Re: [Leica] the "other" f1

["Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>]

I have heard that the C*n*n lens is optically inferior to the Leica Noctilux,
but I've never compared the two directly (I prefer N*k*n, too).  There are some
images taken with the C lens on photo.net.

Which brings to mind an unrelated question:  Of all the Leica users out there,
particularly Leica M users, who also have SLRs, how many are using C*n*n
equipment as opposed to N*k*n equipment, and why?

I tend to lean towards conservative quality rather than technological state of
the art in photography, which explains why I like Leica rangefinders (surely
among the most conservative of cameras, and among the best built), and Nikon
SLRs (much more conservative than Canon, and also better built, IMO).  I suspect
that I am not unique in this respect.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <shino@ubspainewebber.com>
To: "Leica Users Group (LUG)" <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 11:21
Subject: [Leica] the "other" f1


> c*n*n (is this expurgation appropriate?) makes the "other" f1.0 lens,
> the 1.0L EF USM announced with some fanfare many years
> ago, and still in their catalog (priced about the same as the noctilux)
>
> just out of morbid curiosity,
> why is the c*n*n lens have so little mind-share?  is it a decent lens?
> has anyone here ever used it?  maybe their problem is they never
> came up with a neat name for it.
>
> -rei
>
> p.s. i don't ever think i'd ever buy the 1.0L EF USM; as far as far-east
>      religions go, i am a n*k*n man. :-)