Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Alan, Your question is far too practical. I am sure hte Noctilux just FELT wonderful in the hands and operated as smooth as a baby's behind... you know. All that good stuff many LUGs are concerned that really doesn't relate to photography. This is the reason the M is more a collectible than a user camera. Peter K - -----Original Message----- From: Alan Ball [mailto:AlanBall@csi.com] Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 9:44 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] here's a concept, Summilux vs. Noctilux Eric Welch wrote: > Ted and I went out one night and photographed the Parliament building in > Victoria. I used my M6 and 35 Summilux ASPH on a tripod and then Ted's > Noctilux. Eric, Doesn't the tripod kind of defeat the purpose? You could have used stepped down summicrons or elmarits in those circumstances... > but the sharpness of the 35 ASPH was visibly better, and the > Noctilux had coma in the corners that was pretty severe, and was > nonexistent in the 35 ASPH. Is the alternative more or less sharpness or the ability or not to shoot handheld pictures at EVx with ISOxxx film ? Comes my main question: does the 35mm at f1.4 allow to shoot handheld with as much darkness as the 50mm at f1, the wider angle allowing a slower shutter speed? And another question: isn't focusing MUCH more reliable for the 35mm at f1.4 than for the 50mm at f1 ? Alan