Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/25

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

Subject: [Leica] About the Noctilux
From: kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour)
Date: Sat Mar 25 07:08:24 2006
References: <44254CA6.10209@waltjohnson.com>

On Mar 25, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Walt Johnson wrote:

> Hi:
>
> I'm just curious what the fuss is all about concerning the  
> Noctilux. Big, pricey and seemingly flawed. The difference between  
> 1.4 and 1.0 cannot be worth the sacrifice in quality, is it? Just  
> about the only advantage a Leica had over the SLRS (size, weight,  
> unobtrusiveness) of its day would seem to be given up.
>
> Many times over the years I've given up an f stop or two for  
> excellent performance and portability. When covering  an event  
> where long,fast glass was needed then the bulky monsters were  
> necessary. Other than that I could never justify it. There have  
> been many fine images shown on the LUG by folks with a Noctilux but  
> were any done in situations where a 1.4 or even a 2.0 would have  
> not done the trick?
>
> Maybe that should be one of the next "shadow" type entertainments  
> posted here? Are fuzzy aberrations worth the price? Lets do f 1,  
> 1.4, or 2.0 and be there???


good idea...


  you'd have to talk with Ted Grant re the usefulness of the  
Noctilux....Steve


>
> Walt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] About the Noctilux)
In reply to: Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] About the Noctilux)