Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/25

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

Subject: [Leica] About the Noctilux
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Sat Mar 25 05:58:59 2006

Hi:

I'm just curious what the fuss is all about concerning the Noctilux. 
Big, pricey and seemingly flawed. The difference between 1.4 and 1.0 
cannot be worth the sacrifice in quality, is it? Just about the only 
advantage a Leica had over the SLRS (size, weight, unobtrusiveness) of 
its day would seem to be given up.

Many times over the years I've given up an f stop or two for excellent 
performance and portability. When covering  an event where long,fast 
glass was needed then the bulky monsters were necessary. Other than that 
I could never justify it. There have been many fine images shown on the 
LUG by folks with a Noctilux but were any done in situations where a 1.4 
or even a 2.0 would have not done the trick?

Maybe that should be one of the next "shadow" type entertainments posted 
here? Are fuzzy aberrations worth the price? Lets do f 1, 1.4, or 2.0 
and be there???

Walt


Replies: Reply from aaron.sandler at duke.edu (Aaron Sandler) ([Leica] About the Noctilux)
Reply from rangefinder at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig) ([Leica] About the Noctilux)
Reply from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] About the Noctilux)
Reply from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] About the Noctilux)
Reply from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] About the Noctilux)
Reply from images at InfoAve.Net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] About the Noctilux)