Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/28

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative
From: Harrison Mcclary <harrison@mcclary.net>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 13:48:10 -0500

once upon a time Ted Grant wrote:

> However. what we do is, have an f 1.0 tool at our disposal when it's
> required that other lenses don't and that's what makes the difference
> and why we have them.
> 
> Would I keep the 50 mm f 2.0 if I were to buy a Noctilux?  I can't think
> of any reason why I would.  I'd use it as part payment for the Noctilux.


I agree with Ted here.  I have only one 50 for my M6, the Noctilux.  I can
not justify spending several thousand dollars on a 50mm lens then turning
around and spending several hundred on ANOTHER 50 mm lens.  Sheesh it is not
like we are talking about the difference in a 300 2.8 and a 300 4.5...that
is a big difference.  The Noctilux, while big is not anywhere near as huge
as some imply, to me at least.

Re the viewfinder intrusion....that is just a fact of life with the M
system.  Try the 28 with hood if you want to see viewfinder intrusion.  And
that is my favorite lens on the M for general shooting.  The Noctilux is
quite simply an awesome piece of glass and I am very glad I have it.

As far as borrowing one for a day...be sure you have the cash to buy one
cause after you shoot with it you will NEED one.   That is what happened to
me.  A friend here let me borrow her's and then I HAD to get one.
- -- 
Harrison McClary
http://www.mcclary.net

Replies: Reply from ksherman <ksherman@cottenmusic.com> (Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)
Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)