Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/04/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]-----Original Message----- From: Mark Rabiner > Just insane Steve. >When we think about getting a new lens or other gear we research it >extensively on the internet often starting with the manufactures stated >specs. Then the >specs which other people are publishing. You can line with >up as direct comparisons. There's dxomark. MTF charts. Erwin Puts books >and website I have Erwins books.... >If you'd like I can talk quite lucidly with you about the Noct 1.2. A lens >I've seen personally once but have read about extensively over decades. > We talked about this lens once for quite awhile over a dinner table in a > dark steakhouse in San Antonio with Sherry K. and Jim Marshall in 2001. > Jim was going to buy the lens as he heard it was better and was more > compact. > Sherry and I talked him out of it. Its not better. It's worse on all > accounts. Odd, my Puts books show that the f1.2 is sharper wide open, particularly in the corners and not much between them at f5.6. I know somebody on this list has personal experience of this being the case. > I really had my facts down on the history of Noctilux glass then because > I had just got one for myself. A lens which I left on my camera without > taking off for a year and made 16x20 fiber archival prints of my finders > which I rolled up and sent to them all over the world for their holiday > stocking stuffers. I shot thousands or rolls of film with my Noctilux. > Mainly Fuji Neopan 1600 which I souped in Xtol 1:3. Uh huh, so how much fine detail did you get with that compared to say K25? Slight difference between 35mm 1600 asa film and an M9/240/Monochrom for finding a lenses limitations ;-) > I often used a yellow green or dark green filter with it so I'd not have > to stop down so much or at all. > I found Noctilux use to be all about F 1000th of a second and be there. > You have you shutter speed set at 1000th of a second and you hope you > don't have to stop down too much if at all. As its very much about a > tight selective focus mind set. > I can talk about the history of Noctilux and any aspect you want to talk > about Noctilux till the cows come home. If you don't like it don't read > it. > George seems to think my experience with the Noctilux is completely > invalid and I should just shut up became I shot film and not digital. And many people who have shot on both say that digital is very different.... > Really pretty funny. > Some real narrow small minded sectarian thinking going on on the LUG. > At least no ones correcting my spelling. Not how I think of George or Steve ;-) John On 4/4/15 7:25 PM, "Steve Barbour" <steve.barbour at gmail.com> wrote: > what I am interested in here Mark, is your pure opinion without facts, > about very expensive leica lenses, that you desire, but have never > used, importantly you resent another's opinion about these lenses, > generally that they own and have used?.. I sense that you resent that they have the lenses and you > don?t?. Please correct me if I am wrong. did I forget anything? You may > wish to borrow or rent them, to form a basis for an opinion. Steve > On > Apr 4, 2015, at 3:47 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > > What > I'm interested in here is the fact that two eleven thousand dollar > newest from Leica cutting edge lenses have been rejected by two Lug > people because of bad bokeh. And that neither of them have found it > necessary to show us examples of this. That's 22,000 dollars worth of > bad bokeh and money in the back. Not a jpeg to be seen anywhere. But > we do get to see that the older f1 looks like on a tulip. That > explains everything. > And that when someone in > the world is about to cough up that kind of money for this centerpiece > of modern Leica technology they could end up telling their friend "I > was going to buy this amazing f.95 lens for eleven thousand dollars > but then I checked and there are these people on the Leica users group > who had to send their back. Or trade it in for the previous version > which came out decades ago and is an f1. because of bad bokeh? Then > googled bad bokeh and its all about not what's in focus but what's out > of focus but for this lens its the defining deal! So I'm going to hold > off till I figure out what's going on" > > > That's what I'm interested in. > I'm interested in people doing a "been there done that" with a the gem > of Leicas new line of lenes. A lens which from all reports is nothing > short of a modern marvel of optical excellent unmatched in the modern > world. > > Been there done that! > Oh I've got the pictures > here somewhere. > > From all I've read about it the bokeh which is what an ultra fast lens > is all about on the f.95 is not worse than the f1 but better. > One reason being that the people running and working at Leica now > didn't all of a sudden go to bed and then wake up in the morning > stupid. I have a slightly high respect for the people at Leica > especially the lens design people. > And my eyes work fine when I'm shown a lackluster bokeh image from a > new Noctilux I'll look into it further. > > > On 4/4/15 6:10 > PM, "George Lottermoser" <george.imagist at icloud.com> wrote: > >> Not making > up any rules Mark. >> >> Just an honest question. >> Wondering if you've had > an opportunity to try your M lens collection on a >> digital M body. >> A > friend here in Milwaukee rented an M body just to see if it may be for him. >> > >> My experience with my M8, M, and M Monchrom are very similar to >> others > who've >> needed to have lenses and or bodies adjusted to get them more > precisely in >> line with specifications. >> >> My 35 lux Asph front focuses > horribly. >> My 75 lux has similar problems. >> Neither of those lenses > exhibited problems >> on my 3 M6 film bodies. >> >> While my 50 lux Asph and > 28 cron Asph both >> focus dead accurate on all three digital M bodies >> >> > That's my experience with four lenses on 3 film different film bodies >> and 3 > different digital M bodies. >> >> I certainly appreciate your very extensive > "qualifications" and opinions, >> most especially on the equipment and > processes you've used over the decades. >> >> a note off the iPad, George >> > >> On Apr 4, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: >> > >>> Here a fact I can report on George. I will add my opinion on this >>> and > any >>> other thread on the Lug which I feel like I have something to say > about as I >>> have done here for seventeen years with no care at all about > your opinion of >>> my qualifications. >>> You don't get to start making up > crazy rules. >>> >>> >>>> On 4/4/15 12:54 PM, "George Lottermoser" > <george.imagist at icloud.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 11:31 > PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >>>>> >>>>> but it usually >>>>> works and its many > times more accurate than a ground glass especially with >>>>> a >>>>> normal > and more so with a wide >>>> >>>> do you have any personal experience >>>> > with using lenses on Leica M digital bodies? >>>> >>>> The realities of > perfectly flat sensors, rangefinder precision, cam >>>> adjustments, etc >>>> > are being described to you by individuals who have extensive first > hand >>>> > eperience >>>> on the subject they're discussing. >>>> >>>> There's also a > wealth of information available on the subject. >>>> Bob has provided links to > some the best information on the subject. >>>> >>>> This is not a > debate. >>>> These are reports on facts. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> George > Lottermoser >>>> >>>> http://www.imagist.com >>>> > http://www.imagist.com/blog >>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >>>>