[Leica] About the Noctilux redux - now I've ruined it for Ted . . .

[joelct at singnet.com.sg (Joseph Low)]

             Dear Marty

             Thanks for taking the trouble to come out with ( IMHO ) the
best treatise on a Leica glass -
             Puts notwithstanding


              Sincerely / JosephLow /Singapore

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+joelct=singnet.com.sg@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+joelct=singnet.com.sg@leica-users.org]On Behalf Of Marty
Deveney
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 6:04 PM
To: lug@leica-users.org
Subject: [Leica] About the Noctilux redux - now I've ruined it for Ted . . .

Hi,
Firstly, I did not intend at any stage to introduce, propagate, translocate
or otherwise disseminate any seeds of doubt (or anything else).  I'm quite
troubled by that, seeing as I have always found your 'no fuss' approach as
inspiring as your photos.  There's a certain ignominy in having sown the
seeds of doubt after 30+ years of blissful Noctilux usage . . .

>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?

The simplest answer to that is that you can see the results of the
aberrations if you know what you're looking for.  Luckily, photography is an
aesthetic aswell as technical pusuit, so luckily, for your type of
photography, it's hard to imagine where they would make any real difference.
They may make some difference in some demanding architectural and technical
applications.  My point about aberrations is that they are things that
manufacturers, lens testers and people who talk more about gear than they
use it are concerned with.  Photographers talk about bags and exactly how
heard you can hit someone with (insert brand name and model fo camera)
without having it break.

The other thing is that if you need f1, you simply have to accept them; of
all extant lenses, the noctilux has the fewest.

>When I've used it in places where at ASA 3200, wide open f 1.0 and I can
squeeze off a shot at 1/8th or 1/4 of a
>sec. and capture a successful image is all that matters.

I've done this too.

>Then I've never been very techie about anything photographic as I just want
to take/make successful photographs and
>print them or have them published in whatever medium I'm shooting for.

I bet no one ever said they wouldn't buy a photo of yours because it
displayed some sort of artefacts of optical aberrations?

>As much as I've enjoyed your explanations and found them very interesting,
I now have this little seed of doubt sown >about the Noctilux and what I
thought it was cracked up to be. Particularly when I've used it successfully
where >others fear to shoot without a gzillion watts of strobe light.

I really, really, never intended for this to happen . . .

One thing I probably haven't emphasized enough; the Nocti really is a
fantastically conceived, remarkably executed piece of optical design and
manufacture.  At the time it was designed it was so much better than
anything that had been produced for this type of use that I imagine it was
only the price tag that stopped Leitz Canada from selling an enormous number
of them.

>I suppose the question is... "Can I see the aberrations effect easily and
does it effect the photograph enough to
>make the shot a throw away?"

Simply, for what you do: yes to the first part (if you know what you're
looking for) and no to the second. As I mentioned above, the simple fact is
that if you need f1, you're going to get the aberrations and their
artefacts.

If you really care, I can send you a series of photos off-list that display,
in photos, the outcomes of various aberrations so that you can identify
them, but it's completely 100% unecessary.  The optical effect that most
commonly and thoroughly ruins photos, particularly those taken in low,
variable light, is flare and/or veiling glare (v.g.) (some use these terms
interchangably, but they are different - it doesn't matter, we know what we
mean here for photographic purposes).  While flare/v.g. can sometimes look
effective, most of the time even mild flare/v.g. will turn a success into
another neg or shot for the bin.  The Nocti is so remarkably flare resistant
that it's almost eerie.  As I'm sure you know Ted, you can point it into a
dark corner, with a flame, spotlight or other light source right in the
frame near the edge and get a perfect image.   It is also extremely
resistant to flare from glancing light from sources outside the frame that
tends to make the 50/2 Summic!
 ron misbehave.

>Or does one just enjoy your presentation as information and dismiss it as
"something all lenses have
>and it's no big deal?"

Absolutely 'for information only'!  If you take a look at the section here:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/03/whats-prime-lens.html
called 'Quality: Bunching' you'll see exactly what I mean.  The theoretical
limits draw closer all the time as lens design and manufacture improves.
While some won't be happy until things are perfect, for the rest of us, what
we have now is certainly more than good enough.  Your pictures are proof
Ted.

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

I hope this has suppressed your doubts, really.  To be honest, the reason I
really, really want a digital M is because of the Nocti and the other fast
Leica glass.

Later,

Marty

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



_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information