[Leica] About the Noctilux redux

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Marty Deveney explained:
Subject: [Leica] About the Noctilux redux


> I wrote quite a long response to some comments about my last post about 
> the aberrations apparent when viewing photos made with the Noctilux. I've 
> pasted it below and here is the 'abstract' in point form.<<<<


Hi Marty,
Thank you for the technical break down, very interesting indeed.

I suppose I'll have to ask my usual stupid question, otherwise everyone will 
be disappointed if I didn't. ;-)

In the kind of near available darkness photography some of us do on occasion 
and your explanation of aberrations, which until your comments, I had no 
idea such things existed. Nor can I honestly say I've seen anything that 
would make me think there was such things as "aberrations" in the lens. 
After your explanation I have no doubt they exist, but if one doesn't know 
about it as in my case, are they so visible I should've seen something in 
the prints that would've triggered some concern?

When I've used it in places where at ASA 3200, wide open f 1.0 and I can 
squeeze off a shot at 1/8th or 1/4 of a sec. and capture a successful image 
is all that matters. Then I've never been very techie about anything 
photographic as I just want to take/make successful photographs and print 
them or have them published in whatever medium I'm shooting for.

As much as I've enjoyed your explanations and found them very interesting, I 
now have this little seed of doubt sown about the Noctilux and what I 
thought it was cracked up to be. Particularly when I've used it successfully 
where others fear to shoot without a gzillion watts of strobe light.

I suppose the question is... "Can I see the aberrations effect easily and 
does it effect the photograph enough to make the shot a throw away?"

Or does one just enjoy your presentation as information and dismiss it as 
"something all lenses have and it's no big deal?"

It's that damn one little seed of doubt! :-(

ted