Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]the Summar was a "softer" lens. not bad though for the first f2.0. i have used Kodak Techpan with this lens and have gotten great results. the uncoated Summar's tend to be "softer" than the later coated versions. not a bad lens to use after 64 yrs! Chris Williams http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=106765 - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux > 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 > > > > > > > > >