Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
But all Leica lenses, even the Noctilux, are sharper stopped down a bit, f/4 usually. So your 'investment' is in an additional stop or two of speed, not resolution. You are wasting the prime performance of the lens for the sake of using a narrow definition of its function. Leica designed it with a selection of f/stops, that is why it is expensive, a lens with one f/stop would be pretty cheap to make in the scheme of things.
Steve, while you may get a bit more by stopping down, the M Nocti and Lux lenses tend to out-perform most other fast aperture lenses when shot wide open. At F/1.4 an M lens is often like shooting other lenses at f/2.8 or even f/3.5 in terms of apparent resolution. So you gain light gathering without giving up a whole lot. Obviously, when the situation calls for stopping down, you do it.
Jono, I didn't make a comparison statement. I agree with you (and others), that the M240 rangefinder is an improved over the M9/M8. I did test a M240 demo for 2 weeks.
HI John.
HI Mark - sorry to misinterpret you - I quite agree that it is easy to focus on the A7/A7r . . .
My Jupiter 3 is among my favorite lenses. Delightful!!!!
One big and heavy lens is often still smaller, lighter and is always more convenient than two smaller lenses in the same FL.
Sounds very Sonnar-like. My "fast 50s" are a trio of Sonnar-type lenses (1937 Carl Zeiss, 1963 Jupiter 3, new Carl Zeiss C Sonnar ZM) for when I want to paint with light. When I want ease of shooting and/or optical perfection its the 50 Summicron.The copy I tested is owned by my neighbor and this black 50mm pre asph Lux is in perfect condition. It looks like new and behaves just like the copy I tested (less thoroughly though) in my local Leica store.
There are several reasons why I don't like this lens:
-When the lens gets stopped down its focal length changes just enough to cause focus shifts; Just like any other fast lens without correction (FLE come to mind). I hate having to compensate for this while shooting, I find it distracting when I have to focus on the shoot instead.
-Field curvature is very prominent; The field and corners are always a bit fuzzy even when stopped down.
-It's quite large compared to a 50mm Cron especially if you consider that you get more resolution (especially across the field and in the corners) from the Cron in a much lighter package.
However just because it doesn't meet my demands doesn't mean anybody has to share my opinion. If you have one just shoot and enjoy it.
Now old Sonnars have a look. My absolute favorite lens. When I grab my Monochrom with just one lens, its is almost always one of my Sonnars.
There is a book that mentions HCB using a Sonnar in 1946. However, over his long career he certainly used Leica lenses. Mike Johnston writes that HCB used the collapsible 50mm Summicron from the time that it was introduced and for most of his career. There are several photos online in which HCB appears to be using the collapsible 50mm Summicron. In a 1968 photo, he appears to be using a 50/1.2 Noctilux. One commenter on T.O.P. writes that in 1975 he saw HCB mainly using the 40mm Summicron and 35mm Summilux, and that he also carried a 90mm Elmarit and 50mm Summicron.
When I owned the F0.95 Noctilux I didn't find it hard to focus at F0.95, even using it on the now apparently crappy M9 RF
– it is certainly less demanding than, say, the 75 Summicron at F2 (both at closest focus). The 1m minimum focussing distance of the Noctilux certainly 'helps' here. I mention that factor also because, for me, that longer minimum focussing distance makes the Noctilux noticeably less versatile than the 50 Summilux.