Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/01/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Someone could write a book on the Leica Noctilux and its history and design. Erwin has written reams on them. The Noctilux from its onset was quite an original marvel set for paramiters not like other lenes at all. They are designed for night shooting. An off axis street light does not introduce coma to the lens like it would on a Summicron or lux is what I think I recall reading about it for one. This is a big deal in such a lens I'm willing to take their word for it It was a challenge for all concerned in its designed and implementation. And is a real reason to have a Leica M system with its focusing far more accurate than an SLR to be able to use this lens better. And for awhile it represented a unique spot in a price range you'd pay for a lens for a 35mm camera. It cost three times more. That fact that it focuses to 1000 millimeters instead of 700 millimeters like most Leica M glass is probably for good reason. And I imagine that reason was that the designers didn't like what they saw at that distance and to fix it would add too much additional cost and weight and size to the lens so it was deemed that people shooting in dark alleys at midnight could shoot the black cats on top of the garbage cans just as easily at 1000 milimers as they could at 700. Then crop. Its a special purpose lens which nicely enough can be used when the sun is up as well. Just as along as you'd not fret on what's going on in your 700mm to 999mm zone. Looking at the Leica shooters on the Leica gallery I see few shots done in that zone. And certainly not at night. ------ My first lens and the only lens I owned for several years was a 45mm 2.8 Nikkor G lens pancake. It focused only to 3 feet. Same as my camera before it a Voigtl?nder Vito BL. I got a Tiffin close up kit for the Nikkor it came with a #1, #2 and #3 in a little leather case. I tended to carry that with me as I was taking art classes and in general needed to take a lot pix in the close range. They came out well enough I was too dumb to know the difference. That was the early 70's. Most normal humans would have been smart enough to just get a macro for it and keep that in their pocket instead of the Dioptor kit. I had a Dioptor I'd sue with my Voigtl?nder Vito BL despite the face that it was a rangefinder or viewfinder camera. So carried a tape measure so I could to close ups at its pre defined distance with the camera lens set at infinity which is how you're supposed to use them. Which I think brought it too two feet. But I sure looked funny with that tape measure. But I was 13 and in a state of camera geek bliss. -- Mark R. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/winterdays/ > From: Mark Pope <mark at whitedogs.co.uk> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:45:31 +0000 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Help with Nocti > > With respect to the 'lack' of close focusing on the Noctilux (or Nokton > f.1.1 for that matter), I wonder whether the reason for the 1m limit is > to do with depth of field? > > According to http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html the depth of field at > f1.0 at 0.7m it's 1.09cm (0.54cm in front, 0.55cm behind) > f1.0 at 1.0m it's 2.28cm (1.13cm in front, 1.15cm behind). > > So, it seems to me that 1.0m is a practical limit for the lens, > especially taking into account rangefinder variations. > > Just my 0.2p worth... > > > > Mark Pope, > Swindon, Wilts > UK > > Homepage http://www.monomagic.co.uk > Blog http://www.monomagic.co.uk/blog > Picture a week (2010) > http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2010 > Picture a week (2009) > http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2009 > (2008) > http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2008 > > On 24/01/2012 08:33, Henning Wulff wrote: >> I'm with you on the close focussing. That's the one thing that bothers me >> on >> the f/1, and I also looked for it on the f/0.95. A close focussing >> distance >> of .7m is just fine for the majority of my use for a 50, and is just >> wonderful on the 75's! On the wides it's sometimes a bit limiting, but >> generally OK. >> >> I'm glad I kept my f/1. I like a lot of the pictures I take with it, and >> while big, it's a lot smaller than the 0.95, or REALLY a lot smaller than >> the >> gigantic 0.95 SLR Magic lens. The Leica 0.95 has really great optical >> perfomance, but between the size and lack of closer focussing it's not >> worth >> it to me at half the price. I have a couple of smaller 50's with a .7m >> close >> focus, and I use them about 60% and the Nocti 40% when shooting 50mm. I'm >> glad I kept the f/1, as I bought it for less than you can get a current >> Summicron used now, and current Nocti prices are just silly. >> >> Henning >> >> >> On 2012-01-22, at 5:45 PM, John Collier wrote: >> >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> I agree, it's perfectly ridiculous that 0.3 of a metre would make a >>> difference. However, after a year of shooting, it did. I loved the >>> results >>> but I always found myself having to back up from my intended framing. I >>> started out with SLRs back in the day and my first M was an M2 with a 50 >>> Summicron that focused to 0.7m. I never had any close focus issues so >>> 0.7 m >>> must have been my working zone with the SLR 50 mm as well. Even with 35s >>> I >>> seldom "bump" into the 0.7 meter limit. >>> >>> So, after a year of shooting, I did what I felt was best and changed the >>> lens rather than my shooting style. I next tried the 50 Summilux Asph, >>> had >>> issues and finally ended up with a late non-asph Summilux which focuses >>> to >>> 0.7 m. When the new Noctilux came out, the first thing I checked was the >>> close focus limit and, dang, still 1 m. I now use a 75 Summilux -- thanks >>> Henning for letting me try yours -- and am delighted as it focuses to >>> 0.7 m >>> and has an even narrower depth of field than the Noctilux. >>> >>> John >>> >>> On 2012-01-22, at 6:27 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >>> >>>> That John sold his Noctilux becuae it went to 1 meter instead of .7 of a >>>> meter is a what I've been hearing on the lug now for a decade with a >>>> bit of >>>> wonder. One could carry a Summicron in ones pocket for such critical >>>> close >>>> situations could one not? >>>> 11.8 inches is the difference. But the real issue would be the >>>> difference >>>> in size of minimum magnification. The smallest area you can shoot would >>>> be >>>> and why this could not be settled with a tiny bit of cropping when >>>> printing >>>> or Photoshopping the digital image. >>>> The 50mm collapsible and rigid Summicrons in the 50's and 60's both >>>> focused >>>> to one meter. Not the key issue I don't think. >>>> Many people when they are in a 2 to 3 foot shooting space mind set reach >>>> for >>>> their SLR DSLR with maybe a macro lens on it. Put one of those in the >>>> bottom >>>> of your camera bag and you're covered when you need to get close and >>>> don't >>>> want to crop. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> Henning Wulff >> henningw at archiphoto.com >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information