A 1969 test of four fast lenses, including Nikkor and Noctilux

[Roger Hicks]

I strongly doubt that online linking to a 40 year old obscure scanned article is going to create any legal crisis.

If someone was charging to access it, that MIGHT create some legal complication, though it would be a fairly remote event.

There are tens of thousands of scanned instruction manuals, articles, books, etc online.

The original author is not being deprived of anything by linking to it on this thread. He's not "owed" anything, no profit is being made by displaying it.

The article is not being sold currently by any publication, the author not being deprived of any income.

There is legal theory and there is reality.

I completely agree that there is a gulf between legal theory and reality, but equally, with a still-living author, still making his living from photographic journalism (and Geoffrey is both), it doesn't matter that no-one else is making a profit out of it. After all, they're not entitled to. He is.

As I say, I raised the point about permission sonewhat diffidently, but I would be very annoyed indeed if someone stole something I had written and put it on their site on the web without payment and without permission. It would be cheering to know that permission had been requested and granted, and I saw no evidence of that.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[mhv]

The original author is not being deprived of anything by linking to it on this thread. He's not "owed" anything, no profit is being made by displaying it.

The article is not being sold currently by any publication, the author not being deprived of any income.

Well, yes, the author is owed something, it's called copyright, and it's the right to decide who makes a copy of their work, and when. It has nothing to do with royalties: royalties are just a consequence of certain copyright agreements.

Copyright = right of copying, get it?

When someone asserts their copyright the traditional way (i.e. not à la Creative Commons, which are intelligent ways to carefully allow the appropriation of works), then you need that copyright holder's agreement before copying in any form their work.

The mere fact that someone else posted it does not make you innocent in illicitly redistributing it, for profit or not.

Am I losing any sleep about this situation? No, I read the article like everyone else and found it very interesting.

But even though the Internet created a giant problematic grey zone of copyright law, so far it's still dura lex, sed lex. Either you accept the law as it is and you don't spew nonsense about it, or else you take the arduous road of changing it for the better in the manner of people like Michael Geist or Lawrence Lessig.

 

[Petroleum V. Nasby]

Rumpole of the Bailey chimes in.

Well, yes, the author is owed something, it's called copyright, and it's the right to decide who makes a copy of their work, and when. It has nothing to do with royalties: royalties are just a consequence of certain copyright agreements.

Copyright = right of copying, get it?

When someone asserts their copyright the traditional way (i.e. not à la Creative Commons, which are intelligent ways to carefully allow the appropriation of works), then you need that copyright holder's agreement before copying in any form their work.

The mere fact that someone else posted it does not make you innocent in illicitly redistributing it, for profit or not.

Am I losing any sleep about this situation? No, I read the article like everyone else and found it very interesting.

But even though the Internet created a giant problematic grey zone of copyright law, so far it's still dura lex, sed lex. Either you accept the law as it is and you don't spew nonsense about it, or else you take the arduous road of changing it for the better in the manner of people like Michael Geist or Lawrence Lessig.

 

[Peter A (NYC)]

Someone at ebay is converting such FL55.12 into M mount or LTM.
Thanks for the posting.

I understand Roger's concerns though.

Raid, I have this FL lens and I'd love to hear more about converting it. I don't find anything on eBay. Thanks!

 

[awilder]

I'm surprised no one has yet to comment on the content of the article rather the obsessing on the legalities and ethical considerations on copyright infringement given most members fascination of lens comparisons and performance. I found the article very interesting. The thoroughness in his testing of all performance criteria certainly backs up his conclusons and more importantly helps the reader honestly assess whether a 50/1.2 is the right optic for ones arsenal. Obviously things have now changed a little with the introduction of digital cameras and their imaging demands vs film. Still, it's fun to read about the different approach in correction between the major japanese optical houses and the house of Leitz back when 35 mm film was at it's peak. Other than Mr. Crowley, E. Puts has chosen to specifically look into the optical aspects and challenges of high speed 50's from various manufactureres but with a little more bias towards Leica. Unfortunately, I don't think that article is avalable on line anymore. Both recognize the superiority of the Noctulux but Crowley appears more balanced in his review pointing out it's limitations and drawbacks compared to the other lenses tested. To be fair to Nikon, the 55/1.2 was never a great lens and their much improved 50/1.2 would have probably done as well or better than the Canon 55/1.2 FL (the best of the SLR group). I suspect a more modern conventional design like the 50/1.2 Hexanon-M might also do quite well if tested in that group but will still suffer some the shortcomings of high speed design constraints in the absence of modern aspheric design with super exotic glass like you know what.

 

[raid]

Peter,
Someone at RFF posted a thread about such a lens. Supposedly, the FL 55mm/1.2 (or 50mm) is a better lens than the Canon 50/1.2 RF lens.

 

[gohaj]

Someone at ebay is converting such FL55.12 into M mount or LTM.
Thanks for the posting.

I understand Roger's concerns though.

after conversion, does it come with rangefinder coupling?
who in ebay does the conversion?

 

[Sonnar2]

Peter,
Someone at RFF posted a thread about such a lens. Supposedly, the FL 55mm/1.2 (or 50mm) is a better lens than the Canon 50/1.2 RF lens.

It should be better, because in the 60's and 70's there were lots of improvement in lens design, and the RF 50/1.2 was from 1956.
There were several highspeed standard SLR lenses made by Canon in the 1960's: 58/1.2, 55/1.2 FL and the improved (larger) 55/1.2 FD in two versions, with or without aspherical elements. It weights more than the 50/0.95 RF. The last one was the 50/1.2 ASPH. (new FD), which optical improvements were barely to discover. E.Puts has done lots of tests with the FD 55/1.2 ASPH. with excellent results.

About the article, I found the concepts of testing quite interesting and not very different of modern approaches; i.e. the understanding of high contrast and fine resulotion.

 

[awilder]

The conclusions of the article were interesting in that the 50/1.2 is really a lens best used if you really must have maximun low light capability and are willing to sacrifice some optical performance for the extra speed. The takeaway point is that while stopping down helps to improve their overall performance, a slower less expensive lens will perform better across the frame at similar stops. Of course, these are lab test situations and in actual photographic situations, these lenses will show only minor differences at similar stops compared to their slower siblings in most situations. Indirectly, I think this article makes a better argument for a 50/1.4 as the best all around 50 for maximum speed and decent performance. Even today this is true, maybe more so with lenses like the 50 Summilux-M ASPH. If we look at the options for digital cameras, the picture changes a bit since the only options for a 50/1.2 are Nikon DSLRs or rangefinders like the current M8 or the older discontinued Epson RD-1. With the exception of the FX style Nikon bodies, all have crop factors that eliminate the outer zones of the 50/1.2, thus removing the weakest performing zone of this design. More practically speaking, it's a moot point in the latest generation of DSLRs given their much improved high ISO performance, a 50/1.2 is no longer needed for ultra low light shootng. Leica, with their very limited high ISO performing M8, has gone the route of a 50/0.95 ASPH, the main advantage being high optical performance with highly isolating dof and enhanced low light capability given the ability to shoot at a couple of shutter speed slower than a DSLR by virtue of it's rf body design.

 

[raid]

after conversion, does it come with rangefinder coupling?
who in ebay does the conversion?

Yes, it will have RF coupling. Else,a 50/1.2 is not useful wide open.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

As I say, this may seem nit-picking, but if we want to maintain our own copyrights, we must respect the copyrights of others.

In a world where avoiding regulation as much as possible has made for excellent economic success for the past 8 years, the same ideology applies to respecting and abiding by copyright laws: sock it with snobbish ideals of "propriety". The Wild Wild West "Me" Laws have proved reliable and infallible.