Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Wow...So I am to understand that, according to the testing of this magazine - which I realize is bench testing, not use under fire - the Canon is marginally to substantially better in the center - where one usually finds the subject - than the Nocti, but marginally to substantially worse at the edges - where one can often crop? Interesting. B. D. Mr logan reinwood wrote: > Hi, > > Following the recent discussions about nocilux vs. other king of > low-light lenses I looked at my old Chasseur d'Image magazine and here > are the data, for those who are interested: > > Noctilux (border/center); Canon (border/center) > f1 : 1.5/1.75; 1/2 > f1.4: 2/2; 1/3 > f2 : 2.25/2.25; 1/4 > f2.8: 3/2.75; 2/5 > f4 : 3.75/3.25; 3/5 > f5.6: 4/4; 3/5 > 1= WEAK 2=MIDDLE 3=GOOD 4=VERY GOOD 5= EXCELLENT > > VIGNETTING AT F1: NOCT = 1.5 DIAPH, CANON = 1.2 DIAPH > DISTORTION : BARIL NOCT 1.1%, CANON 0.7% > (FYI, the summmicron 50 is rated ven more than 5, except at f2) > > THE NOCT HAS BEEN TESTED IN 2000, WHEREAS THE CANON IN 1990. > I suspect that in 1990 they did not give "in between rates such as 2.5" > > logan > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of > your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com > or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html