augusten_burroughs1

Because so few people use the Noctilux with regularity, the distinctive

look that it can create is less familiar, thus quite unique. I'm

speaking of the astonishing lack of depth of field when used opened

wide. The background melts. Indeed, if you are focused on the eyes, the

ears will not be sharp. This can create a very powerful and unusual

look. And it provides the photographer with fresh creative options that

are not available with any other lens.

<p>

I've had success using this lens in the very low light situations for

which is was created, as well as outdoors in the daytime. Absolutely,

it's not as sharp as my Summicron. And truly, one must spend a lot of

time learning to focus this lens. The higher mag .85 would be ideal for

this objective. Although a heavy and large (by Leica standards) lens,

it balances perfectly on the camera body. However, a large portion of

the viewfinder is obscured.

<p>

The question of whether or not this lens is worth the money is

impossible to answer. If you are shooting hand-held in a dark bar and

you want to capture the glint in someone's eye, this is your lens. And

if you want to create images that have a unique lack of depth of field,

a "look" not usually seen, this would be the lens for you.

<p>

But there are compromises and you need to be fully aware of them.

Price, viewfinder obscurity, weight, size and focus challenges come to

mind as the leading

In your experience with both lenses, which provides the more

luscious bokeh? The 50 1.4 ASPH or the 50.2 ASPH? Thanks.

And just out of curiosity, would the answer apply to the 35 as

well? Thanks.

I see the "Leica Feel" extends well beyond the camera itself. I'm

blown away by the quality of the answers to my question. And I

really appreciate people taking the time to answer so

thoughtfully. There were so many excellent points; I have a lot to

think about now. I actually have a tank-ish F3 and it's a great

camera; I use it with a 1.2/50. The trouble is, no batteries=no

shots. Maybe I'm delusional and talking myself into it, but I also

think there's something about the leica glass that is, well,

magical. So that point -start with which glass you like and go

from there- was well taken. Again, thanks.

If what I want is the most durable manual SLR that is both

flawless in finish yet rugged in nature, will I be happy with an

R6.2? Does an R6.2 "feel" like a Leica? When I hold an M6, I am

slightly in awe of its craftsmanship. Will I have this same feeling

with the R6.2? I�d appreciate any feelings on the subject.

Thanks.