I was perusing the LUG and saw a thread that started because of a newsletter that Erwin Puts put out today (maybe yesterday) that stated that the Summilux is better than the Noctilux in all circumstances. (These are not my word, I am paraphrasing from the LUG threads). As someone that has been vacillating on the purchase of a Noct', I am always trying to acquire as much information as possible on this lens. I am a bit surprised if this statement is truly attributed to Puts, since he gushes over the Noct' in his article in "Photo Techniques" magazine.

I would be interested in seeing this newsletter, and would greatly appreciate anyone that might be getting it, if it could be forwarded to me via e-mail.

Thank you very much.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 06, 2001

Answers

The Noctilux is better than the Summilux at f1. Sorry, couldn't resist.

-- David (pagedt@attglobal.net), September 06, 2001.

David,

This same point was made several times on the LUG... it can't be argued. The f-stop ring on the Summilux stops before the Noctilux's does. I would still like to see the newsletter just to read Erwin's arguments to validate his assertion.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 06, 2001.

Al, I just sent it as an attachment.

Erwin also puts down the DR/Rigid Summicron. He says the second version of the f/2.0 50 Nikkor is better. I've owned that lens and I wouldn't trade the Rigid Summicron for a boatload of the Nikkors.

I admire and read what Mr. Puts has to say but it's obvious that his criteria for choosing a lens can often differ from mine.

I AM pleased that he points out that MTF charts do not indicate distortion, flare and (most of all) color rendition.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), September 06, 2001.

Well, I had a 50/2.0 Nikkor-H.C that was a wonderful lens in every regard. I still think it may have been better than the 50/1.8 AIS I have now. I traded away a DR Summicron because I wan't fussy about the mage quality (donut OOF highlights at mid apertures and quite soft wide open). My recentish Summicron is much more to my taste.

I think the reason I didn't respect that little Nikkor was because it was too darn cheap. Looking back on the pics I shot with it, it's very hard to find fault.

While I find Erwin to be more than a bit of a Leica Cheerleader, I have to say I agree with him on this one. And within his definition of a "good" lens, he's probably right that the Summilux is better than the Noct, ceteris paribus. His definitions may not be yours, of course.

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), September 06, 2001.

Actually, it's kind of ironic that the guy who is one of the world's great Leica cheerleaders actually finds fault with a Leica lens or two (as might be expected once in a while) and he gets jumped on for it. I find his statements to be a refreshing bit of candour.

And yes, I have the newsletter in question.

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), September 06, 2001.

We seem to have sashayed out of the noctilux/summilux thread and into a Nikon lovefest thread, so I'll just add (having had a fit of testing M-mount 28's recently) that the old F-mount Nikkor-H 28 3.5 (the one that occasionally has a silver filter mount) was one of the better 28s I've ever used, even though it usually got trashed by reviewers. As was the last manual-focus 28 f/2.8 AIS. And the 3.5 was practically down to the Voightlander level for weight.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 07, 2001.

How do you subscribe to Puts' newsletter?

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), September 07, 2001.

To subscribe to Erwin's Newsletter, send a message to majordomo@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us saying only subscribe APEMC Or contact Erwin Puts for assistance.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), September 07, 2001.

I offer many thanks to BUD COOK for sending me the newsletter as per the request in my initial query. Again, this is the kind of response that reinforces the fact that this is the best forum on the 'net with the best people. And now for some reading...

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 07, 2001.

My thanks to Bud too for forwarding the newsletter...

Al, I have owned both of these lenses, and I have to pretty much agree with what Erwin states. The Summilux IS a better performer than the Noctilux in a lens test (and the Summicron is better than the Summilux on the same test). However, my samples appeared very close in performance at f1.4, and we all know the Summilux has no f1 or f1.2 on its aperture ring... All this aside, I feel the Noct is capable of producing photos with a look that no other lens can match, but I also think Erwin states the facts pretty accurately in regards to the Noctilux vs. Summilux issue.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 07, 2001.

If engineers were the sole judge of art, we never would have heard of Claude Monet:-)

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), September 07, 2001.

Indeed!

The Noct is not about the ultimate in resolution and contrast. I am very compelled by those images (seen not long ago in anothe rthread here) shot at F1 in normal daylight. Those kinds of images simply are not otherwise possible. In the right creative hands, the Noct is in a class of its own.

-- dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), September 07, 2001.

About Noctilux.

I bought a Noct two months ago because of its reputation. Noct is about the bokeh, the color depth, the warm fuzzy feeling in the images it captures. It's heavy but helps handholding in low light. The reason I was attracted to Leica M was because of this lens mainly, on top of the 35/1.4 and 75/1.4. Leica M simply has little competition at those focal lengths in 35mm territory.

Because of this post I am able to receive Erwin's newsletter in my mail box. Thanks, guys.

-- Damond Lam (damond_lam@hotmail.com), September 08, 2001.