Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I remain curious about whether these qualities of the Noctilux are fairly much because it is an f1 lens or whether it is something unique to this particular lens. I only wish I could compare some real prints to what I shot with the Canon 50/1 when I loaned one. Here is a shot with the Canon f1, also with a bright background. The Canon photos also have a peculiar "look", which I think is similar to the Noctilux, but I didn't shoot long enough with it to be sure about that. http://www.ans.com.au/~chrisb/photo/equipment/canon/50_pic4.jpg Robert G. Stevens wrote: > > Arturo: > > Not all of the pictures are taken at F1. What really sets the Noctilux > apart from the other 50's is not how sharp it is but how it renders things. > Erwin Puts has noted that it has very high flare (veiling flare) > suppression, which means there is detail recorded where the veil of flare > would obscure it. An example of this quality is here: > > http://home.istar.ca/~robsteve/Boyd.jpg > > You can see the bright window behind Boyd's head, which should cause flare. > The picture though shows great shadow detail and a very smooth redition of > his skin and texture of his sweater (better visible in the actual print). > Look at the details and shadows of the chair behind him. Remember the lens > has two sources of flare, the window above the chair and the window in the > right of the picture. > > I stand to be corrected on my analysis of this, as I only know what I have > gleaned from Erwin Puts' posts. Erwin may want to comment on this or you > may want to get the Photo Techniques magazine that has Erwin's article > about the Noctilux in it. > > Regards, > > Robert Stevens > > At 12:18 AM 9/2/98 EDT, you wrote: > >Lately, I have seen quite a few pictures taken by LUG participants using the > >Noctilux--and I have some questions: > > > >1) Are all of these examples taken at f1.0?? > > > >2) If f1.0 is the thrill ride of this lens, why is it not fixed at f1.0? > >Wouldn't a Summilux work better at f1.4 - f16? > > > >Just curious! > > > >Arturo > > > > > > > > - -- Chris Bitmead http://www.ans.com.au/~chrisb mailto:chrisb@ans.com.au