Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/11

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] here's a concept, Summilux vs. Noctilux
From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:55:02 -0600

At 06:44 AM 2/12/99 +0100, you wrote:

>Doesn't the tripod kind of defeat the purpose? You could have used
>stepped down summicrons or elmarits in those circumstances...

Sure, but I wanted sharp pictures, not really any kind of test. I guess I
could have shot them hand held, but at 1 second (I was using ISO 400 film)
or so, I'm not sure I would have any "readable" results. I was shooting,
not testing. The comparison was just a side benefit.

>Is the alternative more or less sharpness or the ability or not to shoot
>handheld pictures at EVx with ISOxxx film ?

Both, I think.

>Comes my main question: does the 35mm at f1.4 allow to shoot handheld
>with as much darkness as the 50mm at f1, the wider angle allowing a
>slower shutter speed? 

I don't think so. I can hold a 50 and a 35 at about the same speeds
regardless. So the extra stop is significant, I guess. The picture of the
Empress hotel with the moon would have not been the same with any other
lens. That was hand held at f/1. I was surprised it came out as good as it
did. And no coma to speak of because I didn't have specular lights at the
edge. But a Canadian flag was blurred from flapping in the high winds. I'll
get it posted eventually.

>And another question: isn't focusing MUCH more reliable for the 35mm at
>f1.4 than for the 50mm at f1 ?

Not that I noticed.

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?