kc4fox

I'm wondering if the 135mm lens makes the same sound. Yeah, that's it. Anyone know where to find one? I bought a brand new RF645 a couple weeks ago with the 65 and 45mm lenses- very sharp, decent optics &c. but I'm looking for a 135.

 

Seems in the USA, I'll not find one but from a private collector. Still looking, though.

Nice colors, Jorge, and decent dynamic range, too.

Agreed. Leica bodies aren't the most reliable, Nikon glass for their SLR's is pretty... Unstirring. I've a F mount Fuji S3 and I'm reminded of how... "Okay" the glass is for it every time something comes out of the soup from the Leica, or even (gasp!) the Prominent.

 

Obviously the same playful folks that made the new SP didn't have anything to do with lens design choices. Where's the new Nikkor f/1.1? Feh. Even Canon had an f/1!

I have the Noctilux, and use it with a ND filter and good slow film outside on vacation- I do like the look, you see.

 

Huge caveat there, though- as many define the "Leica look" as one of perfectly sharp images, like the modern 50mm 'lux (which _THIS_ Noctilux owner lusts after- anyone wanna trade?). The Noctilux doesn't give you this- what it DOES, though, is an amazingly useful lens that only focuses as close as a the Voigtlander Prominent (without the close-up attachments) and makes rooms far brighter than you'll have remembered them.

 

I like mine. It ALWAYS surprises me- no focus problems ever- and friends that have never used a rangefinder before have caught me at f/1 and 1/15'th second. It's a good lens.

 

The only cure? Rent one from that shop in Beverly Hills, then cough up the $ to buy it. If you don't like it, it's resale is purty durn good. You'll have lost only a couple hundred in rent.

Looking at that picture, I see a bit of banding. My 35mm Summicron ASPH was a pretty

evenly lit lens by f/2.8, as is my 35mm 'lux ASPH- if you are seeing dark corners, even well

stopped down, you've got another problem.

 

JD

As a digital user, my only concern from Nikon and the quality of their lenses is that they

are rather utilitarian in performance. That's not a bad thing, by any means, but it seems

that there are fewer exceptional lenses in the line than other brands. "Good enough"

seems to be the mantra there in Nikon land.

 

Of course, the exceptions are great- the 28 f/1.4 is a good one, well worth the money

(this from a man that bought a Summilux 35mm ASPH, 90AA and Noctilux recently) and

the 85 f/1.4... Of course, Canon had an f/1 50mm as well as currently makes an 85mm f/

1.2. Those, though useful in their own way, demonstrate that someone at Canon is

considering slightly more than just the bottom line when it comes to lens design, and I like

that attitude.

Yes, it's business, but it's also fun. I hope to see something functional, obviously "best of

breed," and simply wonderful from Nikon soon.

 

My 50mm f/1.4 is okay. It's no 50's rangefinder lens, the pictures taken with it do indeed

differ from that from my S2. It's not even at f/2.8 as my 28-70 f/2.8 Nikkor zoom. Bokeh

is "fair-to-poor" but then, I consider the "Tessar look" rather worse yet, with that wide-

open "target look."

 

Ah well.

I had an M6TTL with a .85 finder in almost "new" condition. Nice camera, but the

rangefinder patch flared in many circumstances.

It flares because bright light enters the rangefinder system from an angle from the left

side of the camera, and I frequently found myself dealing with bright light sources from

the left (in darker/restaurant environments) and especially during the day, with the sky

overhead and me holding the camera *down* to shoot portraits. It was pretty irritating to

me, though the camera wasn't unusable. It wasn't hard to turn the camera a bit but I did

find it interfered with the natural flow of work these cameras are known for.

I've an MP now, and the flare isn't an issue, even at its worst- the rangefinder spot has yet

to lose so much contrast as to be unusable. It's much more a pleasure to use.

If you can, borrow the camera, or step outside of the store and hold the camera at

different angles to see where the flare hits worst. For me, it was not-unfrequently bad in

just the way I use the camera, so I traded up.

I'd recommend a rebuilt M3 for ya, as you don't need a meter, but once I used the meter in

the M6, I didn't long for my M3- I got quickly lazy, but that wasn't a bad thing. I keep the

Sekonic around for my Medium Format work, or for when I'm shooting with the Prominent.

^^^ THAT jpg is only 495 pixels wide. Ah, well.<div></div>

Indeed.

You asked of an owner's opinion.

 

I bought one and have been using it for a week. I'm also a Medium Format (and Leica) photographer, and I've a couple weddings to shoot in the next couple months.

 

The pictures it takes look nice. I struggled with a 10D and 20D for a while (the 10D was mine, the 20D a loaner) and just didn't like the pictures from them. THis was using Canon primes, like the 28mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 (and 1.4). The Canons were both softer than I'd have liked, so I no longer own 'em.

 

The Fuji seems to make much better use of the pixels in the camera. It still doesn't well compete with negatives on 6x7 or 6x9 from the Mamiya Universal and 100mm lens (Standard Wedding Rig) But it DOES stack up usably against my 35mm photography. Very well, in fact. I've no primes yet for it (I'm looking for a "throw-away cheap user" Nikkor f/1.4 50mm) but the Nikkor 28mm-70mm f/2.8 is a good lens, and bright enough not to blind brides/grooms when I hit 'em with some flash. The 1600 noise looks much more like grain than the noise from the 10D, and the in-camera black and white does work well.

 

Expanded dynamic range? What I notice is that the shadow detail holds up better in pictures between the 10/20D and the S3. Yes, I still blow highlights, but then again, when shooting reversal film, some highlights went impossibly thin. The dynamic range is better. Colors are bright, and contrast is lower, a good thing.

 

Is it worth more than the 10D/20D? Yes. Is it worth $1,000 more? For me, yes.

 

Go borrow one and use it. I liked it. I'm fairly fast working with it. The camera is "fast enough" for this photographer that's used to having to cock a lens, wind a back, then focus and shoot.

 

JD

... As I await a visit to Stavro Mueller, BETA.

Noc is nice. I just got back from vacation with mine. Allowed me to shoot in restaurants at night in light I personally found dim.

 

It's sharp.

 

I don't notice a focus shift of any appreciable degree, unless my pictures just don't show it.

 

With an 8x neutral density filter 62mm- get a 60-62mm step-up ring!) one can shoot wide open with Pan F shot at 80 (for Diafine) with great results, or a deep red filter will do similar things with the associated darkening of the sky.

 

Pictures from it are "nice." Sharp, good color, and if wide open, only what you want in focus is sharp, everything else is blasted to hell lending a very strong point of interest to photos.

 

Misused, it's a bokeh monster, of course.

 

EVERYTHING EVERYONE HAS EVER SAID ABOUT THE LENS IS TRUE.

 

And all generalizations are false.

 

"It's big and heavy for an M lens" (who cares? I carry a 135 Elmarit and 90mm Summicron AA along with a 'lux 35 ASPH) Yup. And? Hell, I'm used to carrying a Mamiya Universal around, or an RB. You want heavy? I'll show you heavy. f/5 250mm Universal lens is HEAVY with that 105mm front element...

 

"It vignettes." Yup. It does, wide open. Stopped down it doesn't. It certainly directs attention to the center of frames- which isn't a bad thing but one must compose closer to center. Frame with the 50mm frame lines, compose by "rule of thirds" with the 75mm lines.

 

"It's almost completely resistant to flare." The Noc might be, but if you use an ND filter, it's almost certainly not. Just be careful. And don't point it at the sun wide open.

 

 

"It's slow to focus." I got used to it. With such a long focus throw, one has a bit of wiggle room (DoF is marked on the lens, even for F/1!). Oh! One has to be good at focusing an M camera, I suppose. First, get yourself a HARD to focus rangefinder- like a Prominent or even the wonderful Mamiya Universal (which has a bright, but fuzzy-edged spot), and get good at getting the rangefinder spot sharp. Once you become decisive about the point of focus with THOSE cameras, the Leica will feel like a gift from heaven (or hell, I suppose) and your focusing technique with the Noc will be a complete no brainer. I've yet to blow a shot I thought was in focus, and that's after several dozen rolls.

 

 

"It blocks the finder too much!" Not for my tastes. It's okay. I can move the camera a bit to see what I get in frame. I've never lost a shot because I couldn't always see everything, though I do agree that it can be annoying.

 

"It's too expensive." Um... Collect cameras for a few years, then decide to pay off all debts. It'll seem cheap, if you can trade several cameras for a Noc.

 

"It's only a stop faster than a Summilux." True. But it's about as sharp as the previous (and loved/hated) 'lux but with even more character, and it DOES have that extra stop.

 

"It's not as sharp as a Summicron" True that, but it's two stops faster, and it's still Leica, with the associated image quality. Sharp ain't the only way to measure a picture. My Noc doesn't flare like my Cron did.

 

"With the new Lux, the Noctilux doesn't make much sense." I'll go along with this one. I just couldn't find a new 'Lux in a position to trade for enough camera for it.. Anyone looking for a perfect Noc that has a new Summilux ASPH? :-) Only been on vacation to Portugal, so far as I know...

 

I got my Leica for GOOD BRIGHT lenses. I don't care much for how much they weigh. I don't care much for how "hard" they are to focus, or even how big they make the camera. They are sharp, they are rangefinder focused, and they make nice pictures. That last bit is paramount for me, and my lenses have never let me down.

 

Look for a price for a Noc to be somewhere around $1,800-$2,200. You MIGHT be able to get one more cheaply.

How's that, Stuart?

Interesting indeed, but pricey. I paid around that for my 90mm Summicron ASPH.

I don't know if my experience with my M3 should be considered typical, but I just bent the stop on the rangefinder arm a bit, and got .7m focusing just fine. If I went too far, there were side effects, but it was good enough for me, and didn't affect focus in any way, as tested with a Summicron 50mm, wide open.

Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS) is a horrible thing.

The V-11 Sport awaits my springtime attention in the garage. Valve adjustment takes all of 15 minutes.

 

"Better lenses than I'm a photographer." G-d, man, how true that is.

Does the MP have an internal stop to keep the advance lever from hitting the hotshoe when you release it after winding?

 

My MP doesn't hit while winding. Serial number 2939xxx. Then again, I don't let it snap back anyway- old habit.

Personally, I wish someone would make a Real Sonnar, with the triple-cemented element. I've always liked the look of my J-9 and won't get it until the Kiev/M adapter comes out (no ltm J's for me!)

I would imagine modern manufacturing techniques would make that archaic design even prettier.

Mine has colored references on the focusing helical and f-stops- to remind me that it doesn't focus closer than 20 feet without stopping down.

 

Takes pretty pictures.

 

I now need a hood.

Some clarification:

The Universal had a back that would take Polaroid backs, but it NOT the similar 600SE, a Mamiya Universal LOOKING camera with a distinct lens mount (meaning lenses aren't interchangeable)

 

It's true that the 75mm, 127mm (5" Polaroid standard) will completely cover Polaroid under all f-stops, but the 150mm will f/8 on down.

 

By the way, if you ever have a 50mm and 75mm but only the 75mm hood, use the 75mm hood on the 50mm without vignetting (and BETTER FLARE PROTECTION!)

Metrogon/Topogons were designed with that diaphram in the formula- f/6.3 is what it's supposed to be, but I've seen reference to f/4 here (probably by you!) that I'd really like to try it.

 

My 65mm is sharp. Doesn't cover as well as the 50mm (which almost covers polaroid) but has a strong bite in high contrast situations- it's coated and only 4 elements, and I get comments from the lab when I use it.

 

My guess is that the lens cam is off (some are REMOVED to mount on lens boards!) or your rangefinder is off. COllumate and see (easily done with a long slr lens and a piece of tape)

The 65mm takes the same filter as the Nikon "Contax Mount" 50mm lens, 43mm.

 

40.5mm mount filters is very common in FSU gear.

I paid $400 for mine from MPEX, with a finder. It looked unused (but the finder fell to pieces directly).

 

All lenses for that camera that aren't Tessars are exceptional, the 150mm (Tessar) is very good.

 

I'm glad I chose the camera as the base for my Medium Format experiments. It's never let me down. Get the 50 when you can.

The Polaroid (coughMamiyacough) 600SE has a 4x5 back available for it. The 75mm

reportedly just misses the corners.