[Leica] : lots of Nocti .95 for sale

[sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter)]

You were close to describing "challenge " yourself.  The challenge of 
getting what you want in focus with a Nocti.  With live view it is a piece 
of cake.  

With an M7, there was a challenge.  I met it a few times, and the image that 
sold the most prints ever for a single exposure of mine was from an f1 
Nocti.  It was a carving on the Bishop's chair at the cathedral.  Last month 
I visited a local architect's home; I have never been there before. Imagine 
my delight to find that print in his hallway. 


Sent from my iPhone

Sonny Carter
http://www.SonC.com/look


> On Apr 5, 2015, at 12:15 AM, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> My theory was that the recent ( last 5 years?) if the interest in the 
> Nocti was by rich folk, that wanted THE most exclusive/extreme camera and 
> lens.... The Noctilux plus an M9 or M(240).  After getting that combo, 
> they figured out that most of their shots were not in focus.  Then came a 
> period of "otherness"..... chasing the dream of some other combo of 
> expensive thing, and the Nocti ran out of favor.....for maybe a Nikon D810 
> plus some lens or other, that actually made images that were IN focus ( 
> thanks to AF, since these folk never did understand hot to manually focus 
> anything).
> 
> That accounts for the recent plethora of used 0.95 for sale at pretty 
> bargain prices...
> 
> Or so my thinking goes....
> 
> Challenge?  Define THE challenge... the desire to have all your friends 
> see you with the latest and greatest?
> 
> Frank Filippone
> Red735i at verizon.net
> 
> I doubt that people do not like it; more likely the availability of more 
> sensitive sensors, make it, to use a Brit term, "redundant" 
> 
> The price of f 1 noctis are dropping too, for the same reason.
> 
> Interesting that the Leica M and Sony A7x cameras are finally able to use 
> those exotic lenses in ways they were never dreamed of by the designers, 
> and people are turning away from them.
> 
> Guess the challenge is gone.
> 
> 
> 
> from my iPad
> 
> Sonny Carter
> 
>> On Apr 4, 2015, at 9:43 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote:
>> 
>> Sadly there seem to be a lot of f0.95s for sale, maybe no-one liked it 
>> ;-) Compared to the +12 month waiting list a few years back...
>> 
>> john
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+john=mcmaster.co.nz at leica-users.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Sonny Carter
>> Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2015 2:40 p.m.
>> To: Leica Users Group
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] For Sale: pristine Nocti .95
>> 
>> So if we collected a buck for every word on this thread that doesn't 
>> pertain to Sue's wish to sell her lens, we could buy it from her. 
>> 
>> from my iPad
>> 
>> Sonny Carter
>> 
>>> On Apr 4, 2015, at 8:53 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote:
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mark Rabiner
>>> 
>>>> Just insane Steve.
>>>> When we think about getting a new lens or other gear we research it 
>>>> extensively on the internet often starting with the manufactures 
>>>> stated specs. Then the >specs which other people are publishing. You 
>>>> can line with up as direct comparisons. There's dxomark.  MTF 
>>>> charts. Erwin Puts books and website
>>> 
>>> I have Erwins books....
>>> 
>>>> If you'd like I can talk quite lucidly with you about the Noct 1.2. A 
>>>> lens I've seen personally once but have read about extensively over 
>>>> decades.
>>>> We talked about this lens once for quite awhile over a dinner table in 
>>>> a dark steakhouse in San Antonio with Sherry K. and Jim Marshall in 
>>>> 2001.  
>>>> Jim was going to buy the lens as he heard it was better and was more 
>>>> compact.
>>>> Sherry and I talked him out of it. Its not better. It's worse on all 
>>>> accounts.
>>> 
>>> Odd, my Puts books show that the f1.2 is sharper wide open, particularly 
>>> in the corners and not much between them at f5.6. I know somebody on 
>>> this list has personal experience of this being the case.
>>> 
>>>> I really had my facts down on the history of Noctilux glass then 
>>>> because I had just got one for myself. A lens which I left on my 
>>>> camera without taking off for a year and made 16x20 fiber archival 
>>>> prints of my finders which I rolled up and sent to them all over the 
>>>> world for their holiday stocking stuffers. I shot thousands or rolls of 
>>>> film with my Noctilux. Mainly Fuji Neopan 1600 which I souped in Xtol 
>>>> 1:3.
>>> 
>>> Uh huh, so how much fine detail did you get with that compared to say 
>>> K25? Slight difference between 35mm 1600 asa film and an 
>>> M9/240/Monochrom for finding a lenses limitations ;-)
>>> 
>>>> I often used a yellow green or dark green filter with it so I'd not 
>>>> have to stop down so much or at all.
>>>> I found Noctilux use to be all about F 1000th of a second and be there.
>>>> You have you shutter speed set at 1000th of a second and you hope 
>>>> you don't have to stop down too much if at all. As its very much about 
>>>> a tight selective focus mind set.
>>>> I can talk about the history of Noctilux and any aspect you want to 
>>>> talk about Noctilux till the cows come home. If you don't like it don't 
>>>> read it.
>>>> George seems to think my experience with the Noctilux is completely 
>>>> invalid and I should just shut up became I shot film and not digital.
>>> 
>>> And many people who have shot on both say that digital is very 
>>> different....
>>> 
>>>> Really pretty funny.
>>>> Some real narrow small minded sectarian thinking going on on the LUG.
>>>> At least no ones correcting my spelling.
>>> 
>>> Not how I think of George or Steve ;-)
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>>> On 4/4/15 7:25 PM, "Steve Barbour" <steve.barbour at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> what I am interested in here Mark, is your pure opinion without 
>>>> facts, about very expensive leica lenses, that you desire, but have 
>>>> never used, importantly you resent another's opinion about these 
>>>> lenses, generally that they own and have used ..
>>> 
>>> I sense that you resent that they have the lenses and you
>>>> don t . Please correct me if I am wrong.
>>> did I forget anything? 
>>> 
>>> You may
>>>> wish to borrow or rent them, to form a basis for an opinion.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Steve
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On
>>>> Apr 4, 2015, at 3:47 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> What
>>>> I'm interested in here is the fact that two eleven thousand dollar 
>>>> newest from Leica cutting edge lenses have been rejected by two Lug 
>>>> people because of bad bokeh. And that neither of them have found it 
>>>> necessary to show us examples of this.  That's 22,000 dollars worth 
>>>> of bad bokeh and money in the back. Not a jpeg to be seen anywhere. 
>>>> But we do get to see that the older f1 looks like on a tulip.  That 
>>>> explains everything.
>>>> And that when someone in
>>>> the world is about to cough up that kind of money for this 
>>>> centerpiece of modern Leica technology they could end up telling 
>>>> their friend  "I was going to buy this amazing f.95 lens for eleven 
>>>> thousand dollars but then I checked and there are these people on 
>>>> the Leica users group who had to send their back. Or trade it in for 
>>>> the previous version which came out decades ago and is an f1. 
>>>> because of bad bokeh? Then googled bad bokeh and its all about not 
>>>> what's in focus but what's out of focus but for this lens its the 
>>>> defining deal! So I'm going to hold off till I figure out what's going 
>>>> on"
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That's what I'm interested in.
>>>> I'm interested in people doing a "been there done that" with a the 
>>>> gem of Leicas new line of lenes. A lens which from all reports is 
>>>> nothing short of a modern marvel of optical excellent unmatched in 
>>>> the modern world.
>>>> 
>>>> Been there done that!
>>>> Oh I've got the pictures
>>>> here somewhere.
>>>> 
>>>> From all I've read about it the bokeh which is what an ultra fast 
>>>> lens is all about on the f.95 is not worse than the f1 but better.
>>>> One reason being that the people running and working at Leica now 
>>>> didn't all of a sudden go to bed and then wake up in the morning 
>>>> stupid. I have a slightly high respect for the people at Leica 
>>>> especially the lens design people.
>>>> And my eyes work fine when I'm shown a lackluster bokeh image from a 
>>>> new Noctilux I'll look into it further.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 4/4/15 6:10
>>>> PM, "George Lottermoser" <george.imagist at icloud.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Not making
>>>> up any rules Mark.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just an honest question.
>>>>> Wondering if you've had
>>>> an opportunity to try your M lens collection on a
>>>>> digital M body.
>>>>> A
>>>> friend here in Milwaukee rented an M body just to see if it may be for 
>>>> him.
>>>> 
>>>>> My experience with my M8, M, and M Monchrom  are very similar to 
>>>>> others
>>>> who've
>>>>> needed to have lenses and or bodies adjusted to get them more
>>>> precisely in
>>>>> line with specifications.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My 35 lux Asph front focuses
>>>> horribly.
>>>>> My 75 lux has similar problems.
>>>>> Neither of those lenses
>>>> exhibited problems
>>>>> on my 3 M6 film bodies.
>>>>> 
>>>>> While my 50 lux Asph and
>>>> 28 cron Asph both
>>>>> focus dead accurate on all three digital M bodies
>>>> That's my experience with four lenses on 3 film different film 
>>>> bodies
>>>>> and 3
>>>> different digital M bodies.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I certainly appreciate your very extensive
>>>> "qualifications" and opinions,
>>>>> most especially on the equipment and
>>>> processes you've used over the decades.
>>>>> 
>>>>> a note off the iPad, George
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 4, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Here a fact I can report on George. I will add my opinion on this 
>>>>>> and
>>>> any
>>>>>> other thread on the Lug which I feel like I have something to say
>>>> about as I
>>>>>> have done here for seventeen years with no care at all about
>>>> your opinion of
>>>>>> my qualifications.
>>>>>> You don't get to start making up
>>>> crazy rules.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 4/4/15 12:54 PM, "George Lottermoser"
>>>> <george.imagist at icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 11:31
>>>> PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> but it usually
>>>>>>>> works and its many
>>>> times more accurate than a ground glass especially with
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> normal
>>>> and more so with a wide
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> do you have any personal experience
>>>> with using lenses on Leica M digital bodies?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The realities of
>>>> perfectly flat sensors, rangefinder precision, cam
>>>>>>> adjustments, etc
>>>> are being described to you by individuals who have extensive first 
>>>> hand eperience
>>>>>>> on the subject they're discussing.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There's also a
>>>> wealth of information available on the subject.
>>>>>>> Bob has provided links to
>>>> some the best information on the subject.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is not a
>>>> debate.
>>>>>>> These are reports on facts.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> George
>>>> Lottermoser
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.imagist.com
>>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog
>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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?+???????$y???Z??????y????????1??N???j??v+b?x???-?'-y?h???v?jwg?w(?g?r&??u?????????+'??y????!j???(?g?r&??'????????Z???z?Z??(??k?????????)?{m?
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information