Re: [Leica] Noctilux Gloom-Buster VS 75mm f/1.4 ...

[Chandos Michael Brown <cmbrow@mail.wm.edu>]

I have 'em both.  First thing I'll say is that I consider myself a pretty 
hardened Leica user.  M3 was my second 35mm camera (after a 1968 Nikon 
F).  I say this only to note that I *know* how to focus the bloody things.

The 50/1 and 75/1.4, in my opinion, are both *tough* lenses to 
master.  After nearly a year of use, I've got one Nocti. image that I'd 
show anyone:

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/photography/people/deuci.htm

and *no* 75 images that I'm entirely satisfied with.  The nearest miss is

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/photography/people/craige.htm

At their widest apertures, these lenses have *no* appreciable depth of 
field. Small movements on the subject's part will throw the image out of 
focus.  In Craig and Babe, for instance, a slight rocking backward moved 
the plane of focus from the subjects' faces to Craig's hand.  I was using a 
Rapidwinder, so I can see in the sequence exactly what happened, but it's a 
missed shot nonetheless.

I think either Hans or Erwin has written about the "special" character of 
the Noctilux and its idiosyncrasies.  Both lenses place unusual demands on 
the photographer's ability perfectly to appreciate where in any given 
moment the zone of focus actually is.  Even with the M3's hi-mag 
viewfinder, this is a tough business.  Marginal light, a fingerprint 
smeared across the VF, or perhaps a RF square that does not display 
adequate contrast: all these things *will* make working with these lenses a 
frustrating experience.  There are certainly times when I reflect that I've 
got the equivalent of a decent used car's value tied up in two lenses, 
neither one of which I can dependably employ.

But--and here, of course, is the crux: this isn't a design fault.  It is, 
perhaps, the hardest test of RF technique to use these lenses effectively, 
at least in my opinion.  In an ideal world, I'd carry nothing but the Nocti 
for several months, daily, and run hundreds of frames through it, until I 
had the drill down.  But, again, we know that neither the Nocti nor the 75 
are especially suited to this sort of casual use; they're *specialized* 
lenses, again, in my view.  I'd much rather schlep the 90 Sonnar on a G1 or 
G2 than the 75/1.4, if I'm shooting chromes out of doors, or even 
high-speed b&w in ordinary circumstances.

All of this is to say that these are unique lenses, capable of making 
unique images, but one needs to be emotionally prepared to regard with 
equanimity a pretty steady stream of misses, reflecting all the while that 
one out-of-focus image looks pretty much like another, whether it's shot 
through $2K worth of glass or $200.

Chandos


At 05:27 AM 7/7/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>         --> I'd sure like people who use or have used
>         both a Noctilux and the 75mm f/1.4 argue
>         the pros and cons of both.
>



Chandos Michael Brown
Assoc. Prof., History and American Studies
College of William and Mary

http:www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown