Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/15

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

Subject: [Leica] Noctilux comparison
From: rangefinder at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig)
Date: Tue Nov 15 14:17:20 2005
References: <21302573.1132092063261.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Same for me. It's quite soft but I just like it. The only thing I need to 
take care of is it's heavy tendency for vignetting. I avoid bright 
backgrounds or skies; and I dont use filters though I have several 55mm 
special flat ones (those who do not touch the lens front) but I have 
meanwhile learned that the flare risk is significantly rising by using them.
Find some low light Canon 50 1.2 pictures here (Flash player 5 or higher 
needed)
http://inzec.ch/inzec_english.html
Soft as soft can be:
http://tinyurl.com/7sku3 (with filter-caused flare at the bottom left)

Didier


>From what I have seen the Noctilux performs better. It's sharper and has 
>more contrast
>at f1, than the Canon at 1.2. That said, I like the results from the Canon. 
>It has a nice fingerprint.
>And you can't beat the price...
>feli
>
>>Ted, or anyone else -
>>I've never owned a Noctilux but I do own an old Canon 50mm f1.2 lens in 
>>a LTM. With an adaptor for my M3 it was just the thing when I needed to 
>>shoot in available darkness. I would appreciate it if anyone who has 
>>used both of these lenses could offer a quality comparison. That is, if 
>>you can do it without gratuitous slurs against Canon products.
>>Larry Z

Replies: Reply from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] Noctilux comparison)
In reply to: Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (feli) ([Leica] Noctilux comparison)