Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/30

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: 90mm f1.0 -was f/0.3 Noctilux
From: Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:51:19 -0700
References: <EC1D893EF5042348ADC8A79B742E9EFB030E14@GCI-MOCEX01.us.ad.gannett.com> <p0510030bb7b40884e1b3@[209.53.33.194]> <3B8E81C7.EC64C807@pce.net> <3B8E9307.D014D2E5@pce.net>

At 3:24 PM -0400 8/30/01, Rob McElroy wrote:
>Hmmm?  For some reason this is my third try at posting this message 
>to the LUG in the last 3&1/2 hours.  Here's hoping it gets through.
>-Rob
>
>Rob McElroy wrote:
>
>>  Hello Henning,
>>
>>  Does the 90mm f1.0 you examined cover the full 35mm frame?  The 
>>Leitz 90mm f1.0 manufactured for the Picker X-Ray Corp is a 
>>different optical design
>>  and doesn't cover 35mm.
>>
>  > Did all of the wide-open images from this lens exhibit as much 
>flare as the image you posted?

Yes, it covers the full frame, and it _is_ one manufactured for the 
Picker X-ray corp.

Since all images are wide open (no moving parts on this lens) they 
all exhibit flare etc. in similar amounts. It results in 'flare', but 
I'm sure it is due to trying to use the usual visual spectrum, 
whereas the lens was most likely designed to use only a very narrow 
band, and not corrected for the rest.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com

Replies: Reply from Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com> ([Leica] Re: Re: 90mm f1.0 - dumb question probably)
Reply from Rob McElroy <idag@pce.net> (Re: [Leica] Re: 90mm f1.0 -was f/0.3 Noctilux)
In reply to: Message from "Zeissler, Mitch" <mzeissle@gcipoa.gannett.com> (RE: [Leica] f/0.3 Noctilux)
Message from Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com> (RE: [Leica] f/0.3 Noctilux)
Message from Rob McElroy <idag@pce.net> ([Leica] Re: 90mm f1.0 -was f/0.3 Noctilux)