ktmrider
Well-known
I am curious as to how many people on the forum own more then one lens of each focal length for the same camera system. I own a couple 50's but one is for the R system and one for the M system.
I am getting ready to travel for 90 days of which I will be hiking in Scotland and Spain, probably about 200 miles. My preferred combo is an M9 with 21/35/90. However, the 35 is the big f1.2 Nokton which is a great lens. Am looking at something smaller and lighter but hate owning two lenses of the same focal length for the same camera. In fact, I sold the 35f2.5 Skopar when I got the Nokton a few years ago.
If I don't get another 35, I can be just as happy with a 21/50/90 combo. The 50 is a late model Summicron.
I am getting ready to travel for 90 days of which I will be hiking in Scotland and Spain, probably about 200 miles. My preferred combo is an M9 with 21/35/90. However, the 35 is the big f1.2 Nokton which is a great lens. Am looking at something smaller and lighter but hate owning two lenses of the same focal length for the same camera. In fact, I sold the 35f2.5 Skopar when I got the Nokton a few years ago.
If I don't get another 35, I can be just as happy with a 21/50/90 combo. The 50 is a late model Summicron.
burancap
Veteran
How about 21/40/90? I can't think of a *bad* 40.
Spanik
Well-known
I have 4x 80mm for the M645. And also several duplications in other systems. Why should that be a problem?
Vics
Veteran
Someone on this forum once said, "50mm lenses gather in the corners like dust-bunnies." I used to think that was funny.
VinceC
Veteran
You might've answered your initial question. I own fast / large / classic lenses because of their speed, image quality, and quality of construction. I own slow / small / lightweight lenses so I can throw two or three in a backpack and hike all day without feeling the weight. Tradeoff portability for a slower lens (while keeping a fast 50 always).
YYV_146
Well-known
I have two 50mm‘s, a big fat fast one and a smaller one for traveling. I also have a 75mm and a 90mm, which IMO is a big functional overlap. Both are actually also pretty heavy, but with different rendering style.
But I have been thinking, is a 35 1.2 or Noctilux really *that heavy? SLR users carry much heavier gear for the most basic travel kits. And if you want to feel like you're carrying less on a trip, there are ways to improve the carry experience, like the peak design clips I use or choosing a better padded/lighter bag. Maybe there is a cheap way to make using the CV35 less of a burden, so you can take it for the trip?
But I have been thinking, is a 35 1.2 or Noctilux really *that heavy? SLR users carry much heavier gear for the most basic travel kits. And if you want to feel like you're carrying less on a trip, there are ways to improve the carry experience, like the peak design clips I use or choosing a better padded/lighter bag. Maybe there is a cheap way to make using the CV35 less of a burden, so you can take it for the trip?
Takkun
Ian M.
I have 2 50s and 2 35s. A pair need to go. And I don't mean both the 50s!
Really just never gotten around to selling them. For my purposes anyway, in the grand scheme of things, having a lens an ounce lighter for hiking or what have you isn't really worth it. Then again, on a long backpacking trip, I know that every ounce counts.
There is something nice and satisfying about a particularly slim setup, even if it doesn't fit in one's pocket anyway. Most of what I shoot is evening and low light and I don't have much choice but fast lenses, and I just hate redundancy. But in your case, it might make a lot of sense to have something smaller. I'm sure you could buy back the Skopar, and the Nokton wouldn't be jealous.
Really just never gotten around to selling them. For my purposes anyway, in the grand scheme of things, having a lens an ounce lighter for hiking or what have you isn't really worth it. Then again, on a long backpacking trip, I know that every ounce counts.
There is something nice and satisfying about a particularly slim setup, even if it doesn't fit in one's pocket anyway. Most of what I shoot is evening and low light and I don't have much choice but fast lenses, and I just hate redundancy. But in your case, it might make a lot of sense to have something smaller. I'm sure you could buy back the Skopar, and the Nokton wouldn't be jealous.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Same here. Where I duplicate focal lengths, it's for one of three reasons: different systems, VERY different performance (e.g. 90mm Thambar and Summicron) or historical accident.
Cheers,
R.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have only one 35mm, for 135 RF. And bunch of 50mm. They are all different in rendering and costs as much as single 50mm.
kxl
Social Documentary
I used to have two 35's (CV 35/1.2 and ZM 35/2.0), but have since sold the CV. I still have 2 50's (Planar and Sonnar).
Pete B
Well-known
I tend to travel with 35/50 summicrons but use 35/50 summiluxes at home. Size vs versatility.
Pete
Pete
ktmrider
Well-known
If I replace the 35f1.2 with the 35f2.5 Skopar I will be saving just a bit more then a pound which I agree is not much. I enjoy the Nokton and could easily save more then its weight by getting lighter hiking boots, not taking quite so many clothes, or even dropping some weight.
I am not criticizing anyone who ownes duplicate lenses in the same focal length but I just don't think it is for me. Honestly, if I did replace the Nokton I would be tempted to take the X100 which weighs nothing but then comes the hassle of extra batteries and charger. Too bad all digital cameras don't take the same batteries.
I think my goal should be to drop a few lbs from the waist line and not worry about getting more photo equipment. I have been walking about 4 miles daily and 11 miles or more once a week. Maybe just increasing the mileage will slim down the waist. I still have until mid-August.
I am not criticizing anyone who ownes duplicate lenses in the same focal length but I just don't think it is for me. Honestly, if I did replace the Nokton I would be tempted to take the X100 which weighs nothing but then comes the hassle of extra batteries and charger. Too bad all digital cameras don't take the same batteries.
I think my goal should be to drop a few lbs from the waist line and not worry about getting more photo equipment. I have been walking about 4 miles daily and 11 miles or more once a week. Maybe just increasing the mileage will slim down the waist. I still have until mid-August.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Pretty much got a super fast and compact pair for each focal length I use.
If speed or dof. is not the goal , the smaller lens is generally the more pleasant one to use.
If speed or dof. is not the goal , the smaller lens is generally the more pleasant one to use.
benji77
@R.F.F
I have 4 M-Mount lens, 2 are 35's (CV35/1,4 + Summaron 35/2,8).
Ironically, I find 35mm actually quite 'boring' amongst the focal ranges. I also enjoy shooting with my Hexar AF, which is another 35mm focal.
Sometimes I cant figure myself out :bang::bang:
Ironically, I find 35mm actually quite 'boring' amongst the focal ranges. I also enjoy shooting with my Hexar AF, which is another 35mm focal.
Sometimes I cant figure myself out :bang::bang:
zuiko85
Veteran
For my OM-1 I have two 50 f1.8 and two 135 f3.5, only because a 50/135 pair were at a local shop for $25 total, in pristine condition!
I have bought other lenses because they were cheap.......sometimes I use them.
I have bought other lenses because they were cheap.......sometimes I use them.
Johann Espiritu
Lawyer / Ninja
I used to have three 35's for my M as well - the 35/1.2 in the huge heavy chrome, a 35 'Cron ASPH, and a 35 Color Skopar Classic. I have since sold the Color Skopar, but now wish I hadn't. You've probably heard and read that each lens has it's own character and handle differently, and sometimes I look for those big or subtle differences.
I also have two 50's (an Elmar-M and a Nickel Heliar), and formerly had a Planar 50 ZM. Never cared too much for the Planar (a little too clinical for my taste). The Nickel Heliar has a lot of character, and the Elmar-M is great for travel due to it's small size when collapsed.
Funnily, I have a harder time selecting lenses with close focal lengths than lenses within the same focal length. For example, I can easily choose which 50 to take for a stroll today, but have a existential breakdown selecting between 25mm or 28mm!
I also have two 50's (an Elmar-M and a Nickel Heliar), and formerly had a Planar 50 ZM. Never cared too much for the Planar (a little too clinical for my taste). The Nickel Heliar has a lot of character, and the Elmar-M is great for travel due to it's small size when collapsed.
Funnily, I have a harder time selecting lenses with close focal lengths than lenses within the same focal length. For example, I can easily choose which 50 to take for a stroll today, but have a existential breakdown selecting between 25mm or 28mm!
ktmrider
Well-known
Well, I think I solved my problem of carrying a heavy lens like the 35f1.2 (And as noted above, compared to some of the SLR lenses with used to carry, it is not that bad).
Instead of using heavy hiking boots I just bought a pair of lighter weight hiking shoes. I don't think Scotland and Spain require boots which I would use for bushwacking with a heavy pack. There is an old rule of thumb for hiking or mountaineering that for every pound on your feet, it is equivalent of five pounds on your back.
Guess, I can add another ten pounds of photo gear, just kidding! So presently the photo gears is an M9 with 21, 35, and 90.
Instead of using heavy hiking boots I just bought a pair of lighter weight hiking shoes. I don't think Scotland and Spain require boots which I would use for bushwacking with a heavy pack. There is an old rule of thumb for hiking or mountaineering that for every pound on your feet, it is equivalent of five pounds on your back.
Guess, I can add another ten pounds of photo gear, just kidding! So presently the photo gears is an M9 with 21, 35, and 90.