[Leica] : lots of Nocti .95 for sale

[steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour)]

> On Apr 4, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Sonny Carter <sonc.hegr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

so true?. you actually see the image that will result.

s

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