[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> For years Iıve thought Iıd like to try a Noct for night photography
> and existing light photography but until now, have never come across
> one. To purchase this would, of course, be a great expense for a
> lens, the asking price is US $1095. I would be using this on an F3HP
> or an FA.
Assuming that the lens is near-mint (ie., optically perfect, no major
dings on exterior), then I would say that this is a good price. These
lenses are not very common to begin with, and given that several other
rare-ish AIS Nikkors have recently been discontinued (eg., 8mm and 15mm),
I would guess that the Noct-Nikkor might not be available much longer,
at which point used examples in good condition will start to get expensive.
> If youıve had experience with a Nikkor 58mm Noct and have opinions or
> comments on it, I would very much like to hear them.
I bought a used near-mint example about 5 years ago, and have been very
happy with it. Unlike Dale Ireland, I have not experienced visable coma
in astrophotography at f/1.2, so maybe his sample of the lens is slightly
out of alignment (you should be aware that the mechanics of this lens are
_very_ sensitive to blows from the side, and that even minor mis-allignment
of optical elements can introduce optical problems which would negate the
effect of the expensive aspherical front-element, so I would _never_ buy
one that had any evidence of having been dropped). I have used the lens
for comet pictures (stars were points out to the edge of the frame at
f/1.2), bar portrature (watch that depth of field at f/1.2: Frequently
it's impossible to get nose and eyes in focus at the same time), and
general low-light still-lifes and urban photography. I have a tendency
to be a bit selective about when I carry it with me, since it _is_ so
expensive and fragile. I always keep the snap-on hood on, and take
extra care when changing lenses, since the rear element is very large
and exposed. It's reasonably compact, but quite heavy (it's not much
bigger than my 24/2, but feels like it's made of solid glass), so I
sometimes leave it at home in favour of the 24/2.
I'd say that if you can get permision to take a roll of star photos
(on a good clear night, away from city-lights, and using a tripod), and
if you get coma-free points of light even at f/1.2, then I'd go for it.
I have never regretted my purchase, even though the only lens I use
less than it is the 180/2.8 (which I use only for concert photography).
When you need it, it's the only lens which will work, and it is a lovely
piece of engineering art.
grant..
