Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/19

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux
From: "Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:42:57 -0800
References: <382127958.984939306823.JavaMail.root@web586-ec> <3AB61A46.99605326@primus.com.au>

I am curious about your favoring the 50mm Summar.  I have one that I used
for a couple of rolls of film and found the results of candid pictures at a
family gathering to be soft.

Should I be using it to obtain soft pictures?

Roland Smith

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux


> Look Stanislaw, don't be such an expert on things you don't own.
> I,  do own a Noctilux
> and have to say, there is so much uninformed talk about the
> shallow depth of field of this superb lens.
> Firstly, like any other lens, it is not always used at its full
> aperture. I would say, this is really
> the exception. Most of the time, when I specially go out with
> the Noctilux, I seldom go larger than f2.  Even so, the depth of
> field at a close distance at f2 for example, (the largest
> opening of a Summicron) is small too, nobody ever seems to
> complain, that their Summicron is hard to focus.
> I used f1 for example when photographing trains and trams in the
> underground stations.
> But then I am quite a distance away from the object. This way
> the depth of field is quite easy to control.  My favorite are
> the slightly sleazy pubs, located outside the railway stations
> in Germany. I love sitting in there, having a beer and looking
> to the smoke and then taking pictures. Who cares about the
> shallow depth of field. I find it looks great if you manage to
> get one or two faces reasonably sharp, diffused by the smoke in
> a yellowish light. Most
> times the small depth of field is an advantage. If I need to
> increase the d.o.f., then I use my elbows on the bar to support
> myself. you be amazed, the longer you stay in the pub, while
> filling up the glass, how much more steady you get; until you
> have to get up. But that's another story.
>
>
> During my time on the LUG, I read a lot of comments from other
> LUGers about this lens.
> Mostly good comments from people who owned one, and "strangely"
> a fair amount of negative comment from people who didn't. Before
> I found the money to purchase one, I  wondered if it was a wise
> investment, with so much negative comments.
> I did buy one and never looked back. I would say, this has to be
> one of Leicas masterpieces in lens design.  If I had to sell all
> my Leica lenses I would try and keep this one and my coated 50mm
> Summar (now you really can go to town) and the 50mm original
> Voigtlander
> Nocton.
>
>
>
> Stanislaw Stawowy wrote:
>
> > > > > > The M3 viewfinder is the best one available for
> > Noctilux
> > > >
> > > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > My dear Hamlet! M3, having the same rangefinder base
> > > > (about 69mm) has highest magnification (.91x), so
> > > > focussing accuracy is very high...
> > >
> > > That doesn't make it 'better'.  Do you know that the
> > mechanical tolerances
> > > are higher on the 3 than the 6?
> >
> > It seems that you agree that M3 is better built? According
> > to Erwin Puts' recent letter, it makes you a _desirable_
> > LUGer.. :)
> >
> > > I, for one, really don't care which one IS better,
> > > but I'd like to see some
> > > facts (surprise! ;-).
> >
> > OK. Here are facts you asked for:
> > 1. With higher magnification (0.91) of M3, focusing is
> > simpler, because split of image is easier to see.
> > With paper-thin Noctilux' DOF, you want to try to
> > focus as accurately as you can... :)
> > With all above, you can use Noctilux or any Leica.
> > You probably will be able to use it on a IIIc,
> > assuming Leica will make a screwmount Noctilux.
> > But I had problems even with Jupiter 3 (f/1.5)
> > with not enoughly careful focusing, so, with
> > as much money as lawyers got, I would go for M3
> > rather.... :)
> >
> > 2. 0.91 magnification means that framelines for 50mm
> > are optimally sized (read: BIG) in viewfinder,
> > so you will _undoubtely_ frame easier with M3.
> > Well cleaned M3 should also provide brighter image,
> > but I am very unsure about it and ask for opinion
> > all M3 and M6 users here
> >
> > > The materials better, so there is less wear
> > > over time...etc.?
> > What has this to do with Noctilux focusing?
> > I hope we are talking about _adjusted_ M3 here?
> > If not, well, even CL will focus Noctilux better
> > than M3 with rangefinder off.... :)
> >
> > > If it's personal opinion,
> > > it's probably better stated
> > > as such, instead of it coming across as fact...
> >
> > So why don't you take a M3 and M6 and actually
> > try it for your own, mister? :)
> > All opinions on LUG are personal ones. For more
> > science facts, check following links:
> >
> > http://www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm
> >
> > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/rfaccuracy.html
> >
> > Don't get lost in Internet caves, my tiny veawer! :)
> >
> > And finally:
> >
> > "Aww, let's go out and take some pictures." - Gary Winogrand
> > -------------
> > St. (alias Puck. So Shake your Spear... Nye would be happy!)
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
> > Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
>
>
>
>

Replies: Reply from Guy Bennett <gbennett@lainet.com> (Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux)
Reply from "onetreehillclw" <onetreehillclw@compaq.net> (Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux)
Reply from "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" <watteau@krakow.neurosoft.net> (Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux)
In reply to: Message from Stanislaw Stawowy <watteau@email.com> (Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux)
Message from "A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au> (Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux)