Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Chris: I may have mislead some people in my previous post by saying it is the rendering, not the sharpness, implying it is not a sharp lens at f1. The lens is very sharp at f1. The baby's eyes have detail in even the iris of the eye. What other F1 and F1.2 lenses have is a fast speed, but poor properties wide open. Your photo is a good argument for that. In my picture you can even see the texture of the paint on the chair, while yours has an overall softness to it. Regards, Robert At 05:58 PM 9/5/98 +0000, you wrote: >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. > >http://www.ans.com.au/~chrisb/photo/equipment/canon/50_pic4.jpg > >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: >> >> http://home.istar.ca/~robsteve/Boyd.jpg >> >> 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 >http://www.ans.com.au/~chrisb >mailto:chrisb@ans.com.au > > > >