Re: [Leica] Re: Is the Noctilux for night photograpy?

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

Ted Grant wrote:

> Doug Nygren wrote:
> > My question concerns the Noctilux. I do a lot of night photography. I
> > shoot at F 5.6, use color slide film (Velvia and Kodachrome 64) and get
> > good results with a 35 mm 1.4 Summilux and and the 21 mm.
> >
> > How well will the Noctilux perform at 5.6? Will it better or worse than
> > a 50 mm 1.4 summilux?>>>>>>>>
>
> Hi Doug,
> I haven't found it to be worse than my 50 1.4 Summilux, the only problem
> I have with saying that is I never check to see whether one is better
> than the other at 5.6 , 8 or any other aperture.  I have the Noctilux
> for a very simple reason, "it's the fastest lens on the block and it
> works beautifully for me at f1.0!  And that's why I bought it to use
> wide open as often as I can and to have it when the light is abominable
> and I don't want to use flash.
>
> As far as using it for night photography or minimum light with slide
> film it's gorgeous and at f 1.0 sometimes I shoot hand held and that
> makes life real interesting when you're not tied to a tripod all the time.
>
> > My feeling is that the Noctilux is best when wide open.>>>>>>>>
>
> Well that's right in relation to the pictures it allows you to take hand
> held at f 1.0, but the real truth of what is best aperture is to read
> Erwin Put's evaluation of the lens .
>
> > I have borrowed a Noctilux and have found it difficult to focus. The 35
> > mm and 21 are fairly easy to focus.>>>>
>
> I don't find it more difficult to focus than any other lens, but what
> you do have to learn is, exactly where to focus so the finished slide is
> in focus where you wanted it.  And due to how it looks because of the
> extremely shallow depth of field, it can give the impression that one
> didn't focus correctly. It's just a matter of focusing exactly on the
> right spot to make use of the shallow depth to make the sharpness work
> in the image.
>
> ted

I was going to answer in a similar fashion  Ted did, but alas, he said it just
about all.

Just one thing I like to add. The closer your object to film distance gets to
the infinity mark, the less you have to worry about depth of field. In other
words: If you can, move a bit further away from the object, if you need more
depth of field.

Regards, Horst Schmidt