Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/04/03

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

Subject: [Leica] For Sale: pristine Nocti .95
From: steve.barbour at (Steve Barbour)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:46:53 -0700
References: <>

Mark, you among few, know of course that it?s easy to make a copy, but a 
copy that communicates feeling is another story?lyrical, poetic? that?s what 
we mean?.
soul, and I know you understand all this very well.


> On Apr 3, 2015, at 1:47 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at> wrote:
> Wow Bob! "Digitally precise!" Sounds like a pejorative! I can look it up 
> but
> I have a feeling I'm not going to find it!
> As in  what you get when you get a lens with cutting edge modern glass and
> modern coatings and modern lens design?
> And as if anyone ever could tell a digital photo from an analog photo.
> A digital photo has no soul!!!
> You get that well known hated "digital" look instead of the revered 
> "analog"
> look. Which most people just chalk up to smoother bokeh and lower contrast.
> And my god a lens with measurable micro contrast is probably a very bad
> thing. Steals the soul!
> We should be shooting tri x with single coated glass and making a real
> photograph.
> Bad equals good. 
> A premise which shoots the hell out of any intelligent conversation you're
> ever going to try have about the materials  and practice of photography.
> On 4/3/15 4:24 PM, "Bob Adler" <rgacpa at> wrote:
>> I didn't complain that the old lenses make better images. I don't think
>> lenses make images.
>> The 0.95 is stellar: Sharper at 0.95 than the f/1 is at f/1 and a truly
>> contrast-less bokeh. But I prefer the older less perfect look over the
>> newer, more digitally precise.
>> Dare you to say my preference is wrong! ;-)
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at> 
>> wrote:
>>> I would also like to see side by side comparisons but the meantime I'd
>>> think
>>> the new lens is better than the old one (which I have) on all accounts.
>>> This
>>> is a key lens in the Leica lineup with high visibility promo value and 
>>> the
>>> last lens Dr. Andreas Kaufmann is going to mess up in any respect.
>>> The f1 has trouble with digital. A huge embarrassment for the Leica
>>> company.
>>> This one costing three times more money and having the fastest design
>>> available is not going to have any glitches in it. Its going to be worth
>>> it.
>>> Leica has the resources to make sure this is the case.
>>> Its common on at least this the list to assume that a lens with an 
>>> aspheric
>>> element in it has a harsh look with ruined bokeh. Leica went to bed and
>>> woke
>>> up stupid.
>>> Its as if it goes without saying so that people will make solid 
>>> statements
>>> to this effect without even seeing this first hand on a new lens it not
>>> questioned by anybody.
>>> I've have four M lenes with aspherics in them and have found that first
>>> hand
>>> to not be true. Each generation of Leica glass, Nikon too and I'd think
>>> Canon gets sharper with better contrast and god forbid they'd forget much
>>> better bokeh. As this aspect of a lens is all anyone cares or knows about
>>> any more.
>>> I find this worship of old glass to be puerile. Even multi coating is
>>> looked
>>> upon with a negative slant and older simpler coatings revered. They even
>>> say
>>> this improves film speed. Pay extra for a single coated lens. Less 
>>> contrast
>>> means better shadow detail. Like never.
>>> The lens or camera companies are highly competitive and none of them are
>>> stupid. The general level of optical engineering improves every minute.
>>> I always with few exceptions get the latest a camera company has to offer
>>> unless I cant afford it or its no longer made or its more compact or
>>> something. If I get old glass I don't claim they make better images. They
>>> make cheaper images.
>>> On 4/3/15 3:18 PM, "John McMaster" <john at> wrote:
>>>> The f1 can create 'dreamier' images, the f0.95 is a bit harsher. I read
>>> a few
>>>> years back about someone who had both; he used the f0.95 if he was going
>>>> somewhere and had to get a photo (stopped down it is almost as good as
>>> any
>>>> Leica 50mm) but used the f1 in his own time for personal images. The
>>> colours
>>>> from the f0.95 and gorgeous but the f1 is also significantly smaller and
>>>> lighter!
>>>> john
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> Or maybe it's just nostalgia...
>>>> Even if it's purely emotional, I just can't justify having something 
>>>> this
>>>> expensive that makes me feel guilty not loving it.
>>>> Sue
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Robert Adler <rgacpa at> wrote:
>>>>> There is something lovely and unique about the "older" Notcti's
>>>>> indeed! I agree that there is some secret ingredient missing in the
>>>>> new 0.95's. I think if I were to see some side-by-side shots I might
>>>>> be able to better see a difference.
>>>>> Good luck with the sale: many love and produce beautiful images with 
>>>>> it.
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Bob
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Susan Ryan <skalte at> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I shot maybe 100 images with it. Just don't love it the way I did my
>>> 1.0.
>>>>>> $9000. Photos available. Paypal preferred but we can discuss
>>>>>> alternatives if necessary. Contact me offlist.
>>>>>> Sue Ryan
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See for more information
>>> --
>>> Mark William Rabiner
>>> Photographer
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See for more information
> -- 
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photographer
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

In reply to: Message from mark at (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] For Sale: pristine Nocti .95)