[Leica] About the Noctilux redux

[freakscene at weirdness.com (Marty Deveney)]

Hi,
?
I wrote quite a long response to some comments about my last post about the 
aberrations apparent when viewing photos made with the Noctilux.? I?ve 
pasted it below and here is the ?abstract? in point form.

I have an f1 Noctilux, which I adore

All lenses display aberrations

The speed of the Noctilux makes these aberrations more apparent than in lens 
designs with more conservative specifications

All lenses, including Leitz and Leica lenses, are built to a price point ? 
if you throw this to the wind you can make a lens with ?better? imaging 
characteristics (more consistent and with fewer aberrations)

If you need an f1 lens (and I acknowledge readily that there are situations 
in which you can get a picture with the Nocti where you could not with the 
Summilux) the Nocti is by far the best lens available (really the only other 
contender is the Canon EF 50/1 which suffers from considerably greater 
aberrations AND flare) ? this does not, however, mean that the previous 
point does not apply

Use your lenses, it?s much more enjoyable and profitable than talking about 
them (unless you get paid to test them, as I occasionally do).  The vast 
majority of the time the aberrations will not matter at all.  Take a look at 
photos taken with the Nocti by Ted, Tina, Steve Barbour, GeeBee and others - 
they're inspirational.  Even if they don't make you want a Noctilux, they'll 
make you want to go out and take some photos.
?
Later,
?
Marty
?
?
?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It?s lucky that I don?t mind being misinterpreted.? 
?
Before I continue, please note:
?
I have a Noctilux, which I love (thanks to George L).
?
ALL lenses are LOADED with aberrations; they?re more apparent in the Nocti 
wide open because of its speed.
?
The Nocti is almost completely flare-proof (if clean) and has low to medium 
contrast wide open (a very good point Henning), making it perfect for scenes 
with a very wide range of luminances as often happens in low light.? This 
differentiates it from almost all other super-speed lenses.
?
I wrote about the Nocti?s aberrations because Ted asked.? Please note that I 
have a Nocti and I NEVER said that in picture taking circumstances where the 
Nocti is ideal that any of the aberrations matter.? But that also doesn?t 
mean that the aberrations are not there.
?
Often, when I feel like I need some motivation to improve as a photographer, 
I look at Nocti photos by Ted, Tina, GeeBee, Steve Barbour and several of 
the other astoundingly good photographers who are LuGers.? I never think 
about any of these aberrations when viewing these photos, other than that I 
do note that it?s often obvious when photos are taken with a Nocti.? Its 
signature is beautiful and distinctive.
?
>1. it is a Leitz lens, This means to me, it is just about as good as 
>its gets.
?
Just about, indeed.? Leica (and when they still existed, Leitz) still 
build/built lenses to a price point.? Even if that is $US3895 for a 
Noctilux, a higher price point than most manufacturers are willing to place 
a 50mm lens, it?s still a price point that is kept in mind during the design 
process.
?
The current Nocti is the best superspeed normal lens made and available, but 
that absolutely does not mean that it cannot be improved.? The Nocti is now 
one of the oldest designs in the current Leica range.? The 28, 35s, 75 and 
90 asphericals are infinitely better corrected for distortion than the 
lenses they replaced.? Making those improvements to the Nocti AND retaining 
the other imaging characteristics of low flare and contrast, are certainly 
possible, if difficult (while it is not an easy task).? It can?t have been 
easy for Mandler and his team to design the f1 Nocti and as I said, several 
technologies including coating, optical glass manufacturing and especially 
manufacture of aspherical elements have improved in the meantime.
?
>2. The lens has been around for some time now, and if there where 
>better F1 lens, then, I am quite sure, Leica would release a somewhat 
>updated lens.
?
I?m sure this is exactly what many said about the pre-asph lenses that have 
now been replaced.? The cost of developing a new lens is enormous, 
particularly for tiny company such as Leica.? Leica can sell plenty of the 
current Nocti, which is a great lens, and make pure profit, because the R&D 
costs of the current design were amortised decades ago.? To design, test and 
then build and market a better-corrected lens of equivalent imaging 
characteristics (low contrast, extreme flare resistance) and specifications 
would cost a large fortune, which Leica can ill-afford right now.? The 
ensuing lens would probably sell poorly because it would be incredibly 
expensive.? Thus, such a lens may never make the company any profit at all.  
Even Leica won't commit corporate suicide in the name of optical improvement.
?
I?m possibly admitting to a kind of cruelty here but I have helped a friend 
who lectures postgraduate optical engineering students set some exercises 
for his students.? The first thing we did was get them to design a lens with 
the Noctis specs, prescribing that they had to decrease all aberrations by a 
minimum of 40%, using only available optical components (glass, coatings 
etc).? Most designs, if built, probably would have snapped the lens mount 
off any camera they were mounted on through sheer weight.? The second, even 
more diabolical task was to do the same, but with the additional stipulation 
that the lens could only be a maximum of 10% larger than the current design 
(about the same size as the 75 Summilux ? about the largest practical lens 
you can put on a Leica M).? This resulted in several very interesting 
designs, including one with that had a configuration remarkably like that of 
the original 1.2 Nocti but with two floating elements.  One of the hardest 
things to do is keep the wide-open performance consistent from near to far 
in the focal range.? Task number three ? work out how much the lens would 
cost to manufacture.? As a one-off design, none came out to less than $US50 
000.? A company may need to make a dozen or more prototypes before settling 
on a final design.? As Larry Z pointed out, start saving now.? As I pointed 
out, even with a final cost of $US 10K, a company would need to sell a LOT 
of lenses to even start making a profit.
?
>If it was so importand, the I am sure our eyes would also be super sharp 
>right up to the edges.
?
This isn?t a valid analogy because you?re comparing a mechano-optical lens 
and a visual system that includes a lens, capture medium and post-sensory 
cognitive input.? I doubt very much that the elements in any of your camera 
lenses can change shape through their focal range, or that any of your 
photos have displayed Sheerer?s phenomenon.  The lenses in human eyes with 
normal vision *are* sharp right to the edges of the field.? The decreasing 
acuity and other phenomena we observe when using our own visual system are 
due to characteristics of parts of the system other than the lenses, 
including the receptor and nerve cell density in the retina (capture medium) 
and other neurological effects (post-processing).? ?

>Lastly, I would have to be crazy,? after spending 4 Grand or so on a 
>lens , to worry if it here are the slightest type of any >abberations.
?
Equally, one might say that dropping $4K on a lens *with* aberrations is 
complete lunacy.? In this case, however, the buyer has decided that they 
need an f1 lens, so the Nocti and its peculiarities, including its 
aberrations, are the best choice.  
?
That?s what I did and continue to do, anyway.

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/