Now that "hybrid aspheres" are avail, where's the cheap "NoctNikkors?"

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Jun 1, 2008.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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.
     
    RichA, Jun 1, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    TRoss Guest

    Re: Now that "hybrid aspheres" are avail, where's the cheap "Noct Nikkors?"

    On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:11:25 -0700 (PDT), 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?


    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
     
    TRoss, Jun 1, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 1, 1:42 am, TRoss <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:11:25 -0700 (PDT), 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?

    >
    > 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, Jun 1, 2008
    #3
  4. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    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, Jun 1, 2008
    #4
  5. Re: Now that "hybrid aspheres" are avail, where's the cheap "Noct Nikkors?"

    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
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jun 1, 2008
    #5
  6. RichA

    TRoss Guest

    Re: Now that "hybrid aspheres" are avail, where's the cheap "Noct Nikkors?"

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

    >On Jun 1, 1:42 am, TRoss <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:11:25 -0700 (PDT), 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?

    >>
    >> 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
     
    TRoss, Jun 1, 2008
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 1, 1:36 pm, 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.
    >


    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, Jun 2, 2008
    #7
  8. Re: Now that "hybrid aspheres" are avail, where's the cheap "Noct Nikkors?"

    "RichA" <> wrote in message news:...
    > On Jun 1, 1:36 pm, 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.


    > 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

    www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Jun 2, 2008
    #8
  9. RichA

    frederick Guest

    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.
     
    frederick, Jun 2, 2008
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 2, 9:15 am, "David Ruether" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in messagenews:...
    > > On Jun 1, 1:36 pm, 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.

    > > 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.
     
    RichA, Jun 3, 2008
    #10
  11. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > On Jun 1, 1:36 pm, 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.
    >>

    >
    > 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.


    Stop being so selective. Cockpit windows are made of plastic/glass
    layers, they don't break often despite temperature and pressure
    differentials. Fighter canopies are made of either acrylics or
    polycarbonates and goto Mach 2 and ever faster. Aircraft also use many
    non-composite plastics in many areas including valves, pump impeller
    casings, skin areas, spacers, piping and so on. Some missiles
    (supersonic) use non-composite plastic nose cones and fins.

    Those cameras that use polycarbonate are more than up to the task. My
    7xi (bought in 1993, not much use these days) certainly carries the
    scars and patina of the long, ungentle use that it got. And yet is not
    broken (despite a few falls) and functions just fine.

    I've seen more "tragically" disabled metal cameras than plastic.

    Plastic bodied cameras are more than adequate for the needs of most
    casual, many amateur and some pro photogs. The proof is in the wide
    range of such cameras in long term use everywhere by such photogs.

    You just keep banging your drum, though.

    --
    -- 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, Jun 3, 2008
    #11
  12. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 2, 8:42 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > On Jun 1, 1:36 pm, 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.

    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > Stop being so selective. Cockpit windows are made of plastic/glass
    > layers, they don't break often despite temperature and pressure
    > differentials. Fighter canopies are made of either acrylics or
    > polycarbonates and goto Mach 2 and ever faster. Aircraft also use many
    > non-composite plastics in many areas including valves, pump impeller
    > casings, skin areas, spacers, piping and so on. Some missiles
    > (supersonic) use non-composite plastic nose cones and fins.
    >
    > Those cameras that use polycarbonate are more than up to the task. My
    > 7xi (bought in 1993, not much use these days) certainly carries the
    > scars and patina of the long, ungentle use that it got. And yet is not
    > broken (despite a few falls) and functions just fine.
    >
    > I've seen more "tragically" disabled metal cameras than plastic.


    Likely because pros don't just take their cameras for vacation shots.
     
    RichA, Jun 3, 2008
    #12
  13. Re: Now that "hybrid aspheres" are avail, where's the cheap "Noct Nikkors?"

    "frederick" <> wrote in message news:1212443616.803104@ftpsrv1...
    > 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.


    Admittedly I do "baby" my cameras (and the inevitable "shining"
    of my 8008 bodies from handling them did bug me), but my FA
    (chrome...) is still in LN, perfect condition, as are my F100 and
    FG. No camera is resistant to accidents or abuse. A previous
    owner of my F3T managed to seriously dent the titanium prism
    cover. With brass, it takes very little pressure (even with fingers!)
    to reshape it, but placing a screw driver on the inside of the dent
    and giving the handle end a good hard whack with a hammer had
    no effect on the dent! THAT stuff is TOUGH!!!
    --
    David Ruether

    www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Jun 3, 2008
    #13
  14. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > Likely because pros don't just take their cameras for vacation shots.


    Selective snipping is your best strength I guess.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 3, 2008
    #14
  15. RichA

    Dev/Null Guest

    Re: Now that "hybrid aspheres" are avail, where's the cheap "Noct Nikkors?"

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jun 1, 1:42 am, TRoss <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:11:25 -0700 (PDT), 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?

    >>
    >> 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.
    >


    So Mr. Anderson (RichA) what are you credentials? Are you an Optical
    Engineer, or just some ASSHOLE TROLL?
     
    Dev/Null, Jun 4, 2008
    #15
  16. RichA

    Dev/Null Guest

    Re: Now that "hybrid aspheres" are avail, where's the cheap "Noct Nikkors?"

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    >

    Police and Military body armour is Plastic (Kevlar) and for extra protection
    they add ceramic plates (not metal).

    I guess RichA's love doll is made out of tin...
     
    Dev/Null, Jun 4, 2008
    #16
  17. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Jun 5, 2008
    #17
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 4, 9:24 am, "Dev/Null" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 1, 1:42 am, TRoss <> wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:11:25 -0700 (PDT), 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?

    >
    > >> 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.

    >
    > So Mr. Anderson (RichA) what are you credentials? Are you an Optical
    > Engineer, or just some ASSHOLE TROLL?


    Are you, any of the above?
     
    RichA, Jun 5, 2008
    #18
  19. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 4, 9:27 am, "Dev/Null" <> wrote:
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > Police and Military body armour is Plastic (Kevlar)


    Idiot.
     
    RichA, Jun 5, 2008
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Hollywood Voices

    Live in Hollywood vid prod space avail

    Hollywood Voices, Aug 9, 2004, in forum: Professional Video Production
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    225
    Hollywood Voices
    Aug 9, 2004
  2. systmster

    Cheap lights, Cheap setup...

    systmster, Mar 13, 2006, in forum: Photoshop
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    463
  3. Sam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    239
  4. lib

    Saunders LPL masking frame avail.?

    lib, Dec 20, 2003, in forum: Darkroom Developing and Printing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    299
  5. lib

    Saunders easel parts avail?

    lib, Jan 12, 2004, in forum: Darkroom Developing and Printing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    266
Loading...

Share This Page