Re: 35 Summilux vs Noctilux

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

At 09:23 PM 2/3/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:25 AM 03-02-97 -0500, Carl M. wrote:
>>Any feedback on choosing between these outstanding lenses for available light
>>work? Please compare the weight & speed of the Noctilux vs the non-ASPH
>>version of the 35 f1.4 lens. Also, any advice on which non-ASPH vintage to
>>choose from? The earlier ones are rumoured to be less sharp & less contrasty.
>>I shoot mostly b&w with available light and own the 35,50,90 Summicrons. 
>
>I've never heard that rumour about early vs. late 35/1.4 summiluxes.  I have
>one #319blahblah that is very sharp at all apertures EXCEPT at 1.4.  I have
>no problem using it as an everyday lens.  At typical shooting apertures (say
>f8) it appears as good as my aspherical.  One big advantage, it is very
>small and lightweight, a perfect companion to an M Leica. 

OK--but then there's not much point in Carl's getting rid of his 35
Summicron, is there?
>
>Don't have any first hand knowledge of the Noctilux, except that it is
>heavy, expensive, and does not have a good reputation.  On the other hand, I
>recall a post on this list not too long ago from someone who liked theirs,
>so who knows?
>
>Dan C.

Right--and there's nothing else like it but the current Canon EF 1.0, which
Mr. Puts certainly didn't like much.  However, of course, the Noctilux is of
a different focal length than the 35's, which may affect what you can do
with it.  In addition, you can handhold wider angle lenses at lower shutter
speeds, so some of the Noctilux's advantage (1.0 vs. 1.4) may be cancelled
out.  Indeed, I've been able to handhold my 35 Summicron at 1/15 and get
consistenly good results, and can hit quite a few at 1/8--a great advantage
of the M system!--Charlie
>
>
Charles E. Love, Jr.
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU