Is there any demand for Noctilux R lens?

[LVSBB6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always think a 50mm F1.0 for R-lineup would be a great addition.

 

What do you folks think?

[stunsworth]

I seem to remember reading that Leica tried that and found that the throat of the lens mount wasn't wide enough.

[andybarton]

Is there demand for any R lens now (new)?

 

Maybe next year (subject to it being technically possible), but I'd love to know how many R lens units get shifted new these days.

[Angora]

I always think a 50mm F1.0 for R-lineup would be a great addition.

 

What do you folks think?

 

That would be great.

[luigi bertolotti]

Personally, I'm not a R user, but for all the issues we have red about the focusing problems with Noctilux on M8... well, I suppose that adapting it for SLR would be welcome for people who really like working sometime at f 1,0... but I also think that in tech terms it would be a problem (I imagine you cannot keep the same lenses group as is), and after all a SLR is always shakier than a M8... as I said, I'm not a SLR user, but suppose that for the mirror movement you "lose" more than 1 stop vs. a M8.

[ruiespanhol]

I always think a 50mm F1.0 for R-lineup would be a great addition.

 

What do you folks think?[/quote

Cam be good but now I think is better for Leica made more zoom lenses,but more affordable like the new summarit range for the M.

The new 28-90 is great but to much expensive and the 70-180 is also expensive and dificult to be avaliable in these days.

One new range of good and affordable zoom lenses are much more welcome for the R users in my point of view.

 

Best,

[Iron Flatline]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd take one in a heartbeat.

 

And THAT would really cement Leica's reputation as a lens builder.

[leicapages]

and how accurate would focusing be with that small depth of field at f/1.0 and manual SLR focusing? I doubt it would make practical sense for the vast majority of users.

[spydrxx]

Nah - it works just fine on my M bodies, no need for one on the R bodies.

[ddp]

and how accurate would focusing be with that small depth of field at f/1.0 and manual SLR focusing? I doubt it would make practical sense for the vast majority of users.

 

 

Probably similar to using the 180/2 Summicron. If I recall, the DOF on the 180 is smaller than the Noct - I may be wrong, but I seem to remember reading & hearing that at one point.

[leicabug]

Too little demend. Not worthwhile for Leica.

[gvaliquette]

and how accurate would focusing be with that small depth of field at f/1.0 and manual SLR focusing? I doubt it would make practical sense for the vast majority of users.

 

Actually, shallow depth of field is a PLUS for focussing with a SLR, so accurate focus should not be an issue. Also, the mount diameter of the Leica R mount is wider than the M, although some of that space is occupied by the automatic diaphragm linkage.

 

I don't think that Leica would need to reformulate the Noctilux optically to put it in a R mount.

 

The only potential issue is mirror clearance.

 

I keep dreaming, but don't tell my wife!

 

Guy

[leicapages]

I beg to disagree: even at f/1.4 focusing is usually easier and more accurate with a good rangefinder camera than with an SLR camera.

[S. Wong]

I've never really understood how range-finders are so much more accurate than slrs

with an slr, you can focus anywhere in the screen, and tell instantly if that part of the picture is in focus or not, assuming nothing is wrong with your camera

 

I tried using an M, and its not noticeably smaller than my R4, esp with 28/2.8 or 50/1.4, but I couldn't tell what was in focus for love or money (as you can tell, the lack of familiarity and obstinate personality didn't have anything to do with the troubles)

 

so, please explain to me how it works

-Steven

[telyt]

and how accurate would focusing be with that small depth of field at f/1.0 and manual SLR focusing?

 

and with AF or focus confirmation, forget it.

[leicapages]

unless you use a large infrared beam ;-)

[zapp]

I always think a 50mm F1.0 for R-lineup would be a great addition.

 

What do you folks think?

 

If Canon can not deliver a sub-optimum 1/50 how should Leica present a Leica standard 1/50? There are other lenses needed more urgently, especially when talking digital. All the new outstanding lux designs are M designs with a much smaller diameter of lenses.

[jaapv]

I've never really understood how range-finders are so much more accurate than slrs

with an slr, you can focus anywhere in the screen, and tell instantly if that part of the picture is in focus or not, assuming nothing is wrong with your camera

 

I tried using an M, and its not noticeably smaller than my R4, esp with 28/2.8 or 50/1.4, but I couldn't tell what was in focus for love or money (as you can tell, the lack of familiarity and obstinate personality didn't have anything to do with the troubles)

 

so, please explain to me how it works

-Steven

 

Both a rangefinder and a SLR work on the rangefinder priciple of seeing the difference in incidence angle of the light. The rangefinder uses two windows and mirrors, prisms etc. to see the two images in the centre patch overlap. The SLR uses a projected image on a structure to do so (except for a clear screen or microscope-type focussing, there the retina takes over and the eye needs a hair cross then to exclude the accomodation of the eye lens)

The matte screen, either in the grain of the screen over the whole screen,the fresnel rings, the microprisms ( more like pyramids) or central focussing wedge does exactly the same, but the incidence angle is governed by the focal length of the lens. That means that at shorter focal length you get a far more narrow measuring base on a SLR than on a RF, but with long lenses a wider measuring base. The point at which both are similar is somewhere in the 100-135 mm range, depending on the baselength of the RF camera. Normally with a SLR with wideangles focussing is possible because of the deep DOF of those lenses ( AF accuracy is defined in terms of DOF, which makes it more or less a constant despite the changing measuring base) but when you descend into wide apertures like 1.0 you run into trouble.

So focussing a 50 mm 1.0 on a SLR - any SLR- is nearly impossible, whilst the RF with its double-width measuring base at this focal length can just make it.

[jaapv]

I worked it out last night. A 1.0 50 mm on a SLR has a measuring base of about 9 mm against the ca 50 mm on a rangefinder....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[leicar7]

My guess as to a short answer to the title of this thread is "No."

 

If Leica still would need to anticipate 6,000 sales to break even on any lens, such a lens as this is certainly a nonstarter. If such a lens could be designed for the R lens mount, it would be very large and horrendously cher.

 

Too, the optical quality would have to be significantly redone to attract anyone's interest today. If one is looking for the "look" of such a lens, a much cheaper method would be to use some Vaseline on a filter.

 

Leica has never envisioned the R line to have the same low light utility as the M.

 

Any new lens for the R will have to meet or excede the new standards for potential image quality that Leica has set repeatedly with almost every lens it has introduced since the 100 Apo-Macro and reinforced with the 35M ASPHs.

 

There are several lenses that numerous contributors have already cited over the past year as good candidates to be updated for the R. An f/1.0 was noticeably absent from all of them.