Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/04/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 >>>