[Leica] For Sale: pristine Nocti .95

Sat Apr 4 17:04:29 PDT 2015

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.  Then we read opinions from people who have father looked into it
or have direct experience in it themselves. . After that we know if we
really want to get the lens or not and it also gives us a fairly respectable
opinion on that piece of whatever gear. An opinion we can express anywhere
unless you happen to be on the LUG and happen to be myself.

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.
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.
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.
Really pretty funny.
Some real narrow small minded sectarian thinking going on on the LUG.
At least no ones correcting my spelling.

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 usedŠ..

I sense that you resent that they have the lenses and you
> don¹tŠ. 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/
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

_______________________________________________
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/