[Leica] : lots of Nocti .95 for sale

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

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&????????????+'??y????!j???(?g?r&??'
????????Z???z?Z??(??k?????????)?{m?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information