[Leica] : lots of Nocti .95 for sale

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

> On Apr 5, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm glad that the Noctilux thanks to convoluted Live View technology is all
> of a sudden a viable piece of gear. As I think of it I recal was Teds main
> lens for I don't know how long I shot with it extensively, It was Jim
> Marshalls main lens for years to decades along with slews of other known 
> and
> unknown photographers since 1932... Little did we know we were using non
> viable gear.
> We've all be real happy with the Leica M rangefinder which is the core
> element in Leica M shooting since the Leica II (Model D) with that same
> rangefinder on every camera since right up to the M6/7/P in recent years
> making it one of the longest continuous and highly successful technological
> products ever made.  83 years! It was pretty solid at the get go it was 
> just
> tweaked from time to time. At one point dumbed down a bit too much making
> for flare which they fixed.
> A lack of confidence in the Leica M rangefinder does not say much for ones
> using the Leica M camera system. The question "why" comes up.

it works well as long as it doesn?t get bumped. Then if the bump was 
adequate, all is out of focus, you don?t see that until you look later at 
the prints or at the screen. Many do not know this. You may not realize the 
mechanical linkage needs adjustment. When it is adjusted all is well again. 
When you know all this, and keep up with it, it?s great, as the focus may be 
impeccable, if the adjustment is impeccable. The nice thing about some form 
of live view focussing, is that you always see what you will get, even 
before you make the shot, that?s cus it's live?. 

Steve 

> 
> 
> On 4/5/15 7:43 AM, "Steve Barbour" <steve.barbour at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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?jw
>> g?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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information