[Leica] About the Noctilux redux

[kleinp at BATTELLE.ORG (Klein, Peter A)]

Ted Grant wrote:

> In the kind of near available darkness photography some of us do on
occasion 
> and your explanation of aberrations, which until your comments, I had
no 
> idea such things existed. Nor can I honestly say I've seen anything
that 
> would make me think there was such things as "aberrations" in the
lens. 
> After your explanation I have no doubt they exist, but if one doesn't
know 
> about it as in my case, are they so visible I should've seen something
in 
> the prints that would've triggered some concern?

> . . .It's that damn one little seed of doubt! :-(


Ted:  Worry not.  My desk dictionary defines aberrations as "the failure
of a mirror, refracting surface or lens to produce exact point-to-point
correspondence between an object and its image.  Remember what your idol
Eisie said (paraphrased) when asked how he tests his lenses:  "When I
buy a lens, I use it.  If I don't like it, I sell it."

There is more to photography than "exact point-to-point correspondence
between an object and its image."  Much of what you know of as the
"look" of a Noct is created by these aberrations--that dreamy rendering,
especially off-center.  With the Noct, you get a bit higher instance of
some aberrations, but you also get an f/1 aperture and very little
flare.  Those two things are a lot more important when the lights are
low.

So if you want perfection from a technical standpoint, don't use the
Noct.  If you want to keep getting the kind of available light pictures
that have served you so well, just keep on using the Noct.  Especially
since yours has those specially bovine-enhanced organic coatings for
greater flare control  :-)

--Peter