Re: [Leica] Re: Noctilux Result????

[Chandos Michael Brown <cmbrow@mail.wm.edu>]

Uh . . . I am deeply confused.  I thought that Kubrick employed the .95 to 
shoot candlelit scenes in -Barry Lyndon-.

Chandos


At 08:44 PM 1/25/2000 -0500, you wrote:

> > <<<The F1.0 Noctilux made it appearance in 1976.>>>>>>
> >
> > I owned and was using a Noctilux f 1.0 in 1967 and have used the same lens
> > since! And with quite startlingly good results. You may have made a typo
>on
> > the date. Is that possible?
> >
> > As far as an, "apple and oranges comparison?" I think not, as there really
> > isn't any comparison to the Noctilux. Yes there is the Canon f.1.0 and the
> > f.0.95, but neither are in the same league as the Noctilux.  It stands
> > completely on it's own without comparison.
> >
> > And after 33 years experience with this lens I wouldn't touch any other
>50mm
> > lens! Yep some maybe crisper looking under some conditions, but it doesn't
> > matter, as they don't look like anything at f.1.0 when you need it and
>they
> > don't have it.
>
>Ted,
>
>Eastland, in the Leica M Compendium, says that the 50mm F1.0 Noctilux was
>introduced in 1976 while the F1.2 Noctilux was introduced in 1966.
>
>My point was that optical science, as well as the manufacturing abilities of
>a camera/lens manufacturer, change and improve over time.  No argument that
>the F1.2 or 1.0 Noctilux are both much better than either of the two Canon's
>we're talking about, but they better be considering they were designed years
>later.
>
>BTW, I too recently watched "Tom Jones" and was so impressed with some of
>the dim-light scenes that were shot with the Canon F0.95 lens, that I
>recently picked up the TV version of this lens, in a c-mount, which I plan
>to mount on a movie or video camera.  It only cost me a $110.00 so I
>couldn't pass it up.
>
>Jim Bielecki
>



Chandos Michael Brown
Assoc. Prof., History and American Studies
College of William and Mary

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown