Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/20

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux
From: Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:38:58 -0000

Chris, Roland,
I klnow the Summar is rearded as a 'soft' lens and indeed the way I use mine, I have little reason to disagree.
But, I know of at least a couple of guys who can produce astonishly sharp results from theirs. One of which is included on 'my' website
http://www.lpp.org.uk/circle7.htm
here as the raw picture file
http://www.lpp.org.uk/ronda.jpg
It's not terribly large and the contrast isn't perfect but the upshot is that the Summar has more to offer than most of us realise.
It needs technique and a well kept lens.

regards,
Jem

- -----Original Message-----
From:	onetreehillclw [SMTP:onetreehillclw@compaq.net]
Sent:	20 March 2001 04:14
To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject:	Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux

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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>