Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Re: size and weight of the Noctilux Horst Schmidt <horsts@primus.com.au> wrote: >I don't know much about the Jupiter 1.5. I had a F2 once, but this was at least mechanically pretty lousy. The way you say it, the Jupiter 1.5 is of the same quality as the Noctilux at least from f1.5 or 1.4 onwards. And this for 1/30th of the price. >I really have some doubts about this. Hello Horst, You message is well-timed. Just at the point when I was thinking about unsubscribing to get away from the off-topic prattle of the luxury-speaker-cable and Linn-Sondek crowd, here came something I enjoyed reading - and it was about Leica. I think you are reading more into my posting than I intended. When I said "My 50mm f1.5 Jupiter is a fraction of the weight of the bigger lens, and was 1/30 of the cost" I was simply talking about size and weight - I was making no judgement in my posting about mechanical or optical quality of the Russian lens. Your phrase "at least mechanically pretty lousy" is perhaps over-kind to my Jupiter, whose mount is made from very soft aluminium alloy. Optically, the Jupiter cannot match the definition of a lens designed some 40 years later, and my first impression of it is that the images lack contrast, a surprising observation given the reputation of the original Sonnar design. Cleaning might improve this, but the cost would be almost twice what I paid for the lens. Next time I have a day spare, I’m planning to take some photos in the sculpture galleries of the British Museum. It might to interesting to repeat several photos with the Noctilux at f1 and f1.5, and the Jupiter, a pre-war 5cm Sonnar and a 5.8cm "Leica-Sonnar" all used at f1.5. However, the result will only be valid for my individual examples of these lenses. Given that lenses of the earlier vintage were hand-assembled, the results from individual examples could be variable, so I’m always wary of claims that lens X from that era blows lens Y into the weeds. Some of the images which my father obtained from his 5cm Summitar are sharper than I’ve ever managed with the two 5cm Summicrons I own. I must assume he was lucky and got a really good one. The decision on whether to buy an f1 or an f1.4 lens may depend in part on whether one already has a 50mm f2 lens. I did, so opted to buy a lens which would give me two further stops. (In practice, it’s given me three extra stops, since the extra weight of the Noctilux means I can hand-hold 1/15 with a fair degree of confidence.) The Jupiter was purchased later for use as a cheap fast lens my screw cameras, my interest in these have been re-awakened by using a IIIb during last year’s LHSA "pilgrimage’ to Wetzlar and Solms. Had I already owned the Jupiter, I’d probably not have purchased the Noctilux, but have used the Jupiter on a second body loaded with faster film so as to have the same dim-light capability as a Noctilux loaded with my regular film. I’d have assumed that camera shake at low hand-held speeds would have degraded the optical quality of the more modern lens and reduced the impact on image quality of the faster film. (Despite its size and weight, I’m getting to like the Noctilux. The images it produces in dim light have what I can only describe as a "glow" or "sparkle" which produces a very 3D effect. I think this may in part be evidence that my 1950s-era Leitz lenses need to be cleaned!) All I was trying to suggest in my original posting was that an f1.4 lens and a faster film might for some users be a cost-effective alternative to an f1 lens used with one’s normal film. So I was puzzled when your message quoted me as saying: >OK, then you may as well use a f3.5 Elmar, and a 7 times faster film This line was not in my original posting - I don’t know who added it. It’s an amusing but impractical idea! The practical range of non-specialised emulsions which are available from your nearest friendly small-town photo store is only 50 - 400 for slide film, and 50 - 800 for colour negative, which is a difference of three or four times (ignoring the effects of push processing, if this is available). You rightly point out that: >you can not get the same results with a slower lens, by increasing film speed. Something suffers. As I have discovered with my recent sad experience with Kodachrome 200! But for some users and some applications, the effect of a modest increase in film speed may be either negligible or acceptable. For work, I formerly used 200ASA film, but switched to 400. On photos processed in the nearest "fast-photo" establishment, there is no obvious loss of quality from the faster film, and the image as reproduced on the printed page of a magazine will in most cases be similar in size or even smaller than the commercial print. Next stage will be to try 800ASA to get increased depth of field, faster shutter speeds, or a little more dim-light capability. Regards, Doug Richardson