[Leica] : lots of Nocti .95 for sale

Mark Rabiner mark at rabinergroup.com
Sun Apr 5 10:10:48 PDT 2015 

John if you didn't know the Noctilux was designed for shooting at night that
would put your knowledge of the Noctilux right at around zero.


On 4/5/15 2:41 AM, "John McMaster" <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote:

> 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
>>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

More information about the LUG mailing list