[Leica] For Sale: pristine Nocti .95

[john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster)]

Sadly there seem to be a lot of f0.95s for sale, maybe no-one liked it ;-) 
Compared to the +12 month waiting list a few years back...

john

-----Original Message-----
From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+john=mcmaster.co.nz at leica-users.org] On 
Behalf Of Sonny Carter
Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2015 2:40 p.m.
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] For Sale: pristine Nocti .95

So if we collected a buck for every word on this thread that doesn't pertain 
to Sue's wish to sell her lens, we could buy it from her. 

from my iPad

Sonny Carter

> On Apr 4, 2015, at 8:53 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> -----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
>>>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information?+
?????
??$y???Z??????y????????1??N???j??v+b?x???-?'-y?h???v?jwg?w(?g?r&????????????+'??y????!j???(?g?r&??'
????????Z???z?Z??(??k?????????)?{m?