[Leica] For Sale: pristine Nocti .95

[John McMaster]

Also some people can see the difference, Marty recognised shots taken with the f0.95 when I first got it, also he was the only one to say about a difference in image quality when I first posted 1200 pixel JPEGs from the S2. If you cannot see a difference then does it matter?

john

-----Original Message-----
From: John McMaster 
Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2015 11:02 a.m.
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] For Sale: pristine Nocti .95

I have shown pictures with some of the most expensive lenses Leica make (M, R and S) including both Noctilii. I keep the EXIF in if people want to look but I do not usually broadcast what I shot each image with as it adds nothing to the image, I can show some poor shots taken with an S2-P and 24mm or 30-90 zoom and then will be ridiculed for the amount I spent on them ;-)

It is not just about the bokeh but also how the end shot looks, each Noctilux can give a different look.....

john

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Rabiner

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
>>> 
>>>