Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You have mentioned this before and I didn't comment at the time. The image I uploaded was developed and scanned by one of the very best labs on the planet Carmencita Film Lab (favoured also by aliane | micmojo scrapbook). There is nothing wrong with the scan.

 

 

A beggar in the marketplace is deaf to the song of the nightingale.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Ansel_Adams
A beggar in the marketplace is deaf to the song of the nightingale.

 

Like I said previously. If you cannot tell what lens was used for the image posted then accept that, and the point I was making, rather than blame the image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did, and nobody was able to identify the correct lens...

 

Nobody ?

 

So bad that it is hard to recognize the wide open signature of any lens. If I have to guess, I'd go for the Noctilux f/1.2 because of the dull colors (but then again, it could be a 0.95 shot improperly scanned).

 

... which is exactly the case :cool:

What aperture did you use ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said previously. If you cannot tell what lens was used for the image posted then accept that, and the point I was making, rather than blame the image.

 

 

A beggar in the marketplace is deaf to the song of the nightingale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think you should include yourself in that then because nobody questioned the ability of the Noctilux to take photos in normal light!

 

The only thing some of us were saying was that there was nothing magical about that particular image and that it could have been taken with almost any lens. Which I think is fair comment if you are going to start thread titles "The Noctilux f1 is still magical".

I think you missed the point of my last post, where I (thought) I clarified that the OP was making a (true) statement. The thread is not about his included photo. He could have totally omitted it, and still made a valid point. The OP only claimed that the pic was the first taken with his lens. Not that the pic is magical. Clearly it is not. However, the lens IMO, can be magical in competent hands. Proper use of the lens is madatory, as is careful reading of posts. :D

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Ansel_Adams

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think you missed the point of my last post, where I (thought) I clarified that the OP was making a (true) statement. The thread is not about his included photo. He could have totally omitted it, and still made a valid point. The OP only claimed that the pic was the first taken with his lens. Not that the pic is magical. Clearly it is not. However, the lens IMO, can be magical in competent hands. Proper use of the lens is madatory, as is careful reading of posts. :D

 

Well, the thread is about may things and I was only speaking about my contribution to it. If you read from the begging I have been fairly consistent. Nobody said the picture was the point of the thread.

Edited by Ansel_Adams
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't planning to revisit this thread but it seems everyone is left as confused as I have been so I offer some perspective to those nobly trying to talk around the untalkable. I certainly won't indulge this childish game and to engage with him any further because it's like slapping away a rabid and relentless Chihuahua.

 

Lets stop and look at this.

 

The OP was simply and justly stating that the lens is sharp, contrary to what information is out there. He included a 100% to verify it and I agree with him. A good point well illustrated.

 

Antonio (I cant call him by his avatar) has other ideas and postures with his ongoing Noctilux smear campaign and takes the thread in a totally different direction. He then takes a picture that looks like my mum has taken and seems to think that is a good enough example to support his childish argument.

 

He is always derailing almost every thread about a Noctilux I can remember and incessantly tells owners that there is no reason to buy one because it offers no more than a Summicron and it seems he thinks everyone else is stupid except him like it's some sort of Emperor's new clothes situation. This is not a case where Naivity is cute, it is intact cringeworthy and tedious when it is every thread that I'm aware of that gets derailed and hijacked like a fart in an elevator.

 

The argument is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the OP and is based on the assumption that because he can not see differences that no one else can. I think we should carry on with the original post which was a good point and well made and turn the volume down on the background noise. The lens IS magical, it IS unique, and it does not come at the detriment to sharpness.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Ansel_Adams

At the end of the day Paul you DID chose to take part in the argument, and I think you lost it. You were not able to identify the lens used.

 

The fact that you now choose to launch series of insults rather than acknowledge the point says more about you than it does me.

 

I have nothing against the Noctilux.. have owned, and continue to own several over the years. But I do not think it is anything special when stopped down a bit. You may as well use an Elmar, which is a lot easier to use than the 1.2 I can tell you!! I really don't see why such simple truth would get your back up so much.

 

Anyway, peace brother. We are just discussing lenses.

Edited by Ansel_Adams
Link to post
Share on other sites

The winner!

Pete

 

 

If I can find the time and energy I will post links to my Canon's f/0.95 examples. Often the pursuit to identify some kind of unified purity as evinced by Leica's efforts miss a mark. I find none of Leica's fast 50mm lenses worthwhile, but what do I know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a bit surprised that my compare site example was not useful. Perhaps that points to a real lack of interest in visual comparison. No harm.

 

Sorry pico, I was stuck with an iPad (no flash plugin) until now.

Your compare site is really interesting. Not only one can appreciate the different rendering styles, but switching between photos taken at a different angle, I can see the scene in 3D during the transition. Cool !

 

P.S. The transition seems to use also a partial "fade-to-black" effect that makes it difficult to compare vignetting differences. I would only use a pic-to-pic cross-fade. Also, double-clicking on a photo should switch directly (no transition effect).

Edited by CheshireCat
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry pico, I was stuck with an iPad (no flash plugin) until now.

 

Sorry that I don't have much time for this, but below is a link that does not use flash. So be it.

 

Here

 

.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many people buy the noctilux f1 because it's not as well corrected as the other offerings from Leica or other companies, i.e. they like its rendering. Certainly, that's why I bought mine.

Pete

 

 

Completely agree. It's ironic that we're now at the point of pursuing non-optically-perfect lenses, but I guess that's a response to the times.

 

-jbl

Link to post
Share on other sites

Noctilux?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...