Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/12/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thank you, Mark! I really like that one but nobody ever commented on it. Tina On Tuesday, December 31, 2013, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > "Children with Dead Pig" certainly belongs in a serious collection. Like in > a museum!! > > > On 12/31/13 4:22 PM, "Tina Manley" <images at comporium.net> wrote: > >> Thanks, Geoff! I do love the Noctilux. Sometimes you really need that >> shallow depth of field. I think it works for this one: >> >> http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/71197205 >> >> Everything sharp would not have been as good. >> >> Many of these are with the Noctilux: >> http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/honduras&page=all >> >> I really needed the 1.0 and fast film in those dark houses. Today, I'd >> probably use the 1.4 and M240 with higher speed for most of them, except >> when I need the shallow depth of field. >> >> http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/144348674 >> >> Tina >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com >wrote: >> >>> 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 sucMark William Rabiner > Photographer > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > -- Tina Manley http:// <http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/>www.tinamanley.com