Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think the question is more complex than that. Here you have a lens that is two stops faster than another roughly-equivalent lens, but not _just_ two stops faster. It's also much more expensive, and it's heavier, and it is (from what I understand) very slightly inferior to the less expensive but slower lens at most apertures. Given the expense and weight involved, and these various factors, and assuming you cannot just go out and buy both the Noctilux and a slower 50mm lens, the choice between the two may not be obvious. I got the Noctilux because I like to have a way of shooting photos at night, and I hate flash with a passion. For this purpose, the choice was very clear indeed, as there is no alternative. And the lens performs wonderously in that capacity. But I still think about getting a Summicron one of these days, as there is apparently some small difference in results between that and the Noctilux. However, I won't give up the Noctilux for this, as it cannot be replaced for the purposes for which I bought it, so it's a matter of finding the funds for both. For others who are less intent on being able to shoot in extremely dark conditions, the choice is far more difficult to make, I suspect. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 02:07 Subject: Re: [Leica] Should I buy a Noctilux? > I would suggest the answer to this one is incredibly simple: > > If you are missing worthwhile shots because a 1.4 lens is too slow, or > forces you to use film that is too fast/thin/grainy, and you can afford > a Noctilux, then you should buy one. > > A Noctilux, like any other lens, is a tool. If you need to dig a hole, > you get a shovel. If you need to dig a big hole, you get a big shovel.