Re: [Leica] Noctilux DOF (was Delta 3200)

[Jeffcoat Photography <jeffcoatphoto@sumter.net>]

Don't see a depth of field problem here. Would like to know the aperture on the
hoop shot, film and ss. looks to me as the glass does it's job as it was made
to. Any time you shoot any lens wide open focus is more critical, throw in
shutter speed (ss) divided by lack of sleep X  #    of cups of coffee and it may
not be the fault of the glass. I've worked with the 75/1.4 and when it's on it's
on and when I'm not I'm not. I found this speed lens is better (more forgiving
of us/me) when there is a little more distance to the subject.
Just me 2 cents.
Cheers Wilber GFE

"Lee, Ken" wrote:

> Bob,
>
> If I may be so bold as to suggest an alternate site until Ted put up some of
> his Noc shots, have a look at Robert Stevens Noct. images
>
> http://home.istar.ca/~robsteve/photography/Noctilux.htm
>
> Ken
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BOB KRAMER [SMTP:BobKramer@COOPERCARRY.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 11:44 AM
> > To:   'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
> > Subject:      [Leica] Noctilux DOF  (was Delta 3200)
> >
> > Hi Ted,
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts on the Noctilux.  Perhaps I spoke too strongly
> > about the image quality possible with this lens, but a mis-conception
> > borne
> > from my admittedly limited exposure to photographs taken with this lens.
> > I
> > blame society!  Actually, I blame Leica as my comments are largely based
> > on
> > the representative Noctilux photo from their latest M brochure (the chick
> > on
> > the motor scooter).  As well as the few other photos I have seen taken
> > with
> > this lens.  In Leica's case, one would think that when showcasing their
> > most
> > expensive M lens they would choose a photo that shows us the very best
> > that
> > this lens can offer.  Maybe its just me... I dunno.
> >
> > Clearly you regard the Noctilux highly based on your own experience using
> > it.  And this is the way it should be.  But I do think we all gravitate
> > towards the lenses as well as the other equipment that allow us to best
> > realize our own individual photographic vision.  I think my original post
> > on
> > this issue was in response to someone saying something to the effect that
> > if
> > I wanted a 50mm Summilux, what I *really* needed was a Noctilux.  And all
> > I
> > am trying to say is that this ain't necessarily so, for a variety of
> > reasons
> > including cost, weight, size, optics and DOF issues.  Particularly when we
> > are talking about your "standard" lens, the lens that is going to hang on
> > your camera 80% of the time, the one you are going to lug around wherever
> > you go.
> >
> > Ted, I would love to see some of your shots using this lens.  Perhaps you
> > could add a photo or two to you website, or email me one or two so I can
> > get
> > a better feel for what is possible with the Noct. beyond what I have seen
> > to
> > date.  I am more than happy to add another lens to my wish list.  You
> > never
> > know when I might win the lottery!  :-)
> >
> > Bob Kramer
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@islandnet.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [Leica] Delta 3200
> > >
> > > Hi Bob,
> > >
> > > Well it isn't that, we who use them regularly in our work in colour as
> > > well
> > > as  Black & white don't get sharp pictures, we do. And regularly.
> > >
> > > Actually I'd have been dead in the water for magical low light moody
> > > colour
> > > material without it. One thing it does very very well that allows you to
> > > blow away art directors while using available existing light shooting
> > > Kodachrome 64! They think your crazy and question your common sense, not
> > > to
> > > mention your mental state.  UNTIL! They look at what they thought you
> > > weren't shooting in a serious  manner.
> > >
> > > The Noctilux for cost and I agree isn't for the Sunday shooter, it's
> > alot
> > > of bread to shell out for a  lens you may not use wide open or you don't
> > > like the look of the subject separation from the background.
> > >
> > > However it isn't a lens for everyone until they use it for sometime to
> > > become accustomed to it's handling and for shooting mainly wide opn or
> > > near
> > > that for a high percentage of their picture taking.
> > >
> > > If one isn't prepared to work in twilight zone lighting for magical
> > moment
> > > photographs then they'd be foolish to buy one.
> > >
> > > But I can assure you that we who work with them on a regular basis
> > > wouldn't
> > > part with it for hell or high water.
> > >
> > > <<<<<Using this lens wide open, the question isn't "Do I want the
> > > eyelashes
> > > to be in focus?", it is "*Which* eyelash do I want to be in
> > > focus?".>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > Naw that's what sorts out the same old pictures to where people who pay
> > > you
> > > say, "Jeeeeesh how did you do that and it looks incredible!:)
> > >
> > > <<<<Combine this problem with the high lens cost, the inevitable even if
> > > minor optical compromises that result with this fast a lens, and the
> > lens
> > > size and weight, and I just don't feel a burning desire to own it.>>>>>
> > >
> > > Naw the depth of focus/field isn't a problem, it's an asset if you make
> > it
> > > work for you. :)
> > >
> > > To each his own, but the different picture possiblities with it and cost
> > > are not a problem, as it's only a tool allowing the photographer to
> > shoot
> > > where others fear to tread without using a twinkie flash!  (sorry guys I
> > > had to get my anti-flash fix) :)
> > >
> > > The Noctilux opens a whole new world of picture taking and shouldn't be
> > > cast aside because one doesn't know how to use it nor the funds to
> > > purchase
> > > as it's only limited by your imagination to see.
> > >
> > > ted
> > >