RE: [Leica] Re: Noct vs 50 'lux

["Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com>]

Jeff,

You're message reminds me of an important point. A 50/1.4 for an SLR
valuable at all apertures not just when the lens is used wide open. Whereas
with an M it's only really valuable when you use the lense wide open. 

When you said "the look of the new 50/1.4" I took it to mean the look of the
final image. But appearance through the prism can be just as important (and
perhaps that's what you meant). Thus a fast lens on an SLR provides a
benefit every time you focus and frame. 

I love to focus and compose with a bright image. I don't like zooms because
they tend to be slower than primes. I don't like cheap bodies because they
tend to have dimmer prisms. My preference for fast lenses on an SLR has more
to do with the amount of light in the prism than it does in actual lens
performance. Light always seems to be at a premium.  

Dave  

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Moore [mailto:jbm@oven.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 3:19 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Re: Noct vs 50 'lux


2001-09-07-16:48:06 Rodgers, David:
> I heard something similar to your statement from a Leica rep a while back.
> Improving performance of current 50/1.4 M would require increasing the
size
> of the lens. The current 50/1.4 is excellent. Apparently any performance
> gain wouldn't justify the increase in size. 

Yeah, but... I've been blown away by the look of the new 50/1.4 R lens
wide open.  I really really wish I could have that lens or the
equivalent on the body I use several times more often for that focal
length.  Even if it were, say, Nokton-sized.  (Although I betcha those
clever lasses and lads in Solms could do better).