Best lenses for B&W photos?

[leica007]

Which lenses of Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Konica, Russian ones, etc, do you think reproduce best/better B&W photos in digital and film media?

Please mention the criterion/criteria (e.g. contrast, tonal range, drawing, etc.) for your selection.

range:

12-21mm: ?

24-35mm:?

40-50mm:?

75-90mm: ?

 

[Merkin]

IMHO, 'there can be only one,' the f/2.8 zeiss planar found on Hasselblads. There is nothing meatier and richer than that lens combined with delta 100.

 

[lic4]

The 40mm Rokkor CLE version - I don't shoot B&W anymore, but if I decided to do so, it would be to use this lens for it. The images in BW film (HP5 or TMAX) had perfect resolution with classic rendition; it's hard to describe why it works. The balance in the image is amazing in its constrast, drawing, and tonality. I even like it better than the 50mm Summicron or the 35mm pre-asph/ASPH cron for BW work. I don't like it as much for color though.

 

[maddoc]

I just recently started using my 40mm M-Rokkor CLE more often and second that it is a wonderful lens for BW. It is somehow in between the 35mm Summicron IV pre-ASPH and the 35mm Summicron ASPH.

Other than that my lenses of choice are the older (pre-ASPH versions) Leitz / Leica lenses, 21/3.4 - 35/1.4 - 50/1.0 - 90/2.0. I use mainly BW film (mostly Tri-X, sometimes 400PR or 1600PR).

 

[Bingley]

The CV Skopar 28/3.5 is stunning w/ b&w. Very, very sharp, and also renders beautiful tones. I love it w/ BW400cn.

 

[Bingley]

I should add that I also like the humble Canon 50/1.8 w/ b&w. A lovely lens for shooting at night w/ fast film.

 

[projectbluebird]

I think the film choice is more important than the lens.

 

[Alex Krasotkin]

My choice is:

1) Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph, 50/1.4 pre-asph, 75/1.4.
2) Konica Hexar AF with 35/2 lens

 

[Alex Krasotkin]

In addition, I would be interested in opinion re 21 an 24mm...

 

[maddoc]

In addition, I would be interested in opinion re 21 an 24mm...

21mm ? My choice: Super-Angulon-M 21/3.4. Very sharp in the center but not to high contrast, free from distortion and the disadvantages of the lens (vignetting wide open and no TTL metering) are not that relevant when using BW film (large tonal range).

 

[horosu]

Or maybe the 21/4.5 C-Biogon...Zero distortion, sharp, usable with metered bodies and petite

 

[barbatron]

everybody has is own favorite

everybody has is own favorite

Well,

as you can read, there is no ultimate/best lens for your goal.
Mess around and who knows, YOUR favourite lens will be something so extraordinary nobody ever heard of it.

Last time I was in berlin, I used a fungus infected zeiss-ikon nettax.
when I photographed in Nepal, I used my old agfa clack

both with really nice results.

Once, I did this experiment with making snapshots with a sinar tc ( I could borrow from my school )

Well, this didn't worked out really. But maybe sometime it will.

 

[mfogiel]

The film and developer will influence the result more than the lens, and digital will make all lenses seem similar, but generally speaking there are two schools of thought:
1- low contrast lenses, that give you lots of tones, shadow detail, "glow", etc, an example of this breed is the DR Summicron, here's one:

Probably most of the older uncoated or single coated lenses fall into this group.

2- a lens with a lot of microcontrast, i.e. "bite" or "sparkle" - I am partial t o this category, and when you combine it with a nice acutance developer like Rodinal or one of the Pyro developers, the results can be quite nice even with a low resolution film like Tri X. In particular, the modern Zeiss lenses are in this group, with the ZM Biogons at the fore, with the 21/4.5 and 25/2.8 that really shine. Here's one shot recently with the 25/2.8 Biogon on Tri X in Rodinal:

 

[rodneyAB]

The film and developer will influence the result more than the lens, and digital will make all lenses seem similar, but generally speaking there are two schools of thought:
1- low contrast lenses, that give you lots of tones, shadow detail, "glow", etc, an example of this breed is the DR Summicron, here's one:

Probably most of the older uncoated or single coated lenses fall into this group.

2- a lens with a lot of microcontrast, i.e. "bite" or "sparkle" - I am partial t o this category, and when you combine it with a nice acutance developer like Rodinal or one of the Pyro developers, the results can be quite nice even with a low resolution film like Tri X. In particular, the modern Zeiss lenses are in this group, with the ZM Biogons at the fore, with the 21/4.5 and 25/2.8 that really shine. Here's one shot recently with the 25/2.8 Biogon on Tri X in Rodinal:

Very fascinating photographs! Thanks for the discussion, and, these photographs transcend beyond the subject of discussion

 

[mojobebop]

The film and developer will influence the result more than the lens, and digital will make all lenses seem similar, but generally speaking there are two schools of thought:
1- low contrast lenses, that give you lots of tones, shadow detail, "glow", etc, an example of this breed is the DR Summicron, here's one:

Probably most of the older uncoated or single coated lenses fall into this group.

2- a lens with a lot of microcontrast, i.e. "bite" or "sparkle" - I am partial t o this category, and when you combine it with a nice acutance developer like Rodinal or one of the Pyro developers, the results can be quite nice even with a low resolution film like Tri X. In particular, the modern Zeiss lenses are in this group, with the ZM Biogons at the fore, with the 21/4.5 and 25/2.8 that really shine. Here's one shot recently with the 25/2.8 Biogon on Tri X in Rodinal:

----------
beautiful.
were these images from scans or prints?