Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/04/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]John if you didn't know the Noctilux was designed for shooting at night that would put your knowledge of the Noctilux right at around zero. On 4/5/15 2:41 AM, "John McMaster" <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > That is how it is named, certainly I cannot remember any Leica > advertising/production shot for the f0.95 being shot at night.... > > john > > -----Original Message----- > From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+john=mcmaster.co.nz at leica-users.org] On > Behalf > Of Mark Rabiner > Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2015 6:26 p.m. > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] : lots of Nocti .95 for sale > > The Noctilux is a lens designed for night use Frank. > Its not all about resolution. > Putting slow film on it to find out what its resolution was might be fun > as an > academic exercise. As it turned out the first rolls I shot with it was with > Kodachrome 64 as I needed slides for an upcoming LHSA meeting. And no > shooting at night at iso 64 doesn't work out so well even with a Noct hand > held. Those slides were brought to the LHSA Baltimore shoot in 2001 where > they > were projected large with a Leica projector and Leica glass. And end of an > era > as after that I got to be all digital and it was a tough transition. > Anyway the word had been out that the Noct was "no good stooped down" and > only > good shooting at f1 at night. And when my slides came up there was a > murmur in > the audience as they were shot during the day at all f stops just like any > lens. They were impressed. I may have sold some glass for Leica that day. > By > the Portland meeting oct. 2002 we were stacking M's with Noctilux s on the > table in bars.. mainly current for then f1's. A dime a dozen. They were a > 50 > you could get used to. I think you had to stop down 5 stops to hit f5.6. > That's down time wise from 125th to a 1/4th. > > > On 4/5/15 1:15 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 -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/