Re: [Leica] Is a Noctilux the Answer?

["Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>]

Arne-
Maybe I was lucky, or just not as critical as you, but I had found the
Noctilux to be a wonderful lens, and capable of quite a lot. Since it was a
borrowed one, I may not have had the time with it to be disapponted, but I
will gladly admit that I want one, and hope to get one someday!
I found that at f2 is was about as good as the results I get from a
Summicron, with 400 ISO film, I don't have to be THAT critical :o)
It has one shortcoming, for me, and that it is SO BIG! (Do I sound like the
Monty Python Prayer to God in one of their skits?- 'Oh You are so HUGE, so
BIG, gosh I am so afraid....')
If it wasn't so good otherwise, I would say it might rank among those
'exotic' special purpose lenses like Hasselblad's multi-K $ lenses for
ultra-violet photography with the quartz lens elements, or Leitz' more
exotic tele-photos!!
I can say, however, that any lens that can capture a usable image in
lighting so poor that it is difficult to set the camera and focus (at least
for my old peepers!) is pretty damned good in my considered opinion!
Obviously, single malts aside, a LUGnut's favorite 'wine' is, " I want a
Noctilux!"

Dan ( I waaaaant it!, I waaaaant it!....) Post

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Arne Helme" <Arne.Helme@stelvio.nl>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Is a Noctilux the Answer?


> In message <5.1.0.14.0.20020108181410.024bea10@pop.andara.com>,
> "Robert G. Stevens" writes:
> >Jim:
> >
> >A lot of people get a Noctilux with unrealistic expectations.  There are
> >always trade offs.  In the case of the Noctilux, it can be very limited
> >depth of field at closer distances.  It also vignettes at f1.  It is
> >however, the best f1 lens in the world.
> >
> >In your case, if the people are more than a few meters away, the depth of
> >field should be fine at f1.  If you are expecting tight head and shoulder
> >shots, expect a lot to be out of focus.  At the close working distance,
the
> >Noctilux probably has less than an inch of depth of field.  It is so
> >shallow that you can have the iris of the eye in focus, but the eyebrow
and
> >a lot of the rest of the face will be out of focus.  Arne Helme's PAW
from
> >last week shows the distances at which the Noctilux shines, particularly
> >the main image.
> >
> >http://helme.stelvio.nl/paw2002/paw01.html
> >
>
> Regarding the above mentioned link and the use of the Noctilux.  I
cheated!  That is to say, there was only light to shoot at 1/8s at f1, which
I cannot steadily hand hold, so I mounted the M6 on a monopod.  Consider a
monopod and/or faster film before you consider the Noctilux.  It is way
cheaper!
>
> Concerning the Noctilux.  I have had mine now for more than three years.
Few other lenses have given me more disappointments than this lens.  Only
the last year I have obtained really nice photos with it.  It is definitely
a lens with a learning curve.  I never use the Noctilux wide open when
focused closer than 2m. I also chose points of focus near centrum of the
image so I don't have to rotate the camera too much, thereby ensuring that
the subject remains in focus.  At f1.4 and smaller apertures the lens is
much less demanding.
>
> -- Arne
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html