Noctilux 50mm

[pelizza]

Steve,
the problem with tha Leica lenses is not if one is more or less better than the other at a certain aperture. This may be valid for a Nikon or a Canon lens but not within the Leica ones. Why? For the simple reason that every lens is a different strument with diferent effects for colour rendition, crispness and so on. Every lens is a different painter's palette with different paint-brush effects.
Joe

 

[jem]

> [Joe,

I hate to burst a bubble or two around here, but Leica lenses are just that; Leica lenses. Nikon , Canon, any other lens maker, they're all trying to create what Leica does too - make a range of lenses. You can call them paint brushes or imbue them with a mystical, arty, turn of phrase but they're lenses, tools for making a picture.

The point that was being made about the Noctilux vs. the Summilux was regarding the relative value of a lens at contant f1.4 aperture across the negative rather than having a lens which varies from f1 to f2.8. The choice is yours, and anyones. That's why some people love the Lomo LC-A, the light dispersal varies across the negative, once again its a tool and one to use if you want that effect.

I think people in this forum can sometimes get a little too precious about their cameras and lenses, I know they cost a fair bit, but then your car costs more and we don't put a polythene cover over that to protect it, do we? Sure, we want things to work as well as we can but hey! Let's lighten up around here... 'Damaging a Noctilux' by putting a filter on it - please!

If you want a good idea to consider, try the 'Picture a Week' concept (devised by the legendary Kyle Cassidy): it's widely used on the net and actually gets us using these cameras of ours rather than sitting in a room cossetting them and talking a load of twaddle on the internet. Take a picture a week and upload it to a website where you can be proud and others can admire.

Happy new year from a grumpy old man... Jem ]

 

[mikes]

Hi Guys

I jumped onto this thread because I wanted to know if there was anything special about the filters needed for the Noctilux. My instinct is to protect the lens so I intend to fit a slim UV filter. I recognise that there are technical reasons why filters are somtimes undesirable but a filter can always be removed if it might limit some aspect of a shot.

I don't think we should neglect the primary reason for a UV filter on any lens, that of haze reduction, although this is probably not a factor in the conditions which a Noctilux is most used.

I think if anyone is debating with themselves about a Noctilux versus a f1.4 Summicron they should buy the Summicron. Anyone buying a Noctilux should know why they are doing it, probably it is not a good buy unless full aperture use is intended for a lot of the time. There are, however, people like me who additionally admire the other qualities of the Noctlux as demonstrated on the web by various users.

Anyway my basic reasons for buying this lens are less complex and not subject to reasonable analysis. I bought mine for the best of all reasons - I have always wanted a Noctilux.

Mike

 

[sridley]

I wholeheartedly agree with Jem.

As Stephen Gandy put it on his excellent website. I hope he won't mind me quoting from it.

"During the 50's the likes of Eugene Smith, Cartier-Bresson, David Douglas Duncan, Capa, and Eisenstadt set the standard for candid Leica photography with lenses often seen today as old and substandard. Yet, today's photography certainly is no better, and is very seldom as good........Until then, count yourself lucky if you ever begin to remotely approach what that supposedly outdated old and substandard 50/3.5 collapsible Elmar can give you"

Funny how values change. Growing up I had many cars that cost less that a Noctilux (actually I can think of one where I would have got change out of a Summicron). Frightening!!

As penance for contributing to this puffery I'll either beat myself with Birch twigs or shoot for a week with my Holga.

On second thoughts I'll take the Holga and go and paint with light (leaks). Now should I protect the Holga lens with a filter............................?

A Happy New Year to all. Remember the only camera worth anything is the one loaded with film and in your bag!

Steve

 

[colorado_jeff]

Urban Legend???
I was told (by my Leica salesman) that I didn't need to put UV filters on my Leica lenses because the coating was so much harder than on other lenses. Any Truth to that Rumor?

Jeff in Texas

 

[dkhaw]

UV filters - I'm fascinated that the topic of UV filters could be so hotly debated: to have a UV filter or not to have a UV filter.
I have spent quite a considerable amount of $$ on my Leica lenses and every one of them has a Leica UV filter on. I use the UV filter primarily with one objective: to protect the lenses from accidental damage. I never had any problems with the quality of the photos with a UV filter on and I have no worries on damaging the lenses.
If you want to protect your Leica lenses, do get a top class filter to compliment them.
Daniel

 

[jem]

> [The latest Leica coatings are immensely strong. Demonstrations with pumice stone set against the front element with a 1 tonne force will not scratch it - apparently. I doubt if I'd try that though. However, this only applies to recent coatings - maybe 3 years or so - check with Leica. Earlier coatings from Leica (and others) have been sadly soft, as many of us know, but most things improve with time. Jem]