Gipsy
Member
Lets say you could have any one of Leicas fast lenses If you could have just one fast lens which one would it be. :bang:
Do you ever feel the need for speed.
- Thread starter Gipsy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 11
- Views 977
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
the Noctilux...just to say I have it.
Speed is the reason why I seem to have ended up with a CV Nokton 35 and 50 in my kit.
Speed is the reason why I seem to have ended up with a CV Nokton 35 and 50 in my kit.
mr_phillip
Well-known
The Noctilux natch. But crazy speed isn't really my top priority, I find f2 a good enough maximum in most circumstances (provided it's actually a usable aperture on that particular lens).
If they were giving out Summiluxes though, I'd sure be in the queue.
If they were giving out Summiluxes though, I'd sure be in the queue.
angeloks
Well-known
Since I often use 3200 iso pushed at 6400, I sure love speed ! I'd be very happy to be able to combine it with a Noctilux ! My Canon 1.4EF is often not enough for me !
matt fury
Well-known
Noct! Duh! I'm constantly shooting at f/2 with 3200 speed film, and I still often have to go to 1/15s. Sure, a 'lux would be a good start, but I've shot a roll with a Noct and I love it!
FrankS
Registered User
The best value in a speed lens IMO, is the CV40f1.4, considering price, size, and performance.
Nokton48
Veteran
Canon 1.2 works for me in LTM.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
thomasw_
Well-known
Gipsy said:
If JUST one LEICA lens is the criteria, then I have no doubt about this, being a 5cm FL man: the Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph. Man O man, do I love its signature. And yes, I have one and it will be used by me until it is no longer useful....
But why not the Noctilux? Well you said ONLY one LEICA fast lens, and the noctilux is not as useful all-round as the Summilux imo.
So some practical considerations have to be taken into account.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I had a Noctilux, and sold it, because I didn't find enough use for it. I didn't find the 50mm focal length important enough to privilege it with an f/1 lens, while all my other focal lengths were slower. I do have Summiluxes in 35, 50, and 75mm focal lengths, and find enough use for them to keep them around. F/1.4 seems sufficient for my needs. With a fast film in the ISO 1600 range, when the light is so low as to need F/1, I can't see to focus in the first place.
The main issue I find with low-light photography is not that there isn't enough light; it's that the light is not concentrated where I need it, for an effective picture. And when the light is in the wrong place, F/1 won't put it where it should have been.
The main issue I find with low-light photography is not that there isn't enough light; it's that the light is not concentrated where I need it, for an effective picture. And when the light is in the wrong place, F/1 won't put it where it should have been.
haagen_dazs
Well-known
Rob-F said:
well said
i concur
foto_fool
Well-known
My favorite topic! My fastest is the Canon 50/0.95 - which is a very specialized lens indeed. I love Rob-F's comment about the light being where I need it. I could justify the cost of the Canon based on where the light is, but I still can't justify the Noctilux. I would not have my next favorite fast lens either - the 35 Summilux ASPH - except that I made a scandalously good deal a while back. The CV 40/1.4 is an amazing value! But I also like the signature of the old Summarit, and it gives plenty of speed with Neopan 1600. Now, let's wait for Ned to weigh in.
- John
- John
Last edited:
Similar threads
