Favorite lens

Well, for all lenses, I still really have a soft spot for the Canon FD 85mm f/1.2L. So fast, such incredible image quality and bokeh, a beautiful hunk of glass. It is gigantic though, and it takes a masochist to carry it around all day as I did when I was starting out. It absolutely will not disappoint.

For RF, if you had asked me two weeks ago, my ego would have answered 50mm f/2 summicron. But since then I got a 50mm f/1.4 summilux ASPH, and it looks like it may just unseat the summicron. My Id is unwavering in its support of the 75mm summilux. The big front element and beautiful purple coatings just say "look into my eyes". Its performance is certainly incredible as well.
 
I like how some of us have 5 or 6 "favorites"!

For me, my favorite right now is the 90/2.8 Elmarit. Like that one a lot. I'd have to say hat a few of you are encouraging me to bust out the 28 Elmarit a little more.
 
In rangefinders: Summicron 50 (the one from the 80's and 90's with tab and separate hood)

In scale focus cameras: Color Minotar 35/2.8 on the Minox GT and GT-E (a Tessar-type lens, I think)

In SLR: Planar-C 80/2.8
 
Tough decision:

Pentax SMC-M 100/2.8 for portraits.
Jupiter-8, -9 and CZJ Sonnar 180/2.8 for their bokeh.
Konica AR Hexanon 40/1.8, Minolta Rokkor 40/2 and Industar-58 (Iskra) for their sharpness.
Konica Hexanon 38/2.8 (C35) for its color rendition
CV ColorSkopar 35/2.5 for its combination of performance and compactness.

Roman
 
Throwing em all out:

45/2.8 Contax Tessar
45/2 G Contax Planar
11-22/2.8-3.5 Olympus Digital Zuiko
 
i love

Canon 50/1.5 LTM
Konica M-Hexanon 50/2
Leica 35/2 Summicron (7 elements, Canada)
Canon 35/2 LTM

because they are the ones i am lusting over and don't have a chance or cannot afford to buy, huh

i was very happy with my Canon 35/1.8 LTM until it got fogged and seperating

cheers!

lee
 
I find the 35mm focal length to be the most versatile, but most of my best pictures seem to always be taken w/ the 50mm focal length.

At various times I've owned a 50mm Summilux; current 50mm summicron; the predecessor 50mm summicron w/ focusing tab (both black and chrome); and the retro special edition 50mm summicron. The Summilux was a black paint one and, for me, was too heavy. I got rid of all my chrome lenses over the last two years because they are heavier and I find it is more difficult to read the depth of field numbers on the lens; my brother took my retro lens; so that has just left me with a circa. late 80's summicron which I had purchased from the estate of a collector last year. Picture quality wise they are all fine, although I give the nod to the current models.
 
I am really enjoying the combination of 35mm Summicron (v3) and 50mm Summicron (penultimate). After years of using the 50 as my normal, I am now appreciating the extra 'room' in the viewfinder with the 35. With the 35, my portraits (90% of my shooting) is more environmental, with more context. Given the same distance, the 50 gets to the heart of my subject, while the 35 lets me add a few elements around the subject. It's fun actually just looking through the 35mm frame or moving the frame through a scene and watching things/people move in/out of the frame. I guess my 50 is now my 'portrait' lens or when I need to shoot at a bit of distance to keep from disturbing a subject.

If I keep babbling like this, I'll begin to sound like Gibson spewing about the Noctilux in the Leica catalog.
 
gilgabo said:
...I'd like to pick up a 21 or 24 and do some wide environmental portraits.
Click to expand...
Here's one with 24mm... it's more of a challenge than with 28mm.
 
Favourite lens ...

Favourite lens ...

Definitely my Tri-Elmar ... just had some more results and the lens really shines in good light.

My CH75/2.5 is a close second - I yearn for the new Summicron 70/2 but am not too sure if it'll give me enough of an improvement over the CH to justify the cost ...
 
A rich friend has let me use all of his Leica M Mount lenses for a while (he's gone digital) so I've tried them all. In my opinion they are all wonderful but my true favorite all-purpose lens is probably the least popular here: The 1990's version of the lowly Summilux 50/f1.4.

Thomas Pastorello wrote this about the lens:


"I believe the current Summilux-M 50 Non-ASPH IS the best
lens Leica (or for that matter anyone) ever made. In
addition to its two main attributes of near absolute
freedom from flare and a signature bokeh of subtle
beauty, it is characterized by an artistic balance of
high resolution and realistic contrast -- even wide
open. It is perfectly balanced on the M body, such
that hand-holding is easy at 1/4 -- which makes it
very fast indeed at f1.4 (more so than the less well
balanced and holdable Noctilux at f1.0).
Will the new Summilux-M 50 ASPH have higher
contrast and resolution than the current? Of course
-- no need to wait for the Puts report! If all I
wanted was the highest possible (and most useless)
resolution and contrast, all I'd have to do is slap an
adapter and a process lens on any camera body. If the
new Summilux-M 50 ASPH has the look and feel of most
other new Leica ASPH lenses, with harsh bokeh and
flare proneness, I will not buy. To learn about flare
and bokeh, I'll have to look at reports other than
Puts'." Tom

And "Feli" on the LUG wrote this about the 'Lux 50 Non-ASPH:

"I've had mine for almost a year now and it's really grown on me.

Not as sharp as the current Cron, which I also have, but plenty sharp.
By f8 the Lux is very sharp, all the way into the corners. I love the
extra
stop and the ability to focus as close as 70 cm. My biggest complaint is
the collapsible hood, which can't be locked into place. I solved that
problem
with a metal screw-in hood from Contax.

But what I really like about this lens is the fingerprint. It's magic
in black
and white. People talk about the Leica glow, and this one has it in
spades.
Buttersmooth tones with the smoothest bokeh and actually quite sharp.
It has a very classic look, hires and medium contrast, which isn't
surprising
given it's lineage, the Xenon, Summarit and first gen. Lux.

I've made some 11x14 prints on Agfa FB Classic from APX100 negs
(Rodinal)
and there is something about the look that even laymen notice.

The Lux gets knocked a lot because it was in production for about 40
years,
and remained unchanged, but it's much better than people think.
Absolute sharpness
isn't everything. Plenty of people made better shots than any of us
could manage with
the 1.5/50 Sonnar and the Lux blows that lens away. In any case, it's
another brush
in the shooters arsenal."

----------------
You can still by one of these Summilux 50/f 1.4 lenses in black new USA from certain dealers like Popflash.photo (Tony Rose) for under $1,300.00 which is quite a deal!
 
Last edited:
My current favorite RFDR lenses are the 35mm CV Ultron, the 50mm CV Nokton, and a wonderful 50mm Collapsable Summicron LTM that I had for years and didn't use because of the badly scratched coating on the front element, I had the front element polished and multicoated by Arax, and I cleaned up the other elements myself. I use these on both LTM and "M" cameras with adaptors.
I am also very fond of an old 35mm f/3.5 Summaron LTM lens that I completely disassembled and cleaned up myself.
 
I'm not sure I would be knocking the new 50mm Summmilux ASPH b4 I'd seen pictures made w/ it. And to call the new ASPH lenses flare prone is I believe wrong from what I've read; they are the opposite. Having said that, I can't say I prefer the ASPH lenses for B&W. Maybe that is what I'm used to, because I have not owned any of the ASPH models, but the pics I've seen are very incisive and clinical. Not bad, just different. I've been tempted often to upgrade my lenses to the current models, but I'm not sure I'll gain anything given my style of photography, which is almost B&W. Like most things w/ Leica M photography, I'll probably have to try to determine if I like them.
 
aizan said:
watch out for really bad distortion when you get really close!
Click to expand...
Lens distortion has nothing to do with whether one is close or far away. What you are referring to is exaggerated perspective, which is determined by how close the camera is to the subject. It is often thought to be due to short focal lengths, but that is also false, as can be easily proven by taking pictures at close range with a zoom lens. Unfortunately exaggerated perspective is unavoidable, as it is caused by projecting a 3-dimensional image onto a flat plane,
 
richard_l said:
Unfortunately exaggerated perspective is unavoidable, as it is caused by projecting a 3-dimensional image onto a flat plane,
Click to expand...
Yes, as can be seen in my photo above. I was VERY close to the subject, and proportionally much closer to his near hand than the computer he's holding, so the relative sizes are exaggerated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom