Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Irwin is referring to the aspherical reflex version of the Canon 50 f1.2 when praising it relative to the f1.2 Noctilux. The LTM 50mm f1.2 which I own has very vintage performance and is nowhere near as good as either of the Noctilux designs, or the Canon reflex 50s. I have all three since I, perhaps foolishly, never sell anything. Frank On 22 Mar, 2006, at 22:30, lrzeitlin@optonline.net wrote: > > > Ted writes: > > <<>> " because the residual aberrations of such a fast lens add an >> ethereal quality to your photos? "<<<<< > I've used a Noctilux since it was available in Canada, '72-73? And > at times > it was - is my main lens indoor and out. However I was never aware > of this > condition. Is this something I've missed all these years that's > good, bad or > ugly? Serious question.>> > > > Ted, > > To be honest I've never used a Noctilux. But I do have a vintage > Canon 50mm F 1/2 on an M3 that I use for informal available light > portraits of women. The slight uncorrected spherical abberation > when used at settings greater than F 2 gives a hint of a soft halo > around a sharp core that most of my subjects seem to like - sort of > like a Hollywood diffusion screen effect. Stopped down beyond F 2 > the lens is quite sharp, nearly as good as a Summicron. My question > really was to find out if this is true of the Noctilux as well. > > Erwin Puts seems to feel that the Canon is a better lens than the > early > Noctilux Again, I have no basis for comparison. > > Larry Z > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information