[Leica] Re: Re: 35/1.4 ASPH vs Noct

[drodgers@nextlink.com]

Doug,

>>The big question for any prospective Nocti purchaser is whether that
extra stop is worth the expense, bulk, and weight. My 50mm f1.5
Jupiter is a fraction of the weight of the bigger lens, and was 1/30
of the cost. I shoot slides, so don't have the range of high speed
emulsions available to the colour negative user. Otherwise, I'd have
loaded a second body with faster film, relied on the Jupiter, and
saved myself lots of money.<<

Quite frankly, I think that size and weight are bigger issues than the
cost. I compared a Noct to my 50/1.4 Summilux. I'd have to get a new camera
bag.  Now that I've decided on the 35/1.4 ASPH my next big decision is
whether or not to sell my 50/1.4 Summilux M and/or my 35/2 Summicron (last
pre-ASPH version).

I definately plan to carry my 50/2 Summicron more often. I have an older
50/2 DR. I hadn't used it much since I bought my Summilux 18-months ago.I
almost sold the 50/2, but decided against it because it's my last
"classic" lens. Further, it holds it's own against the latest stuff, though
the most recent 50/2 is a gem.

I had lunch today with Lugger Mark Rabiner. He showed me some recent work,
that he shot in studio and on location, with a newish 50/2 Summicron.
Absolutely incredible portraits (mostly b/w but some color). Mark is an
excellent b/w printer. BTW, if he ever shows you square images with notches
do not be deceived. They could be Hassleblad photographs, or they could be
50/2 Summicron photographs printed with a Hassleblad border mask he
created. I couldn't tell the difference, even in 13X13 enlargements.

Delta 100 shot with Leica glass and developed in Xtol 1:3 is so sharp it
almost makes your eyes bleed. Even the Delta 400 looked great -- albeit
grain was noticable in the larger prints. Somebody said that Delta and Xtol
isn't a good combination. Mark sure makes it work.

David