Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/03/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Gerard Captijn <captyng@vtx.ch> writes >In terms of the Noctilux, I don't think that in general photographic >practice there is an essential difference with the Summilux 1.4/50mm. The >Noctilux transmits twice as much light as the Summilux but the trade off is >massive light fall-off in the corners and a somewhat lower overall quality >of the image compared to Leica's other 50 mm's. Also the depth of field at >f1 is extremely small: distance 1 meter: 0,99 - 1,01 m. 2 meter: 1,96 - 2,05 >m. 3 meter: 2,90 - 3,11 m! Probably interesting only for people doing almost >exclusively lowlight photography. There is also the question of very shallow depth of field being desirable in its own right for some users. Often I can't get what I want from a 50/f1.4 lens because the background never seems to be out-of- focus enough and I can't get the picture with the abstract background that I visualise in my head and want on film. But I've seen pictures taken with a 50/f1 lens, including the Canon EOS lens, that have a background that is about as out of focus as I can get with an 85/f1.8 or 90/f2- which is what I want from a fast normal lens. The great thing about a 50/f1 is that it isn't a fast short telephoto lens, its just a fast lens! (If you see what I mean). - -- JB