Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Simon Lamb wrote: > > I thoughtI would ask this as a general question although I did raise the > issue in a reply to another message. > > I have been told that if I purchase a Noctilux I should keep my 50mm f/2 as > the Noctilux should be regarded as an additional lens rather than a > replacement. Can anyone tell me the possible rationale behind this point of > view and whether you agree with it or not? > > Thanks. > > Simon > A 50mm focal length is very important to me. So I'd prefer to not turn in into a monster. I agree with it if i was heading out now to grab some shots I would not want the big Noctilux on my camera. It is a bright rainy overcast day (if that is possible). The Noctilux I'd like to have when I am on a special mission to be grabbing lurking in the midnight shadows shots. Black cat in the coal mine at midnight. THEN I'd be more than willing to have that large lens on my camera. Not for just walking around. Other than that I would NOT be willing to have that large lens on my camera. My Summicron is my lightest lens of all my lenses from 24 to 135. My wife has the new collapsible Elmar 50. The Noctilux is a special tool. In a sense the opposite of the Elmar for when you want the utmost in carry around ability without much care for ultimate glass speed. I've love my own 50 Elmar as much as I'd love a Noctilux and might get that wish before the year 2525. A Summilux someday too why not? In my Nikon system i have a 50 1.4 (which I use as a loupe) an $80 50mm 1.8 AF (so I can play with AF). A 45 GN (Same thing afaiac but pancake and "blitz" another special tool for special job lens). A 55 macro or 60 I never got but I'd consider to be just another 50 for just another reason. Mark Rabiner