Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]So many great shots in the tinyurl that you didn't show us yet, Didier. > From: Didier Ludwig <rangefinder@screengang.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:17:09 +0100 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Noctilux comparison > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >