lct Posted December 15, 2012 Share #61 Posted December 15, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Two lenses the same size will block the 35mm frame more so than the 50mm one i'm afraid but the EVF of the M-240 will overcome such problems hopefully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Hi lct, Take a look here Will we ever see a Noctilux 35mm?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted December 16, 2012 Share #62 Posted December 16, 2012 That isn't the case with the Summiluxes, so why would it be different with the Noctis? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivohula Posted December 16, 2012 Share #63 Posted December 16, 2012 I would never say "never" to any lens. I think we have to see what, if any, expansion strategy Leica follows when the new factory opens in late 2013. Will they ramp up production? Currently all such exotic lenses are still backordered for up to 18 months. There are no 21 and 24 Luxes here, or any 75 and 90 Crons. No one even thinks about the Nocti because my dealer gets 2 or 3 a year. If this backlog is satisfied and the current margins are held by Leica, why not put their growing revenue towards R&D into some more exotic glass and charge accordingly. Currently, there is no point to introduce new product that you can not manufacture. If the capacity is increased, I would assume that they will produce lenses that people will buy, even if they cost $15,000.00. We will see by 2015. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 16, 2012 Share #64 Posted December 16, 2012 That isn't the case with the Summiluxes, so why would it be different with the Noctis? I have not yet received the current 35/1.4 asph so i cannot comment on that but we can guess that a 35/0.95 will do even worst than the already impressive CV 35/1.2 from this viewpoint i.e. more than 15% VF blockage for closeups without hood compared to the 14% reported by Sean Reid for the CV 35/1.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted December 16, 2012 Share #65 Posted December 16, 2012 I just wondered why so much has been posted about it? And if I should care? When people are interested in something then they will talk about it, as simple as that. Just because a few persons are engaged in a discussion about something, it doesn't mean you should care. Pay attention when you're interested; walk away if you're not. ... and now hair splitting over definitions which don't seem that important. Not the definitions are important; the hair-splitting is Seriously—understanding technical terms and being a good photographer are two entirely different things. But when using a term then it should be understood first, then used properly. ... if the 35 Summilux is smaller than the 50 Summilux, and obscures the viewfinder less (mine does on both counts), I don't really understand why a 35 Noctilux would be bigger, heavier, or more obscuring than the 50 version. I, for one, never said it must be bigger or heavier than the Noctilux-M 50 mm Asph (but I am afraid it would be more obscuring, relative to the respective field-of-view). I keep saying it would be hard to design and terribly expensive. When looking at the three pairs of Summarit-M, Summicron-M, and Summilux-M 35 and 50 mm lenses then in each pair, the 35 mm and the 50 mm are about the same size. When the 35 mm seems shorter from the bayonet flange then at the other end it will extend deeper into the camera's body, so the optical cells basically are the same length, give or take a millimeter or two. So when extrapolating from here, there's no obvious reason why a hypothetical Noctilux-M 35 mm Asph should be significantly bigger than the Noctilux-M 50 mm Asph. But note how the 35 mm always is more expensive than the respective 50 mm, and how the differences are increasing with lens speed ... I guess the worst limiting factor for a Noctilux-M 35 mm Asph is the narrow throat of the M bayonet which boldly limits the maximum width of the rear element. In theory, it's possible to overcome this through extra-high-refractive glass. But maybe the refraction index required is higher than the highest available. Or it's available but has other properties that make it impossible to arrive at a usable lens, such as abundant dispersion or lack of mechanical stability, for example. I'm afraid the existing Noctilux-M 50 mm Asph is damn close to the limit already. I believe if Leica Camera finds a way to make it happen, technically and economically, then the Noctilux-M 35 mm Asph will come true one fine day. Maybe it's under development as we speak. Or maybe not. Leica won't tell us before it's done. ... but we can guess that a 35/0.95 will do ... It doesn't need to be 35 mm 1:0.95. I'd be happy with 35 mm 1:1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted December 28, 2012 Share #66 Posted December 28, 2012 Found this interesting preview of the HyperPrime 35mm T0.95, most probably a f/0.9 lens: Conquering The Darkness - SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 35mm T0.95 Comparison It is M-mount but covers only APS-C. Interesting size and performance comparison vs the full-frame Nokton 35/1.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted December 28, 2012 Share #67 Posted December 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Uh-oh, not SLR Magic again! Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 28, 2012 Share #68 Posted December 28, 2012 ... the lens design required a large rear element (approx. 36 mm diameter), that will not fit into the throat of current Leica M cameras ... The cases are not the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted December 28, 2012 Share #69 Posted December 28, 2012 Uh-oh, not SLR Magic again! Pete. We are all smart enough to avoid futile fanboysm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 17, 2017 Share #70 Posted January 17, 2017 I hope :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 17, 2017 Share #71 Posted January 17, 2017 I would buy a 35mm Noctilux Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 17, 2017 Share #72 Posted January 17, 2017 No doubt Leica will use the smart route: 2019 35mm Noctilux f1.2 asph 2029 Update it to apo asph 2045 a new f1.0 version will be released ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 17, 2017 Share #73 Posted January 17, 2017 It will be at once 35mm Apo Noctilux 0.75 , 15 000€ :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 17, 2017 Share #74 Posted January 17, 2017 It will be at once 35mm Apo Noctilux 0.75 , 15 000€ :-) Wouldn't fit the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 17, 2017 Share #75 Posted January 17, 2017 0.95 then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted January 18, 2017 Share #76 Posted January 18, 2017 Well the M9 would love a nocti, but this will do: Contemplation by unoh7, CV 35/1.2 Garbo by unoh7, CV 35/1.2 It's a far stronger lens than most realize. The weak point is the color profile which is from Mars. Kate by unoh7, on Flickr Unlike the actual .95 which is never real strong on the edge, the CV is great at 5.6 and F/8: L1024326 by unoh7, on Flickr What would be nice is a lens like this in a lighter lens body. The CV has quite a heavy build. That's v1 which became too expensive to make because one of it's elements glass types was in high demand or got scarce. V2 is a slight redesign, but it's very hard to tell which is which from images. The build is pretty different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted January 18, 2017 Share #77 Posted January 18, 2017 Wouldn't fit the camera. Based on what? The opening of a 35/0.75 has to be ~47mm, whereas the opening on a 50/0.95 has to be ~56mm. The RF patch won't be blocked, so how won't it fit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 18, 2017 Share #78 Posted January 18, 2017 Based on what? The opening of a 35/0.75 has to be ~47mm, whereas the opening on a 50/0.95 has to be ~56mm. The RF patch won't be blocked, so how won't it fit? How do you know? Have you calculated the thickness including the focus ring, hood? Out of my mind, quickly, the thing would be too big, in length and width. A normal extrapolation from the 35 f1.2 vougtlander down to f0.75 is unacceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted January 18, 2017 Share #79 Posted January 18, 2017 How do you know? Have you calculated the thickness including the focus ring, hood? Out of my mind, quickly, the thing would be too big, in length and width. A normal extrapolation from the 35 f1.2 vougtlander down to f0.75 is unacceptable. I thought when you said that it wouldn't fit the camera you had done the calculations. What you meant to say was that you don't think it will fit the camera I calculated the size of the hole, 47mm, which is smaller by 9mm than the 50/0.95. Assuming the focusing ring/hood etc is similar to the 50/0.95 it would be 9mm smaller. It could be made with a 60mm filter thread, the same as the 50/0.95, to reduce mechanical vignetting, and put in a similar housing to the 21/2.8 Elmarit E60. But, despite it actually fitting, there would be a huge amount of finder blockage, so it would be largely useless. But it would fit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 18, 2017 Share #80 Posted January 18, 2017 60mm filter, really? Reminds me of the 90mm f1.0. Fits but just impossible to use... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.