«

Could it BE that the PLASTIC part of the lens cannot be made
accurately enough (certainly not as well as a glass part) and thus
they can't produce a modern Noct?
Kind of reminds me of the plastic used in camera bodies "engineering
plastic," a new euphemism for the same old crap.

On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:11:25 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Could it BE that the PLASTIC part of the lens cannot be made
>accurately enough (certainly not as well as a glass part) and thus
>they can't produce a modern Noct?

I dunno. Both Nikon and Canon offer several fast normal and short
telephoto lenses that are affordable - the only thing missing is the
hybrid aspherical element that seems to have you in a lather.

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 - B&H $289.95 US
I'm pretty sure it does not have a hybrid aspherical element, but it
does have enough plastic to satisfy your inane obsession. It's
inexpensive and almost as fast as the Noct-Nikkor.

Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 - B&H $399.95 US
Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF - B&H $1024.95 US
Slower than the Noct, but still fast. One is inexpensive, the other
isn't.


Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 - B&H $325.00 US
Canon EF-L 50mm f/1.2 - B&H $1300.00 US
One is as fast as the Noct-Nikkor, one is slightly slower. One is
inexpensive, the other is inexpensive compared the current asking
prices on EBay for the Noct-Nikkor.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 - B&H $355.00 US
Slower than the Noct, but still fast. No hybrid aspherical element.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 - B&H $1829.95 US
Same speed as the Noct-Nikkor, and a lot less expensive that the
current asking prices on EBay for the Noct-Nikkor.


Oh, and if you must have a fast normal lens with a hybrid aspherical
element, keep an eye out for the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM.


>Kind of reminds me of the plastic used in camera bodies "engineering
>plastic," a new euphemism for the same old crap.

But you repeat yourself....

TR

On Jun 1, 1:42 am, TRoss <tross...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:11:25 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Could it BE that the PLASTIC part of the lens cannot be made
> >accurately enough (certainly not as well as a glass part) and thus
> >they can't produce a modern Noct?
>
> I dunno. Both Nikon and Canon offer several fast normal and short
> telephoto lenses that are affordable - the only thing missing is the
> hybrid aspherical element that seems to have you in a lather.

Good reasons for that. Both the Noct-Nikkor and Noctilux Leica used
hand-made aspherics, something that cannot be replicated accurately
enough to produce lenses of this kind
yet.

> Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 - B&H $289.95 US
> I'm pretty sure it does not have a hybrid aspherical element, but it
> does have enough plastic to satisfy your inane obsession. It's
> inexpensive and almost as fast as the Noct-Nikkor.
>
> Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 - B&H $399.95 US
> Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF - B&H $1024.95 US
> Slower than the Noct, but still fast. One is inexpensive, the other
> isn't.
>
> Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 - B&H $325.00 US
> Canon EF-L 50mm f/1.2 - B&H $1300.00 US
> One is as fast as the Noct-Nikkor, one is slightly slower. One is
> inexpensive, the other is inexpensive compared the current asking
> prices on EBay for the Noct-Nikkor.

I wonder why?
>
> Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 - B&H $355.00 US
> Slower than the Noct, but still fast. No hybrid aspherical element.

The complexity of an f1.2 design that actually works is way beyond
f1.8.
>
> Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 - B&H $1829.95 US
> Same speed as the Noct-Nikkor, and a lot less expensive that the
> current asking prices on EBay for the Noct-Nikkor.

Because it's a piece of garbage that no one wants?

>
> Oh, and if you must have a fast normal lens with a hybrid aspherical
> element, keep an eye out for the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM.

If you can find one that actually functions properly. Witness the
30mm f1.4 focus debacles.

RichA wrote:
> Could it BE that the PLASTIC part of the lens cannot be made
> accurately enough (certainly not as well as a glass part) and thus
> they can't produce a modern Noct?
> Kind of reminds me of the plastic used in camera bodies "engineering
> plastic," a new euphemism for the same old crap.

I guess you never fly on MD-80's, 737-400's (and later), 747-400's (and
later), 757's, 767's, Airbus 320, 330 and 340.

As to the upcoming 787, it takes the cake in composites and plastics and
the competing A-350 will go almost as far. The A-380 also depends
highly on plastics and composites to keep its weight down.

Darned engineers.

Imagine if a car could be made of mainly composites at a reasonable
price. (And price is the only barrier). It would be so much lighter
that an engine half the size or less could be used for the same
performance and safety. Then being so much lighter, the wheels could be
lighter, the brakes lighter, transmission lighter and so on. That would
save a hell of a lot of fuel and make a serial hybrid a very attractive
machine.

By the way Rich, enclosing the term _engineering plastic_ in quotes does
not work to make something non-genuine.

The brief descriptions of engineering plastic and commodity plastic on
Wikipedia is useful for your guidance.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

> RichA wrote:
>> Could it BE that the PLASTIC part of the lens cannot be made
>> accurately enough (certainly not as well as a glass part) and thus
>> they can't produce a modern Noct?
>> Kind of reminds me of the plastic used in camera bodies "engineering
>> plastic," a new euphemism for the same old crap.
>
> I guess you never fly on MD-80's, 737-400's (and later), 747-400's (and
> later), 757's, 767's, Airbus 320, 330 and 340.
>
> As to the upcoming 787, it takes the cake in composites and plastics and
> the competing A-350 will go almost as far. The A-380 also depends
> highly on plastics and composites to keep its weight down.
>
> Darned engineers.
>
> Imagine if a car could be made of mainly composites at a reasonable
> price. (And price is the only barrier). It would be so much lighter
> that an engine half the size or less could be used for the same
> performance and safety. Then being so much lighter, the wheels could be
> lighter, the brakes lighter, transmission lighter and so on. That would
> save a hell of a lot of fuel and make a serial hybrid a very attractive
> machine.
>
> By the way Rich, enclosing the term _engineering plastic_ in quotes does
> not work to make something non-genuine.
>
> The brief descriptions of engineering plastic and commodity plastic on
> Wikipedia is useful for your guidance.

Speaking of plastics and lenses, what kind of plastic does Nikon use for
their lens famil[y|ies] that do not have metal mounting flanges (or
however the part that meshes with the mount on the body is labeled)?

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project --> http://improve-usenet.org
Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* --> http://usenet4all.se

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 09:09:32 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Jun 1, 1:42 am, TRoss <tross...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:11:25 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Could it BE that the PLASTIC part of the lens cannot be made
>> >accurately enough (certainly not as well as a glass part) and thus
>> >they can't produce a modern Noct?
>>
>> I dunno. Both Nikon and Canon offer several fast normal and short
>> telephoto lenses that are affordable - the only thing missing is the
>> hybrid aspherical element that seems to have you in a lather.
>
>Good reasons for that. Both the Noct-Nikkor and Noctilux Leica used
>hand-made aspherics, something that cannot be replicated accurately
>enough to produce lenses of this kind
>yet.

Let's play Spot-the-Circular-Argument. Just because they don't do it
doesn't mean it can't be done. There are no houses in my neighborhood
that would survive a direct hit by an F5 tornado. The fact there
aren't any houses like that in MY neighborhood doesn't mean such a
house can't be built.

>> Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 - B&H $289.95 US
>> I'm pretty sure it does not have a hybrid aspherical element, but it
>> does have enough plastic to satisfy your inane obsession. It's
>> inexpensive and almost as fast as the Noct-Nikkor.
>>
>> Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 - B&H $399.95 US
>> Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF - B&H $1024.95 US
>> Slower than the Noct, but still fast. One is inexpensive, the other
>> isn't.
>>
>> Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 - B&H $325.00 US
>> Canon EF-L 50mm f/1.2 - B&H $1300.00 US
>> One is as fast as the Noct-Nikkor, one is slightly slower. One is
>> inexpensive, the other is inexpensive compared the current asking
>> prices on EBay for the Noct-Nikkor.
>
>I wonder why?

For the same reason people set outrageous prices for collectables:
they hope to find someone willing to part with lots of cash. People
spend a lot of money on the silliest things.

>> Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 - B&H $355.00 US
>> Slower than the Noct, but still fast. No hybrid aspherical element.
>
>The complexity of an f1.2 design that actually works is way beyond
>f1.8.

So is the diameter, weight and price-point. Was there a purpose to
pointing out the obvious?


>> Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 - B&H $1829.95 US
>> Same speed as the Noct-Nikkor, and a lot less expensive that the
>> current asking prices on EBay for the Noct-Nikkor.
>
>Because it's a piece of garbage that no one wants?

Wrong! Wanna try again, numbnuts.


>> Oh, and if you must have a fast normal lens with a hybrid aspherical
>> element, keep an eye out for the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM.
>
>If you can find one that actually functions properly. Witness the
>30mm f1.4 focus debacles.

It isn't a debacle; it's a characteristic of that type lens. There are
focussing "issues" with all large aperture lenses - the DoF extremely
shallow, and it is difficult to manage tack-sharp focus. But this
shallow DoF is the primary reason people buy/use the darned things.


TR

On Jun 1, 1:36 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > Could it BE that the PLASTIC part of the lens cannot be made
> > accurately enough (certainly not as well as a glass part) and thus
> > they can't produce a modern Noct?
> > Kind of reminds me of the plastic used in camera bodies "engineering
> > plastic," a new euphemism for the same old crap.
>
> I guess you never fly on MD-80's, 737-400's (and later), 747-400's (and
> later), 757's, 767's, Airbus 320, 330 and 340.
>
> As to the upcoming 787, it takes the cake in composites and plastics and
> the competing A-350 will go almost as far. The A-380 also depends
> highly on plastics and composites to keep its weight down.
>
> Darned engineers.
>

Yes, those DSLR do use multiple layers of kevlar and carbon fibre in
their bodies, don't they? That's like saying mixing copper and tin
give you gold instead of brass because they're all metals.

"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:6c8d0b05-8c1d-4843-abb8-(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Jun 1, 1:36 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> RichA wrote:

>> > Could it BE that the PLASTIC part of the lens cannot be made
>> > accurately enough (certainly not as well as a glass part) and thus
>> > they can't produce a modern Noct?
>> > Kind of reminds me of the plastic used in camera bodies "engineering
>> > plastic," a new euphemism for the same old crap.

>> I guess you never fly on MD-80's, 737-400's (and later), 747-400's (and
>> later), 757's, 767's, Airbus 320, 330 and 340.
>>
>> As to the upcoming 787, it takes the cake in composites and plastics and
>> the competing A-350 will go almost as far. The A-380 also depends
>> highly on plastics and composites to keep its weight down.
>>
>> Darned engineers.

> Yes, those DSLR do use multiple layers of kevlar and carbon fibre in
> their bodies, don't they? That's like saying mixing copper and tin
> give you gold instead of brass because they're all metals.

What matters in the end is performance, unless you just like the
look/feel of something else. As for "metal" camera bodies, back
when I bought and sold used gear, I would sometimes buy
replacement metal body bottoms from Nikon to replace scratched
or dented ones. These new ones would sometimes arrive bent.
It was an easy job to straighten out the metal with my fingers,
unlike with plastic parts. So much for the structural superiority
of metal...;-) BTW, gold would make an especially poor sheathing
material for cameras or a structural material for lenses (too heavy
and soft), but..............;-) I got over my distaste for plastic when
I came to appreciate the toughness of the sheathing on the Nikon
FG and FA bodies, although I still prefer the look and feel of
AIS MF Nikkor lenses.
--
David Ruether
(E-Mail Removed)
www.donferrario.com/ruether

David Ruether wrote:
> I got over my distaste for plastic when
> I came to appreciate the toughness of the sheathing on the Nikon
> FG and FA bodies, although I still prefer the look and feel of
> AIS MF Nikkor lenses.


For the Nikon FA - I guess you had a black one?
If you had a silver one, then I'd be surprised to hear any comment about
ruggedness - because they weren't. (IIRC the black was polycarbonate or
similar - the silver one I had was some other type of plastic which did
crack quite easily - as I found out). Like the MacBook, Nikon charged a
premium for black. Unlike Apple, Nikon had a good reason.

On Jun 2, 9:15 am, "David Ruether" <druet...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6c8d0b05-8c1d-4843-abb8-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Jun 1, 1:36 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> > wrote:
> >> RichA wrote:
> >> > Could it BE that the PLASTIC part of the lens cannot be made
> >> > accurately enough (certainly not as well as a glass part) and thus
> >> > they can't produce a modern Noct?
> >> > Kind of reminds me of the plastic used in camera bodies "engineering
> >> > plastic," a new euphemism for the same old crap.
> >> I guess you never fly on MD-80's, 737-400's (and later), 747-400's (and
> >> later), 757's, 767's, Airbus 320, 330 and 340.
>
> >> As to the upcoming 787, it takes the cake in composites and plastics and
> >> the competing A-350 will go almost as far. The A-380 also depends
> >> highly on plastics and composites to keep its weight down.
>
> >> Darned engineers.
> > Yes, those DSLR do use multiple layers of kevlar and carbon fibre in
> > their bodies, don't they? That's like saying mixing copper and tin
> > give you gold instead of brass because they're all metals.
>
> What matters in the end is performance, unless you just like the
> look/feel of something else. As for "metal" camera bodies, back
> when I bought and sold used gear, I would sometimes buy
> replacement metal body bottoms from Nikon to replace scratched
> or dented ones. These new ones would sometimes arrive bent.
> It was an easy job to straighten out the metal with my fingers,
> unlike with plastic parts. So much for the structural superiority
> of metal...;-)

I think most people dinged their prism housing in SLRs if they used
them enough, but most still worked because the metal just bent a bit
(unless you really hit it hard) and didn't crack outright or shatter
like some plastic cameras have done.

> I got over my distaste for plastic when
> I came to appreciate the toughness of the sheathing on the Nikon
> FG and FA bodies, although I still prefer the look and feel of
> AIS MF Nikkor lenses.

Because metal can be beautiful but most plastic still looks like
crap. When was the last time you saw a limited ed., anniversary ed.
camera (remember them from the 1970s, 80s, 90s?) made out of plastic,
except for one Pentax K10D spec. ed., arguably, the only half-decent
plastic body out there. Also, something you will NEVER see on a metal
part, dust clinging via static charge to the door seams on plastic
body camera battery and memory doors.