Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/02/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The 1.2 Noctilux was much much smaller than the later f 1 which I have. A Summilux on steroids it seemed to me (when I met one) or a Noctilux left in the dryer for a very long time after being washed in hot water it changes the whole modus operandi reason for being je ne sais quoi of the lens's reason for being. And its gorgeous. unfortunately its rarity is the the first issue. The copies out there if you bought it from someone and you said you were going to use it to shoot pix they'd be forced to kill you. It's in their original buyers contract. My hopes were with what we now know about optics the next version would give me that balance again. Those hopes were dashed to the ground then they went for even more speed instead of usability. Like threes a shot we're not going to get at .95 that we're not going to get a f1 or f1.2. Give me a compact F1.2 well corrected and balanced and watch it become a part of the way a lot of very good photographers work every day. They can still do that. The end of the world is not still at hand. Mark William Rabiner > From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:14:31 +0000 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Monster High-tech 50mm 1.4 from Sigma and everyone > else - > distortion now Nikkor 28/1.4 > > The original f1.2 Noctilux and 35 f1.4 aspherical eash had two hand > ground aspheric surfaces. Apparently the scrap rate, and presumably > the inspection cost, was horrendous. They made very, very few of each > apparently. I have a 35 and prefer the look to the later 35mm f1.4 > asph which has one moulded aspheric surface. I have read that the > difference in sharpness is minimal. The difference in look is not, > IMHO. It is my most used lens by far and most of my favourite pictures > were taken with it. > Frank > > On 8 Feb, 2009, at 05:13, Marty Deveney wrote: > >> >> >>> Why do you suppose Nikon stopped making it? >> >> Two reasons: the aspherical element was hand-ground, necessitating a >> very high manufacturing cost for a prime Nikkor - the lens thus sold >> slowly and required a large mark-up to recoup design and tooling >> costs; second one of the high-index glass elements used lead and the >> laws changed in Japan, making continuing with this impossible. >> Rather than opt to redesign with a different glass, they >> discontinued the lens. About 7000 were made. >> >> I occasionally think about the extremely skilled worker who ground >> the aspherical element when I use mine. I'd sure like to know his >> or her story. >> >> It's tremendous in use, but was designed long enough ago (it was >> introduced in 1993) that technology has moved on. If Nikon decided >> to redesign it they would have moulded elements, better coatings, >> newer glass types and a variety of new construction methods at their >> disposal. Leica are developing new lenses at quite a clip to keep >> their lenses up with technology - and of course their cameras. >> >> Marty