Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric Welch wrote: > > >have) Thanks for the unintentional reinforcement. I am always glad when > >my ideas prove out in the real world. > > Mark, > > I started this thread, and my conclusion is nowhere near that. The 50 > Noctilux will give one an edge, because the comparison of the 35 and 50 is > useful for raw performance of the lens, maybe, but the difference in 35 and > 50mm focal lengths mean that if one is a good photographer, they would not > use them for the same subject. Sometimes 50mm is just a better choice. And > so in those situations, the Noctilux is going to be the obvious choice. Any > advantage that the 35 might give in hand holdable speeds and depth of field > will be negated by the need to crop the picture. > > So I disagree that the Noctilux doesn't have a place in the Leica spectrum > that is irreplaceable. After using both, I can only say I want a Noctilux > more than ever. > > Eric Welch > St. Joseph, MO > http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > > Cooperation can only be reached if we work together. It seems my reading comprehension ain't what it used to be if I flipped the results of your post to play up the 35 unto if not over the Noct. I did not think you were putting down the Noct. thought and either is that my opinion. I just thought the 35 was at least as useful and that that is what you were saying. Dyslexia strikes every 40 seconds. I love the Noct and will someday own one, but getting in a little closer is often not a problem and I think that is very much a Leica thing especially at night. My favorite focal length is the fifty by far. They are like extension cords you can never have too many of them as far as I am concerned. Love them new collapseables. Sorry if I thought we were agreeing if we were not but I still think we agree on more than what would seem evident. Mark Rabiner