Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Noctilux vs Summicron
From: "Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:48:59 -0800
References: <v04011700b63726450134@[64.20.255.73]>

If you have f/1.0, you'll use it, and find that you love it!  I have yet to
hear anyone on the LUG say they had a Noctilux, but sold it because they
never used the speed and didn't want to carry the weight around.  The only
down side is that I have yet to find a convenient way to use a polarizer
with it for color.  (I say convenient, because my tests show that even the
standard Leica 60mm polarizer vignettes with it, and I do not find the
two-filter method to be convenient anyway, which I know is my personal
preference, so we don't have to start a thread on the two-polarizer method.)

Why do you quote the MAP price for the Noctilux and a used price for the
Summicron?  IMHO, Noctilux' depreciate faster, and are a better buy in that
respect.  When I was looking, the Noctilux was $1500-1800 used, the later
Summilux (.7 m version on ) was in the $1200 range, and a recent Summicron
was in the $600-$700 range.  So, you can get a used Noctilux for about $400
more than a Summilux or about $800 more than a Summicron.

So, buy the Noctilux used, secure in knowing that you can get your $$ back
reselling on e***  if you hate it, then fall in love with it, and a year
later buy a Summicron when you stumble across a good deal, to use with a
polarizer or when you don't want to endanger the beloved Noctilux.

Tom

> in a word, it seems foolhardy to spend $3000 on a lens when there is a
$600
> lens that would do the same thing.
>
> does that clear things up?
>
> guy

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Re: Noctilux vs Summicron)
In reply to: Message from Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net> (Re: [Leica] Re: Noctilux vs Summicron)