[Leica] Noctilux

[john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster)]

Most of my Paws feature Noctilux shots, in 
http://johnmcmaster.com/PAW/2013/51/ shots 8 & 9 are M/asph and 15, 16 & 17 
are Monochrom/f1.0

john

> -----Original Message-----
> Unless someone actually posts pictures to illustrate these opinions, you 
> guys
> are all going to be in so much trouble if Dr Ted sees this thread.  ;-) I 
> know
> that Tina and Ted are masters of these lenses wide open. Let's see your
> stuff.
> 
> I just stopped the (borrowed) thing down because that was the light I had
> and the DoF I wanted too.
> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/153201969
> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/153260573
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Geoff
> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman
> 
> 
> On 1 January 2014 06:55, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > The difference between the DOF of a 50/1.4 and 50/1.0 lens is actually
> > pretty minimal.
> >
> > Both are hard to nail critical focus, especially close in. With the
> > EVF of the M or Sony or Fuji, the issues of focus are remarkably reduced.
> >
> > The real difference between the various (age) 50's is the fingerprint
> > of the lens, weight, and cost.
> >
> > If you are not in favor of weight around your neck, then all 3 Noctis
> > fall off the list, closely followed by the ASPH Lux. The lightest is
> > the more recent (black) Summicron.
> >
> > If you can not afford $3-10k for the lens, then the choice boils down
> > to a Summicron.
> >
> > Fingerprint is so subjective. But for pure unmitigated sharpness, the
> > ASPH Lux is the clear winner.
> >
> > I am (almost) down to only the ASPH Lux. And have no regrets.
> > Absolutely great lens.
> >
> > Frank Filippone
> >
> > > On Dec 31, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Aram Langhans <leica_r8 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > No matter what you do with a sensor, a 1.0ish lens shooting wide
> > > open
> > cannot be duplicated with a 1.4.  Even just from a depth of field
> > stand point, let alone the other characteristics of using such a fast
> > lens wide open.  So, if that is what you want it is indeed necessary.
> > >
> > > Aram, who owned a 1.2 lens at one time but could no longer focus with 
> > > it.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message----- From: Richard Man
> > > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 11:07 PM
> > > To: Leica Users Group
> > > Subject: Re: [Leica] Noctilux
> > >
> > > I think with the modern digital sensors and cameras, very few lens
> > > are truly "necessary," and most are a matter of "wants." Nothing
> > > wrong with that since I succumb to gear lust myself, but the world's
> > > best pictures
> > are
> > > seldom taken by the world's most expensive and best lens.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Henning Wulff <hjwulff at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The 0.95 is as good as it gets at high speed, with the well
> > >> understood downsides of price and size. At smaller apertures the
> > >> pictures are hard
> > to
> > >> distinguish from Summilux-ASPH pictures, but the large size and
> > >> price remain. Focus shift exists but is quite manageable. It is the
> > >> only one
> > of
> > >> the three that can be considered an all in one lens, if you can
> > >> live
> > with
> > >> the size. This lens, like the other Nocti's focusses down to only
> > >> 1m,
> > which
> > >> is a distinct limitation in comparison to the slower current 50's
> > >> and
> > in my
> > >> opinion its main operational failing.
> > >>
> > >> The f/1 is of much lower contrast at wider apertures, but also
> > >> sharpens
> > up
> > >> nicely with the downside of considerable focus shift. It has
> > >> incredible flare tolerance which allows it to capture images that
> > >> no other lens
> > seems
> > >> capable of. A lens shade is largely pointless. This is a lens that
> > >> is
> > not
> > >> easy to master and renders in a unique way, but the rewards are great.
> > Our
> > >> Dr. Ted did most of his medical photography for his books with this
> > lens,
> > >> and mostly at f/1. True mastery!
> > >>
> > >> The f/1.2 is pointless unless you plan on placing it in an honorary
> > >> position in your collection. Current prices are exorbitant, and it
> > >> is
> > not
> > >> as good a lens overall as the f/1 while being slower. It is a much
> > softer
> > >> version of the old Summilux 50. The Nokton f/1.1 is definitely a
> > >> better lens overall.
> > >>
> > >> If you have the Summilux ASPH and an M240, the 0.95 is not as
> > >> necessary
> > as
> > >> it was with the M9, but it of course still allows a little but
> > >> lower
> > light
> > >> subjects to be recorded successfully (as long as they are at least
> > >> one meter away) with shallower dof, but the f/1 will allow a
> > >> different
> > vision,
> > >> if you are willing and able to master it.
> > >>
> > >> I used to have an f/1.2, have used the f/0.95 and the Nokton f/1.1
> > >> and currently have the f/1 and the Summilux ASPH.
> > >>
> > >> Henning
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 2013-12-30, at 9:30 PM, David Ching <davidhhching at yahoo.com.sg>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Dear Emanuel,
> > >> >
> > >> > The Noct f0.95 is surely superior in some ways to the Lux 50 ASPH
> > >> > or
> > the
> > >> Voightlander Nokton f1.1 of the later two which I  have.
> > >> > How would you rate the 3 Noct versions , f0.95, f1.0 and f1.2?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > David Ching
> > >> >