noct nikkor, why is it so expensive?

La Chou, no doubt the poor public needs protection . . .

BTW, what extinct mounts did you try and what were your results?

LaChou said:

I think some of you will attain this level of skill someday.

Click to expand...

I'm not claiming I've reached a pinnacle of any sort, but it's possible you never learned to outshoot the quality of your own equipment, which would explain why you can't get any better results with more precise lenses than you get with low-quality gear.

LaChou said:

I was once a lens maniac like many of you, guys. All this lasted till I had a chance to compare two (presently extinct) camera/lens systems. This comparison taught me a lot, and among other things it taught me not to "trust" the lens and work with hi-end lenses as if worked with poor ones. All lenses are "culs-de-bouteille" to me now. I think some of you will attain this level of skill someday. I do not care much which lens I use now, unless it is a Tamron, which I can not even get focused (br-r-r-r-r-r!).
You just continue selling lies to each other. It is all about money, not the result. If we ran a test 99% of you would not tell a Zeiss from a Leica, a Canon from a Nikon. Not speaking about the poor public, who never cares. It is all about money. "You will either know it...,or you won't".*
*From "Men in Black-III".

Click to expand...

And neither could you, I'll wager.

I never said I can tell them apart. My point was, almost nobody can...

@sehrgut
What "better results" are you talkig about. I meant to say: you can't trust your lens with anything, you have to watch out or it will fail you.

When I take a camera it is myself who is generating inspiration. The camera is good when it "knows" how to get out of the way. It's just an instrument. For want of a "glock" you can achieve the same result with a crowbar.

RidingWaves said:

When the Noct was designed and built the use of aspherical elements was not common, those elements at that time required special cutting and polishing techniques, as well the reject rate on those elements we very high so that added to the cost.

Click to expand...

The user of today is likely not interested how a lens was manufactured, but how it serves his needs.
That grinding of an aspherical lens would rather be of interest to a collector.

LaChou said:

I never said I can tell them apart. My point was, almost nobody can...

@sehrgut
What "better results" are you talkig about. I meant to say: you can't trust your lens with anything, you have to watch out or it will fail you.

Click to expand...

Oh, little things like, say, sharpness.

I'm not saying you can't get good art from any camera, but you can't get the SAME art from any camera. You use the right tool for the job. I use a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 wide open for available-light dance photography (something I couldn't do with any other glass I own), and a $10 Recesky or Holga for "toy camera" shots outdoors.

For want of a "glock" you can achieve the same result with a crowbar.

Click to expand...

Now that's just ridiculous, and it makes my point perfectly. For want of a Glock to stop an attacker 10 yards away from you, you have to put yourself in much more danger, allowing an assailant to get within crowbar range, to fend him off.

The camera is a tool, but it's not "just" a tool: the right tool makes the difference between success an failure. Ask a watchmaker.

1. Of course, I didn't mean the extremities like Holga. Sharpness is only good for the Sigma Foveon 46 MP matrix, because a sharper lens will let it resolve even more detail. Since I shoot film, sharpness is a whole lot less of an issue then color rendition, for example.
2. No, no. I am an "attacker". I would "attack" with any "weapon", if I do not want to lose the moment.
3. Of course, when you are making something, building it from a row metal bar or sheet, better instruments mean better work, but even this statement CAN be challenged by an artful maker. Why should photography make much difference? I once had got a lens I was dreaming about for a long time, but it turned out, the lens was "unlucky" for me. All pictures I made with it were "flat". They looked like they were not mine. I felt I didn't want it, nohow. I sold the lens twice cheaper, and the luck returned. Now I am very careful. I don't remember, where I read this prasey: "It may be puir, but I canna drink it."

I have owned some bad lenses in my time. Neither sharp nor with a personality. I promise you that I can tell the difference from the prints.

I daily use 4 -elements Scopar screwed to Vito. Is it a bad or a good lens? I also did much work with Minolta AF 24-50/4. What about this one? Rokkor MD 28/2.8.? All these lenses cost me 4 to 6 times less then the cost of this noct. Nikkor. Today, almost any of the equally expensive lenses for digital must be much sharper and have a better color rendition than this noct. Nikkor. Are we talking about a collectible item?
Truth is the selers maintain high prices while the number of buyers vanishes each day. But it is OK, it's their business. The next task for the last standing camera manufacturers is to make the use of adaptors and, concequently, older lenses impossible. I think it is time for them to start working in this direction. Whoever wants to "downshift" will use film cameras and "older" digital.