Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I shot a Noct for about a year and in my experience you can't get a Noct to glow or flare. You don't see blooming around highlights, unless the front element is dirty. One night I shot it straight in to a 25,000 watt HMI stage light and the Noct showed no blooming or flare. According to Puts, the reason for this is because no scattering occurs when the rays travel through the glass. Noct images are almost 100% representative of the light in the scene. This is one reason why I sold it. The grayscale of the images it produced was so perfect that I found it's fingerprint clinical. Just matter of taste. Feli > >To be honest I've never used a Noctilux. But I do have a vintage Canon 50mm >F 1/2 on an M3 that I use for informal available light portraits of women. >The slight uncorrected spherical abberation when used at settings greater >than F 2 gives a hint of a soft halo around a sharp core that most of my >subjects seem to like - sort of like a Hollywood diffusion screen effect. >Stopped down beyond F 2 the lens is quite sharp, nearly as good as a >Summicron. My question really was to find out if this is true of the >Noctilux as well. > >Erwin Puts seems to feel that the Canon is a better lens than the early > Noctilux Again, I have no basis for comparison. > >Larry Z --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Feli di Giorgio feli2@earthlink.net www.elanphotos.com