Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug Richardson wrote: > The big question for any prospective Nocti purchaser is whether that > extra stop is worth the expense, bulk, and weight. My 50mm f1.5 > Jupiter is a fraction of the weight of the bigger lens, and was 1/30 > of the cost I don't know much about the Jupiter 1.5. I had a F2 once, but this was at least mechanically pretty lousy. The way you say it, the Jupiter 1.5 is of the same qualityas the Noctilux at least from f1.5 or 1.4 onwards. And this for 1/30th of the price. I really have some doubts about this. > > I shoot slides, so don't have the range of high speed > emulsions available to the colour negative user. Otherwise, I'd have > loaded a second body with faster film, relied on the Jupiter, and > saved myself lots of money. > > Ok, then you may as well use a f3.5 Elmar, and a 7 times faster film. However what film are you comparing this too. A 50 ASA film? Or a 400ASA film. If you using a 50 ASA film, you probably have a good reason to do so. Grain etc. You could then with the same results (Exposure wise) use the Elmar with a 400 ASA. I would say, there are differences you may not want. If you did, then you would have used the 400 ASA film or faster with the Noctilux. Then, where does that leave you with the Elmar? To get the same results, you have to use a 3200ASA film. If you like the 3200ASA film, you can use it also with the Noctilux, to do real high speed available light stuff. What are you going to use to bring your slower lens up to speed? We'll run out of film speeds. Luckily, otherwise this could have gone on at infinitum. The bottom line is, you can not get the same results with a slower lens, by increasing film speed. Something suffers. Regards, Horst Schmidt > Regards, >