Re: [Leica] 21mm Elmarit-M vs 50mm Noctilux

["A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@actek.com.au>]

Ruralmopics@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 9/23/99 1:43:28 AM, ryuen@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> << If someone were to give you a free lens and the choice was between the
> 21mm Elmarit-M or the 50mm Noctilux, which would you choose and why?
>
> Not that I am given this choice, but I was just curious as to what is
> more important to the average LUG member, wide angle coverage or the
> ability to take pictures in the dark. >>
>
>

It is a bit like comparing apples with oranges. It surely depends to a large
extend  on the temperament and the ideas of the individual photographer.

My widest lens is a 28mm. However with one or two exceptions, I was never really
happy with the results. By results I don't mean the quality of the lens. Even
when doing some architectural shots. For me, there was always to much in the
picture.
I am definitely a 50-90mm man. Where 50mm is my favorite. The image seems just
right.
But, when looking through some books and magazines, I gaze with awe at some of
the fantastic wide- and super-wide shots, others can do, I wished it would have
been me. The way the wide angle often  enhances the foreground of a picture is
superb. The depth of the picture is phenomenal.



> f I hadn't just bought a 24mm that would be easy . . . I'd go for the 21mm.
> Given the choice today I'd take the 50mm, sell it and buy a "normal" 50 and a
> 90 and maybe another body. I just can't think of enough situations where I
> would be able to make use of the narrow depth of field at f 1.0 to justify
> that honking piece of glass.
>
> Also, while I've never even held a Noctilux, I suspect that there really
> isn't that much difference in low-light usability between the two lenses when
> you take "hand-holdability" into account. I just can't imagine reliabely
> hand-holding that big 50 at much less than 1/60 while I'm quite confident
> 1/15 is a pretty safe bet with the 21mm -- if my math is correct that's only
> a one stop advantage for the the Noctilux.
>
> I'm sure I'm just not sophisticated enough to appreciate it but I view the
> Noctilux and similar lenses as "freaks" -- toys for those hung up on numbers
> and not really a practical tool for day to day photography. I'm quite sure
> your mileage will vary . . .
>
>

Well, that's the way I thought too. I was convinced, that f 3.5 was all you
really needed. After all, what where tripods invented for. But.., this changed,
when I  started using  a lens with f 1.2 opening. I suddenly could do things I
really wasn't able to do before.When I went out for walks, or camping, or for
picnics with the family, the day didn't finish
at 4 pm. It enabled me, to photograph scenes in the rain with the Christmas
lights going. (last July in Australia)
Last  year during a visit in Germany, I wished I would have had a big lens, to
photograph
parts of the Christmas marked. As it was, I managed quite a few pictures with a
table tripod resting on my chest. However a normal tripod would have been out of
the question.
With thousands of people around me, it would have been trampled on, or people
would have fallen over it. That would have definitely spoilt the Christmas joy of
some hot blooded Germans.
Next Year (2000),  during the Olympics in Sydney I will be visiting the October
fest In Muenchen. With me will be my Noctilux.  I can hardly wait.
So for me, it is not just a "freak" type lens, but it enhances my joy of
photographing.

Regards, Horst Schmidt


> Bob (doesn't carry anything faster than f2.0) McEowen