Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted Grant wrote: > > Simon Lamb wrote: > > >>>>>>Is the Noctilux a viable alternative to the 50mm f/2 or would it > be wise to > > keep the f/2 when purchasing a Nocti?<<<<<< > > Hi Simon, > I don't know if the Noctilux is a viable alternative from a technical > point, others more knowledgeable could answer that one. It depends if > you are prepared to shoot a considerable number of frames at f 1.0 or > slightly smaller aperture. Although we who own a Noctilux and I'm > assuming the others are similar in it's use as myself, we don't shoot > as many images at f 1.0 as some folks may think. > > However. what we do is, have an f 1.0 tool at our disposal when it's > required that other lenses don't and that's what makes the difference > and why we have them. > > Would I keep the 50 mm f 2.0 if I were to buy a Noctilux? I can't think > of any reason why I would. I'd use it as part payment for the Noctilux. > > ted Hi Simon, I actually did things the wrong way around. I bought the Noctilux first. Later I bought the 50 Summicron as a light weight alternative and for its fantastic performance. Seen the photodo ratings? They sure got my attention. Now that I can choose which one to use, 90-95% of the time its the f2 lens. Its so easy to use and so portable. Nevertheless, the Noctilux makes images I cannot get with the Summicron, with lovely rich 100 speed colour film. A real advantage of the f1 lens is that its mass, being close to the camera body, makes for a very steady hand-held unit. So, not only do you have higher shutter speeds in reserve, it also seems to shake less in the hands. I see it as a lens for specialised applications, rather than general purpose, go anywhere lens like the 50 'cron. Regards Rick Dykstra