LLT Posted June 6, 2009 Share #21 Posted June 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I shoot film exclusively, so it wouldn't be necessary to calibrate any lens to a specific body. I just think it's a lens I'd use so much that I'd want it mounted on one body or other all the time the way I always seem to have a 50 Summilux mounted. I love that thinking JBA! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 Hi LLT, Take a look here Noctilux F1.0 vs F0.95. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LLT Posted June 6, 2009 Share #22 Posted June 6, 2009 I own the 50mm F1.4 and this is a great lens and cost around US$4,000- ( can't remembver the exact figrue ) and the F0.95 is US$9,995- DL Daniel thanks for your comment. I actually have the 50mm Summilux ASPH now and am wondering whether or not to trade it in for the Noctilux f0.95. I absolutely love the Summilux and hoping I won't regret it if I trade it in. I usually shoot the 50mm Summi asph wide open... rarely would I stop it down. Guess it's a big purchase for me and I want to make sure the Nocti f0.95 has the same sharpness and crispness as the summi. Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Leung Posted June 6, 2009 Author Share #23 Posted June 6, 2009 Daniel thanks for your comment. I actually have the 50mm Summilux ASPH now and am wondering whether or not to trade it in for the Noctilux f0.95. I absolutely love the Summilux and hoping I won't regret it if I trade it in. I usually shoot the 50mm Summi asph wide open... rarely would I stop it down. Guess it's a big purchase for me and I want to make sure the Nocti f0.95 has the same sharpness and crispness as the summi. Thoughts? Hi llt, I kept my 50m f.14, traded in my f1 for the f0.95. the 50m f1.4 is so much lighter/smaller and pretty useful for regular use - easy to carry. the f0.95 is not going to be an everyday camera for me. DL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted June 6, 2009 Share #24 Posted June 6, 2009 I shoot film exclusively, so it wouldn't be necessary to calibrate any lens to a specific body. Not sure I understand the logic behind that statement, assuming there is some of course... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted June 6, 2009 Share #25 Posted June 6, 2009 The physical thickness of film allows for more backfocus tolerance. The color layers on the film plane are above each other whereas the different color pixels on a sensor are on the same plane, which means that the light rays of your critically sharp image have to converge on exactly that level for a critically sharp representation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLT Posted June 8, 2009 Share #26 Posted June 8, 2009 Hi llt, I kept my 50m f.14, traded in my f1 for the f0.95. the 50m f1.4 is so much lighter/smaller and pretty useful for regular use - easy to carry. the f0.95 is not going to be an everyday camera for me. DL Cheers Daniel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.