kelly_flanigan1 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Nikon; Nikkor; not enough coffee yet! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_wayne4 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I would love to get one. But I think my marriage is worth more than Noctilux. What a tough choice...Not :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_symington1 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 'A new Leica in the 1930's was a years salary for the bloke trying to survive during the depression; was that considered "demented" then too?' I would hope so! :-) Sure Leica equipment was always expensive - and I have been fortunate enough to buy quite a few new Leica lenses in the past 3-4 years - but £6000 for a 50mm lens (no matter how exotic) is beyond extraordinary. Good for Leica if they can find people who are prepared to do it and I hope this is the route to success they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddler_b Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Leica didn't make the new Noct to appeal to Nikon or Canon or even Leica photographers. It is made for people with new money who think buying an Aston Martin makes them distinguished. And Leica is right in that assumption. As someone else said the two new WA f1.4 are decent products and price is not bad for a highend lens, if you don't mind to depart from $5-6k, someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 <i>Oh dear. Being laughed at would be hard to take. What oh what will I do. :-)</i> <p>Nothing! Just stand there looking like a fool with your $10,000 lens mounted to a defective $5,000 camera that can't take a better picture than a $500 digital Rebel. At least, if I bought a Ferrari I know I could accelerate, out-corner and out-brake a Camry. Hypothetical situation: How does it feel to spend $200,000 on an Aston Martin only to find out a $20,000 Corolla actually handles better and is faster? There's Leica for ya. :D</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hashim a Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 margin of error in terms of focus has gotta be very small wide open... the price on this thing just floors me. can't wait to see what it can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emraphoto Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 hmmm.... interesting el fang. the thing is for a "defective" camera mine seems to take pretty nice photographs?!? what gives?!? comparing an m8's files to a "$500 digital rebel" is a pretty clear indication that you've never printed a single photo from an m8 have you? it's ok, you wouldn't be the only fella condeming a camera he's never made a print from. i'm beginning to think you're nothing more than a troll my man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yatty Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 And I find the Canon 70-300m f4-5.6 IS USM to be expensive for my budget atm... I totally just took up the wrong hobby..hah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kens Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Well, it's not a car, it's not $200,000, and I have no fear of looking foolish to others. But I gotta say Fang, you are a hoot. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_robison3 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 There are other valid reasons for Leica, or any other old name in cameras to build exotic lenses. Bragging rights. These types of lenses are saying "we have the skill and design acumen to build high spec equipment, so you can have confidence in our other products also" Back in the 70's Nikon built a 6mm f2.8 220 degree fisheye. The front element was the size of a dinner plate. I would imagine that only a few were ever made but just having it in the lens catalog made a statement about Nikon's abilities. Top of the line Nikons and Cannons make more money for their companies by "selling" their basic consumer models that by sales of the high end gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 >Top of the line Nikons and Cannons make more money for their companies by "selling" their basic consumer models that by sales of the high end gear. Sorry, Leica doesn't have any "basic consumer models" -- they are all re-badged Panasonics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markusglueck Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 anyone seen pictures yet? made with the lens not of the lens. would be more interesting. BTW photography is about actually taking pictures. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 John; the original Nikon 6mm fisheyes of the 1960's were mostly used for scientic use; weather; astro, recording traffic; crowds. One had to lock up the mirror on the Nikon F to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 In actual dollars adjusted for inflation the New Noct is really not out of line comaprd to teh 1960's F1.2; or 1970's F1 releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_obturateur Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 The high USD price some people mention is not really Leica's fault, more that Texas guy's who let the dollar sink to unbelievable (and dangerous) lows... Imho Leica will successfully sell his three new 2008 lenses (21, 24 + Noct) by relying on traditional markets (Europe, Japan) and by targeting NEW rich markets (China, Saudi Arabia...). USA, with its degraded buying power, will therefore be a secondary market/target. ee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_robison3 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Kelly, I was not talking about the 6mm f5.6 fisheye, but the 6mm f2.8 retrofocus fisheye of 1972. The angle of view was 220 degrees! Holding the lens level meant you were in the photo from the knees down! It had a huge protruding front element that must have been 9 inches in diameter. google it and check the first listing. I also agree with Fred that Leica does not make consumer cameras in the same way other companies do, but they do have the less expensive summarits. I still think some products are made just to prove they still got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 John; the 6mm F5.6 has the same 220 degree angle of view; its the Father of the newer lens the F2.8 . The F5.6 lens was an expensive lens when it first came out. With a Nikon F one has to waste a frame to get the mirror up; JUST TO MOUNT THE LENS MID ROLL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 The one sample (6mm f/2.8 AiS that John refers to) that changed hands in the past two years, went for >$38,000/-. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 The non reflex fisheyes were 350 to 500 new; the 6mm F2.8 was several grand. Its gone up since few were made. The lowest used one I can remember was about 900 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles_s. Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 How many surfaces does that lens have? Has anyone see a diagram or a statement as to elements and groups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles_s. Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 OK per this website's cached page* "Formulé en 8 lentilles (dont 2 asphériques) et réunies en 5 groupes". So with 10 surfaces at 1% loss a piece the T-Stop of the lens is 0.999. I am impressed. The definition of a T-stop is T = F/sqrt(t) where F is the value of an f-stop, T is the value of a T-stop, t = (1 - L)^N, with N being the number of surfaces, and 0< L <1 being the loss at each surface. BTW Dante Stella has a great discussion on this matter -- however his math is needlessly overly complicated. The definition of a T-stop comes from the fact the light through a lens is proportional to 1/F^2 that is the area of the lens opening. The light through a lens is equal to 1/T^2, and by inserting a constant t into the f-stop expression making it an equality, and equating the two expressions, the definition is arrived at. Further, the constant t is the transmission factor of the lens. The transmission factor of this lens is 90.4%. *http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Nfi4m_LySqMJ:www.miwim.fr/blog/+noctilux+.95+%225+groupes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 T stops are usually measued; ie T stoping the lens for what effective fstop one is for exposure. Its wht movie folks do with oddball and unknown lenses; dirty lenses; zooms etc. A best an equation for T stops is a model; ie a guess. What matter is the measured number; ie what matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 With a fast lens its going to have vigneting; thus measured tstops are measured versus off axis angle if one is a tooler or engineer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erichsen_mickael Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I've already paid enough for a summicron 2/28mm asph., plus a apo-summicron 2/75mm. I added an Heliar 12mm. I didn't pay for Capture One, which can give me results very close to a 0,95/50mm. I expect to enjoy with cats'eyes and/or churches, both taken by night. But mainly, I do think that Leica couldn't afford the orders for such a lens if the price was 3000 euros less, which seems to me the right price, Considering that one part of the former 1/50mm was made of very special glass, this made its price high enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 You think the new Noct is expensive? Try an old one. *Bay auction number 270277301700 will show you the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now