Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/08

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Noctilux Gloom-Buster VS 75mm f/1.4 ...
From: "TSL" <>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:20:47 -0400 writes:

<< A dozen years ago BL (before Leica's) I got a new 50 1.4 Al for the
 Nikon and I shoot for a week for it a whole on location fashion issue
 for a local paper here. I did not take that lens off there camera >>

<A really big proportion of people who started in 35mm photography as
hobbyists in the 60's or early 70's still feel the most comfortable with a
50.  For a lot of us it was our only lens for a good while, until we could
afford another one, which was most likely a 135.  To this day, if I could
have only one lens, period, I'd have to choose a 50 (or its equivalent in
another format), for no other reason than I've got more experience making it
"make do" than any other focal length. >


So how far can  the nocti GloomBuster challenge the Impressive 75
If I missed this part, then I'd change my thinking (I try anyway).  If you
don't have at present a 50, then you're first priority is to get one!
Forget 75 - the 50 will demand your consideration at every waking moment,
the Noctibeast will plague you even more.  Again, I don't know what you've
got.  But I wouldn't get too involved in the practically irrelevant
differences in 'optical precision' as you are going to go in circles because
they for one will always impose a new statistic which the other will balance
out and this means that, as was posted, you are not comparing the same lens
at all and so comparisons at the technical level will be in a constant state
of refutation.  Rather maybe think in terms of what the consequences of
buying either will be.  For one, they will both produce some expression
and/or verbalization of glassmania.  But if you (again presupposing) are
lacking in the 50, the 75 will NOT relieve you because the issue is
compounded as it's not only the nocti that is in question but even more so
that it's a 50 and its mandatory.  1 or 1.4 - this difference will serve
it's purposes however life is much easier with the best lens there is (yeah
I know about the other three or four, five) the (current) 50 summicron.
I've yet to find someone who was thinking of trading in a 50/2 because they
wanted the rare occasion lens (yes, both could call for a nice cup of hot
tea.)  If you get the nocti - well, this is not the closest
all-around-schlep-around-shmateh?  It gives much consideration for the
summicron or even the 50 lux, which ahh...the summicron too good for me,
I'll hand hold the 1/15 sec, or miss the damn shot - but I'll have a hard
time talking back to mr. 50/2.  But as was posted the two in question are
not mutually exclusive either.  But that's not a reason in itself at all,
it's just an observation with a consequential judgment (maybe that's
reason).  The 75 'lug because it is different would nicely compliment that
gap of 50mm - to 90.  Of course when you do buy a new 90 you will certainly,
you must get the new apoasphericalugubug.   The 75 is a good luxey choice.
You will not be so retrospectively doubtful if you have the summicron, and
if you are then it's all messed up  and you should just get one lens - the
21 asph and play a different ballgame to relieve the noctisummidrom.  The 50
well I couldn't get in close enough or the 35 is just easier or I've bumped
into the wall and I could have gotten the summicron and paid for the damage
to the hole in the wall.  The 75 is just so convincing you can see the
specifics are bouncing around and not giving any real substantial priority
for an either/or deal.  So the 50 has alternatives, which will suit most
needs usually and give better results in real-time on more occasions than
not, perhaps.  The 75 well you can't get the 75 summicron and maybe you
would not want it or you can wait and wait for the 75 asph which is tedious.
In conclusion, I haven't the slightest idea what in the world I would do as
this is horrible.  Someone will 'show' you what a nocti will do on this or
that situation.  Ueah well, make your decision as if all the lenses in this
range are perfect and judge by your setup and what's available.  The shot
(i.e. what what can do witha given focal length in the majority of the
situations) is what matters.  To me it matters just as much that I have a
better day when I've got the smaller yet usually equally if not more capable
lens on my M. Please hold the refutations, as I didn't really think about
anything when I'm, typing here...