[Leica] About the Noctilux

[aaron.sandler at duke.edu (Aaron Sandler)]

Hi Walt,

This is essentially the same argument I used with myself when I was 
deciding between the 35cron and the 35lux.  I was never good enough to 
focus at 1.4...so when I had an f/1.4 lens in the past, I'd be trying 
desperately to stop down to f/2 in even the dimmest light.  Therefore it 
seemed like wasted money and weight (for me and my limited abilities).  Of 
course, my experience at that point was limited to SLRs...now I think I 
might do a better job with a rangefinder.  Perhaps when I can afford the 
35luxAsph I'll consider it.

Best,
Aaron


>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???
>
>Walt