Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Among BARRY LYNDON's end-credits is one to Zeiss for the special lens. >Chandos: > >Kubrick used a couple of lenses for "Barry Lyndon" which I believe were F >0.7. I think they were NASA lenses which he had adapted to the camera they >were using. I have the American Cinematographer magazine article at work >and will check for details. > >Mike D > >-----Original Message----- >From: Chandos Michael Brown <cmbrow@mail.wm.edu> >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> >Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 10:44 PM >Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Noctilux Result???? > > >>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 >> >> >