Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Hi gang!
I keep running this over in my head, so I though I'd ask the opinions of you kind folks in the hope it may assist me in arriving at an informed decision.
I'm pretty much a film shooter these days. You can see listed below in my signature the gear I currently possess.
I do enjoy shooting medium format and have a lot of fun with my Rolleiflex, however a TLR isn't ideal for all occasions.
I recently sold my M8 and picked up an M7, because I fell out with the digital aesthetic. I'm happy to be shooting 35mm film again, however this has show the shortcomings of my flatbed scanner.
Money is tight at the moment an I may be just about able to buy a Nikon 4000ED that a friend is willing to sell me at a good price.
However there is an elephant in the room...
I own a 35mm Summilux ASPH and in the year I've had it it has effectively doubled in value. This has lead me to question if I need such an expensive lens. I've shot Voigtlander, Canon, Konica/Minolta and Zeiss lenses in the past and, whilst it is nice to think that you own the best, I feel that personally the current value isn't reflected in it's improved performance over other lenses available.
I'm not generally a low light shooter and really only use wide apertures combined with film in an attempt to achieve a medium format aesthetic.
Possibly due to my own limitations, I have also come to feel that doing fast street work with a wide aperture manual focus lens is a bit silly and am beginning to think I'd be better off with an autofocus film SLR with a fast lens and use my RF more as my lightweight 'f8 and be there' camera as I feel they were originally intended before the whole low light craze took off.
It also troubles me that my main shooter these days is the Rolleiflex and my backup rangefinder combo is worth about seven times that of the Rollei.
If I sold this lens I could easily afford the scanner I need and also have a dabble with a few other things that have interested me such as the Bronica 645 RF, a Nikon/Canon SLR with a fast AF lens and replace Lux with a 35mm Hexanon and perhaps add a 50mm Hexanon to the stable too.
So I ask you. Is more variety of gear better or should I embrace the fact that in an M7 and a 35mm Summilux an have arguably some of the best 35mm film rangefinder gear around, keep it, save up for the scanner I need, and focus on that one camera and one lens.
I await your wisom.
Bob.
.
I keep running this over in my head, so I though I'd ask the opinions of you kind folks in the hope it may assist me in arriving at an informed decision.
I'm pretty much a film shooter these days. You can see listed below in my signature the gear I currently possess.
I do enjoy shooting medium format and have a lot of fun with my Rolleiflex, however a TLR isn't ideal for all occasions.
I recently sold my M8 and picked up an M7, because I fell out with the digital aesthetic. I'm happy to be shooting 35mm film again, however this has show the shortcomings of my flatbed scanner.
Money is tight at the moment an I may be just about able to buy a Nikon 4000ED that a friend is willing to sell me at a good price.
However there is an elephant in the room...
I own a 35mm Summilux ASPH and in the year I've had it it has effectively doubled in value. This has lead me to question if I need such an expensive lens. I've shot Voigtlander, Canon, Konica/Minolta and Zeiss lenses in the past and, whilst it is nice to think that you own the best, I feel that personally the current value isn't reflected in it's improved performance over other lenses available.
I'm not generally a low light shooter and really only use wide apertures combined with film in an attempt to achieve a medium format aesthetic.
Possibly due to my own limitations, I have also come to feel that doing fast street work with a wide aperture manual focus lens is a bit silly and am beginning to think I'd be better off with an autofocus film SLR with a fast lens and use my RF more as my lightweight 'f8 and be there' camera as I feel they were originally intended before the whole low light craze took off.
It also troubles me that my main shooter these days is the Rolleiflex and my backup rangefinder combo is worth about seven times that of the Rollei.
If I sold this lens I could easily afford the scanner I need and also have a dabble with a few other things that have interested me such as the Bronica 645 RF, a Nikon/Canon SLR with a fast AF lens and replace Lux with a 35mm Hexanon and perhaps add a 50mm Hexanon to the stable too.
So I ask you. Is more variety of gear better or should I embrace the fact that in an M7 and a 35mm Summilux an have arguably some of the best 35mm film rangefinder gear around, keep it, save up for the scanner I need, and focus on that one camera and one lens.
I await your wisom.
Bob.
.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
It sounds to me like you're beginning to think that your current gear is overkill. The real question you need to ask yourself is how much you care about gear versus how much you care about your photos. I guarantee you that you would get more than satisfactory results by getting just about any modern 35mm RF lens on the market today. However, if you were shooting, say, Voigtlander, would you be able to give up the cache that the Summilux ASPH has? It's a question only you can answer. Determine the relative worth of your photography versus your gear and make your decision based on that.
Also, this post is not meant to be a slam on people who care about gear. I know that I do; a lot of my decisions of what I shoot are based purely on the Leica name, honestly.
Also, this post is not meant to be a slam on people who care about gear. I know that I do; a lot of my decisions of what I shoot are based purely on the Leica name, honestly.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
I think Eric hit the point perfectly. Without getting into a big debate about the perfect lens, I have a J 12 that is so good I stopped using my more expensive glass. And anyone who knows me knows I LOVE gear!!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'd be getting rid of the Summilux for sure because unless it's on an M9 it's resolving power is wasted and plenty of other 35mm lenses will match it on film. That scanner sounds like it will give more back to your photography than the diamond plated Leica lens to me!
FrankS
Registered User
I love gear, but I couldn't rationalize owning such an expensive lens when there is other gear that would be more useful. YMMV. You will have made a good profit if you sell it.
Gid
Well-known
One key question - do you ever envisage wanting a 35 summilux again? Leica lens prices only seem to be going North so getting out now may make a return expensive. The old adage "you don't know what you've got till its gone" springs to mind.
Now, if you're mostly at f8, then, just about any lens will give acceptable results (even my crappy £125 summarit is good at f8), especially when you consider all the variables that hand held 35mm brings to the final image.
As to scanning I find my old Epson 4990 perfectly OK for web and prints to A3 for home viewing (depends on the content at this size), but probably wouldn't use this route for exhibition quality prints. If I wanted exhibition quality I'd probably farm them out. So, I'd only upgrade your scanner if your current one is really bad (unless it really is a good price). Also if you're going to do more MF then a flat bed will probably do fine.
As to SLR, AF and fast lenses - I occasionally have fun with a Canon EOS650 and EF 50 1.4 (which does a very competent job) so I can see the attraction. However, its a expensive option - an EOS650 would cost around £30 for a good one. Of course there are lots of AF SLR options and plenty of acceptable lenses for very little money.
Personally, I'd sell the summilux. Good luck with your decision.
Now, if you're mostly at f8, then, just about any lens will give acceptable results (even my crappy £125 summarit is good at f8), especially when you consider all the variables that hand held 35mm brings to the final image.
As to scanning I find my old Epson 4990 perfectly OK for web and prints to A3 for home viewing (depends on the content at this size), but probably wouldn't use this route for exhibition quality prints. If I wanted exhibition quality I'd probably farm them out. So, I'd only upgrade your scanner if your current one is really bad (unless it really is a good price). Also if you're going to do more MF then a flat bed will probably do fine.
As to SLR, AF and fast lenses - I occasionally have fun with a Canon EOS650 and EF 50 1.4 (which does a very competent job) so I can see the attraction. However, its a expensive option - an EOS650 would cost around £30 for a good one
. Of course there are lots of AF SLR options and plenty of acceptable lenses for very little money.Personally, I'd sell the summilux. Good luck with your decision.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts guys!
For what it's worth, despite trying to put forward an unbiased case, I think you have read my mind.
I appreciate gear, but I think I am more of a shooter than a collector and generally feel that the Hexar RF with ZM 50mm Planar I used to own did as good a job a my M7 with with the Summilux.
In fact I find myself missing the faster shutter speeds of the Hexar particularly when trying to shoot a fast lens such as the the Lux wide open in daylight.
So on the one hand my current gear is overkill, but on the other hand not quite as useful to me as cheaper gear I've had in the past.
Whilst I feel I'm generally pretty pragmatic, my doubts come from the worry (as rightly pointed out by Gid) that selling it would most likely be a one way street for me, once I've distributed the money amongst other gear. I'd have to sell tons of stuff and find more cash besides to buy a Lux in the future and that's something that I just can't envisage.
Also one or two folk I know will think I'm mad for getting rid and will tell me so in no uncertain terms.
However, as stated by Keith, a better scanner would most likely make the biggest difference to my 35mm work and with the spare cash I can try a Mamiya 7, Bronica 645 RF, Hasselblad 500c/m, Zeiss Ikon, Nikon F100, Nikon F6 and who knows what else to find the kit that works best for me and not have to worry about walking around with a £4000 camera and lens around my neck.
You given me a lot to think about, and I'm grateful.
For what it's worth, despite trying to put forward an unbiased case, I think you have read my mind.
I appreciate gear, but I think I am more of a shooter than a collector and generally feel that the Hexar RF with ZM 50mm Planar I used to own did as good a job a my M7 with with the Summilux.
In fact I find myself missing the faster shutter speeds of the Hexar particularly when trying to shoot a fast lens such as the the Lux wide open in daylight.
So on the one hand my current gear is overkill, but on the other hand not quite as useful to me as cheaper gear I've had in the past.
Whilst I feel I'm generally pretty pragmatic, my doubts come from the worry (as rightly pointed out by Gid) that selling it would most likely be a one way street for me, once I've distributed the money amongst other gear. I'd have to sell tons of stuff and find more cash besides to buy a Lux in the future and that's something that I just can't envisage.
Also one or two folk I know will think I'm mad for getting rid and will tell me so in no uncertain terms.
However, as stated by Keith, a better scanner would most likely make the biggest difference to my 35mm work and with the spare cash I can try a Mamiya 7, Bronica 645 RF, Hasselblad 500c/m, Zeiss Ikon, Nikon F100, Nikon F6 and who knows what else to find the kit that works best for me and not have to worry about walking around with a £4000 camera and lens around my neck.
You given me a lot to think about, and I'm grateful.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sparrow
Veteran
... well I just checked the runes, and I see an F6 in your future if that helps ... btw I hadn't realised we were allowed to use anything other than f8
paulfish4570
Veteran
sell, sell, sell ...
Sell the summilux, buy a replacement 35mm summicron and get your scanner.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Despite all the Internet chatter, the Coolscan 4000ED is not a huge improvement over a good flat-bed scanner like the V700, especially for classic BW film. Also, spare-parts are getting very difficult to find for this scanner, Nikon Japan can't repair it anymore.
On the other hand, the 35 Summilux ASPH is the 35mm lens of reference class and hardly any other 35mm comes close. For highest quality in 35mm format, a 25ISO film might be helpfull and then usable f/1.4 make a difference, even with a flat-bed scanner.
On the other hand, the 35 Summilux ASPH is the 35mm lens of reference class and hardly any other 35mm comes close. For highest quality in 35mm format, a 25ISO film might be helpfull and then usable f/1.4 make a difference, even with a flat-bed scanner.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Bob,
Which one do you enjoy the most, holding a print of your prized photograph in your hands, or holding the Summilux lens?
I made the decision that holding my own print is far more rewarding than a lens, which is a tool, no matter how awesome it is.
Sounds like you're approaching a similar conclusion.
Btw, a used Coolscan V ED is more affordable, and the results are good enough (for me anyways).
Which one do you enjoy the most, holding a print of your prized photograph in your hands, or holding the Summilux lens?
I made the decision that holding my own print is far more rewarding than a lens, which is a tool, no matter how awesome it is.
Sounds like you're approaching a similar conclusion.
Btw, a used Coolscan V ED is more affordable, and the results are good enough (for me anyways).
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
I'd say I like: shooting, processing, seeing a print and then gear in that order.
My current scanner is an Epson Perfection 4870. It's okay for MF but I find it a real pain to scan 35mm. It's sometimes hard to get the film flat and I can't get the grain to resolve at high-res clearly enough for my liking.
Consensus seemed to be that Nikon was the way to go, and I have a change of a 4000ED at a pretty good price, but I'm open to suggestioons.
My current scanner is an Epson Perfection 4870. It's okay for MF but I find it a real pain to scan 35mm. It's sometimes hard to get the film flat and I can't get the grain to resolve at high-res clearly enough for my liking.
Consensus seemed to be that Nikon was the way to go, and I have a change of a 4000ED at a pretty good price, but I'm open to suggestioons.
Pete B
Well-known
Or the Summaron which gets great reviews for its character wide open and sharpness stopped down. Get the Plustek
Pete
Sparrow
Veteran
kuzano
Veteran
You Don't own and EXPENSIVE lens!!!
You Don't own and EXPENSIVE lens!!!
You DON'T Own an EXPENSIVE LENS!
You own a valuable lens. You still only have the money you paid for it invested.
Buy low, Sell high is certainly appropriate, but consider this.
If you sell the lens to accomplish your other purchases, and then regret the sale, in order to replace the lens, then you will have to buy an expensive lens.
If it's true that you would have to use a much better camera to actually get the resolving power of the Summilux, do you really want to lose that kind of capability?
You can always achieve the scans you want on the best images by paying to have certain images scanned.
I'm sorry but I think that personally, I would rather be able to say I have a very nice Summilux, rather than, "Gosh, I used to have a very nice Summilux".
Been there, done that far too many times. Converting quality to cash to buy lesser quality can surely backfire at times.
You Don't own and EXPENSIVE lens!!!
You DON'T Own an EXPENSIVE LENS!
You own a valuable lens. You still only have the money you paid for it invested.
Buy low, Sell high is certainly appropriate, but consider this.
If you sell the lens to accomplish your other purchases, and then regret the sale, in order to replace the lens, then you will have to buy an expensive lens.
If it's true that you would have to use a much better camera to actually get the resolving power of the Summilux, do you really want to lose that kind of capability?
You can always achieve the scans you want on the best images by paying to have certain images scanned.
I'm sorry but I think that personally, I would rather be able to say I have a very nice Summilux, rather than, "Gosh, I used to have a very nice Summilux".
Been there, done that far too many times. Converting quality to cash to buy lesser quality can surely backfire at times.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
A couple of points.
First, there's an argument above that the M9 can use the lens's resolution while film can't. That's wrong, and betrays a certain lack of understanding about the level of fine detail that really good films (ACROS/TMAX/Delta 100; XP2; Velvia; Ektar) are capable of resolving. Suffice to say that a 21 megapixel, 4000 dpi scan only begins to extract the fine detail that these films capture. Wet printing with a good lens (say, an APO-Rodagon) will come closer to resolving that detail.
Second, I had a 35 Summilux ASPH, and sold it. I wish I hadn't, because I didn't get enough money for mine and now I can't replace it. It really is a stunning lens and I do miss it. But prices are high right now and this might be as good a moment as any.
I say sell it.
You could get a 35/1.2 Nokton and have a great lens that's faster, and a 35/2.8 Biogon-C, and have a lens that's as high performance as any 35 ever made (and much smaller than your Lux). You could also get the scanner, and still have quite a lot of change in your pocket.
Or get just the Biogon-C, and you'd have a ton of money left for scanning at NCPS.
First, there's an argument above that the M9 can use the lens's resolution while film can't. That's wrong, and betrays a certain lack of understanding about the level of fine detail that really good films (ACROS/TMAX/Delta 100; XP2; Velvia; Ektar) are capable of resolving. Suffice to say that a 21 megapixel, 4000 dpi scan only begins to extract the fine detail that these films capture. Wet printing with a good lens (say, an APO-Rodagon) will come closer to resolving that detail.
Second, I had a 35 Summilux ASPH, and sold it. I wish I hadn't, because I didn't get enough money for mine and now I can't replace it. It really is a stunning lens and I do miss it. But prices are high right now and this might be as good a moment as any.
I say sell it.
You could get a 35/1.2 Nokton and have a great lens that's faster, and a 35/2.8 Biogon-C, and have a lens that's as high performance as any 35 ever made (and much smaller than your Lux). You could also get the scanner, and still have quite a lot of change in your pocket.
Or get just the Biogon-C, and you'd have a ton of money left for scanning at NCPS.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Hmmm...just what are you trying to accomplish...gear-related hobby fun or professional? The answer to that questions leads you down two different paths.
Either way, though, the Lux will be far more valuable in 5-10 years than any other stuff you buy with the sale proceeds. Keep the Lux. Buy a reasonable scanner or use Precision Camera.
Besides, one day you might get an M9 and the Lux would be THE lens for that camera, IMO.
Good luck!:angel:
Either way, though, the Lux will be far more valuable in 5-10 years than any other stuff you buy with the sale proceeds. Keep the Lux. Buy a reasonable scanner or use Precision Camera.
Besides, one day you might get an M9 and the Lux would be THE lens for that camera, IMO.
Good luck!:angel:
Tim Gray
Well-known
If you think you'll never regret selling the Summilux, sell it. I've done that in the past with various lenses and never looked back for a second.
If you think you might miss it or want another one, keep it. It will only get more expensive to replace in the future.
For fast street work, put the Summilux at f/11 and prefocus. It might even be faster to use than an autofocus SLR.
You got some cool cameras. An M7 and an incredible 35mm lens, a Rolleiflex, and a Ricoh GR1. Do you really need more? Personally, I'd save up for the scanner unless you KNOW that you won't miss the Summilux.
If you think you might miss it or want another one, keep it. It will only get more expensive to replace in the future.
For fast street work, put the Summilux at f/11 and prefocus. It might even be faster to use than an autofocus SLR.
You got some cool cameras. An M7 and an incredible 35mm lens, a Rolleiflex, and a Ricoh GR1. Do you really need more? Personally, I'd save up for the scanner unless you KNOW that you won't miss the Summilux.
I'm not so sure this will be the case with this lens.