Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM and the Nikon Z 58mm f/0.95 Noct are the two sharpest lenses we’ve ever tested in the lab.
Thanks Spencer! It’s cool to look at them side by side. The Noct and GM are both wildly sharp!
I judge a lens by the mid position. Think about taking a portrait orientated image of a person with the top half of the torso in the frame. The center will be on the models neck at best, or perhaps the chest. I would not pay for superior image quality for a sharper t-shirt. I pay for sharper eyes – the mid position. On this measure the Noct is first, the Sony second and the Canon third.
But here is the thing. The Plena is the equal to the Noct.
Truly technically minded experienced photographers understand these practicalities that gear heads are oblivious to.