Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/05

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Noctilux Questions
From: Chris Bitmead <>
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 17:58:33 +0000

I remain curious about whether these qualities of the Noctilux
are fairly much because it is an f1 lens or whether it is
something unique to this particular lens. I only wish I could
compare some real prints to what I shot with the Canon 50/1 when
I loaned one.

Here is a shot with the Canon f1, also with a bright background.
The Canon photos also have a peculiar "look", which I think is
similar to the Noctilux, but I didn't shoot long enough with it
to be sure about that.

Robert G. Stevens wrote:
> Arturo:
> Not all of the pictures are taken at F1.  What really sets the Noctilux
> apart from the other 50's is not how sharp it is but how it renders things.
>  Erwin Puts has noted that it has very high flare (veiling flare)
> suppression, which means there is detail recorded where the veil of flare
> would obscure it.  An example of this quality is here:
> You can see the bright window behind Boyd's head, which should cause flare.
>  The picture though shows great shadow detail and a very smooth redition of
> his skin and texture of his sweater (better visible in the actual print).
> Look at the details and shadows of the chair behind him.  Remember the lens
> has two sources of flare, the window above the chair and the window in the
> right of the picture.
> I stand to be corrected on my analysis of this, as I only know what I have
> gleaned from Erwin Puts' posts.  Erwin may want to comment on this or you
> may want to get the Photo Techniques magazine that has Erwin's article
> about the Noctilux in it.
> Regards,
> Robert Stevens
> At 12:18 AM 9/2/98 EDT, you wrote:
> >Lately, I have seen quite a few pictures taken by LUG participants using the
> >Noctilux--and I have some questions:
> >
> >1)  Are all of these examples taken at f1.0??
> >
> >2)  If f1.0 is the thrill ride of this lens, why is it not fixed at f1.0?
> >Wouldn't a Summilux work better at f1.4 - f16?
> >
> >Just curious!
> >
> >Arturo
> >
> >
> >
> >

- -- 
Chris Bitmead