Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] noct performance
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 20:29:55 -0400

Touche' Anthony :-)


> > As someone wiser than I has already suggested, stop trying
> > to compare every damn lens on the face of the earth.
>
> An interesting statement on a Leica mailing list!  Sometimes I
> think that Leica
> enthusiasts spend 95% of their time comparing lenses.  I'm relatively
> uninterested in comparison.

	The simple point that is being made is that the Noctilux is not most
people's idea of a normal lens. Life is a series of tradeoffs, just face it.
Your options are limited by your desires and needs, the world, and your
pocketbook. The world as it is today has certain limitations. For example,
the Noctilux 50/1 stopped down may have lower resolution than a Summicron
50/2, there is also the Summilux 50/1.4. On the other hand you already use a
zoom frequently so you have shown your willingness to compromise on
technical quality for convenience or whatever. In a more perfect world the
Noctilux would have better resolution than the Elmar 65 from f1-f64, weigh
50 grams and cost $100. Every lens design *ever* makes a tradeoff, cost,
performance, etc etc etc. These are the options, these are the facts, you
have a checkbook, you make your choices. A more interesting comparison would
be between the Noct and the Canon 50/1.0 ...

Jonathan Borden