RE: [Leica] noct performance

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

I KNOW I shouldn't engage..but the devil is making me do it...

Of course you want to know if the Noct. is decent in the normal aperture
range, but the basic point remains: Either you need a lens that can get you
f1, or you don't. Period. If you do, buy the damn thing and worry about the
other aperture's later and carry your Nikon if you need to. If you're so
wedded to an f2.8 zoom, I would guess you don't really need a Noctilux...I
admit, and no flames please, that given the price, I basically view the
Noctilux as a very skilled circus act and figure that I can get by with an
f1.4 pushing my ASA. But there are those who swear by it.

As someone wiser than I has already suggested, stop trying to compare every
damn lens on the face of the earth. Just decide what your needs are, what
works for you, and go for it....and, by the way, you're absolutely right
when you say we shouldn't be wedded to brand name, but rather to performance
and what works for us...which is why I swear by my manual Nikkor 180 2.8
ED...mounted on an F body which I will replace one of these days...

> From: B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 20:29
> Subject: RE: [Leica] noct performance
>
>
> > Fer God's sake, Anthony, you buy a Noctilux for one
> > reason and one reason only - you want to shoot in new
> > light at f 1.
>
> Then why does it stop down to f/16?  Wouldn't it be cheaper
> to optimize it for
> performance only at f/2 and below, if that's all it is good for?
>
> > You don't buy it because at f5.6 it is or isn't as
> > good as, or better than, a Nikkor zoom. Who cares how
> > it compares to any other lens, except at the maximum
> > aperture?
>
> It's an important consideration, because it helps determine
> whether you can use
> the Noctilux alone for general purposes at that focal length,
> or whether you
> need to buy a separate 50-mm prime for shots beyond f/2.  To
> make the decision,
> you need to know what quality the Noctilux will provide at
> smaller apertures--if
> it is as good as a Nikkor AF-S 28-70, and the latter is
> satisfactory to you, you
> need not invest more in another prime; but if it is worse
> than the Nikkor, then
> you'll need to get a separate 50-mm lens for the smaller
> apertures.  The
> difference is $1800 or so, if I'm not mistaken, which is not trivial.
>
>   -- Anthony
>
>