how "historic" are you with your gear?

[traveler_101]

This one is for those of us - I guess most of us - who use gear no longer made and is therefore "historic." 😎

My question is do you try to match your camera to your lens(es) on the basis of mount, or brand or period or all three? Is is incongruous, or even just a little odd in your mind, to use a 1936 Summar on a 1962 M2 or a 1940 Elmar on a Bessa R?

Do you enjoy the idea of matching gear or is it something you never think about or are you somewhere in-between?

 

[dave lackey]

This one is for those of us - I guess most of us - who use gear no longer made and is therefore "historic." 😎

My question is do you try to match your camera to your lens(es) on the basis of mount, or brand or period or all three? Is is incongruous, or even just a little odd in your mind, to use a 1936 Summar on a 1962 M2 or a 1940 Elmar on a Bessa R?

Do you enjoy the idea of matching gear or is it something you never think about or are you somewhere in-between?

Everyone is different.

For me, the final image dictates the lens... and the price, unfortunately. Never cared for gear all THAT much as I prefer to use what I love to make the images I am looking for. Bokeh/swirly character/motif isolation/etc. require certain lenses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"My question is do you try to match your camera to your lens(es) on the basis of mount, or brand or period or all three?"

The exact opposite. That's why my main 35mm systems are cross-compatible from 1931 on (Leica) or 1959 on (Nikon). I love the idea of being able to use old lenses on new gear and new lenses on old gear.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If you have taste it is difficult to match Summar and M4-2 and Bessa-R with I-50.
But I might be only one so taste-full here 🙂

 

[Nokton48]

do you try to match your camera to your lens(es) on the basis of mount, or brand or period or all three?

For Minolta SRT, Sinar Norma, and Plaubel Makiflex, Yes, I do go for matching equipment sets. Works better overall in my opinion. So I am a bit of a purist.

And then again, I do have things that were not available, that I have created, by putting things together. And I am glad to have them.

 

[c.poulton]

Yes.... My circa 1952 kit:

Leica IIIf BD
Leica Summitar 50mm f/2
Leitz Summaron 3.5cm /f3.5
Leica Elmar 90mm /f4
Rolleiflex Automat MX (K4A)

 

[dee]

As a snap shooter keeping ASD contained 'comfort cameras' and vintage lenses are all part of the experience.
I love the outdated 4/3rds Leica Digilux 3 but I have downgraded to an Olympus lens because the Leica lens is too unwieldy.
I have also an Amedeus adapted the Leica M8 to use a Jupiter 3 / several J8s and an amazing Helios, together with various ex-USSR screw thread lenses to complement my Summitar/Elmar and CV 35mm Color Skopar.
Even my DSLRs follow this trend of Sony cameras to use my Minolta lenses.
Film wise it was all Minolta SRt , but Contax/Kiev grabbed me more recently and I have a 1937 Contax III body with 1957 Kiev controls/meter and 1959 J3 in genuine Contax mount - mind blowing continuity!!!
My avatar is a 1935 Contax II with Kiev shutter assembly and back.
So,it's all the experience for me.
dee

 

[Darthfeeble]

I have a couple "historic" lenses for my Epson. An Industar 61 and a Jupiter 12. Neither is something I'd be apt to keep as I upgrade the lenses I have for my M9. They were just very cheap lenses I could get without fearing revolt from Upper Management.

 

[Martin Carone Santos]

More or less... Mainly 30's gear: cameras, some lenses, developing tanks. But some lens from 50/60, and the enlarger is from 1974.

 

[Filzkoeter]

M2 + CV 35/1.4 + CV 21/4.0 (LTM). Sometimes the 21mm lives on my IIIf.

No, I'm not matching either brands, nor periods, nor mounts. I'm using what fits and gives me the best price-performance ratio. I'm also not believing in magic properties that are linked to the name that's stamped on a camera or lens... either it works and gives me the performance (+ ergonomics & handling!) I want or it doesn't 😉

 

[Richard G]

No. Right now there is the 11 o'clock Elmar on the Leica II, but the 1951 Summaron f3.5 on the button rewind M2. And while reminiscent of the wonderful Canadian M4-2, I now have the Canadian tabbed Summicron on the Monochrom. So my anomalous combinations amplify with the decades. Never mind.

 

[Mojo]

I like vintage cameras and lenses and like to match the kit the same era as the subject I want to shoot.

 

[sebastel]

i'm historic, but my gear is (partly) not.
m3 with 50m summilux asph? no prob (actually, a favourite)

 

[rbsinto]

The concept means nothing to me.
If gear mates and does the job, I'll mate them up.
My latest historic blasphemy is the ability to use Nikon F-mount lenses on my Nikon S-mount rangefinders via an Amedeo F-S adapter.
So far the Angel of Death, has not visited me, and my name has not appeared on any Government Watch Lists.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I remember a former moderator saying that those of us who know the historical matches to our lenses and hoods and cameras were kind of sweetly pathetic... and I'm proud of being one of them.

My M3 works with a collapsible 'cron manufactured two years before the body. And the lens has the IROAA hood that belongs with it (instead of the later 12585). By the same token, my M6TTL bodies (manufactured after the year 2000) had always some relatively new glass. Trouble came when I wanted some lenses for my cameras made in the in-between years (1962, 1971, 1974, 1980), so I had to settle and make odd combinations (a very new Zeiss with my 1962 M2, a 1960s Canon with my 1968 M4, a 1999 Konica with my 1980 M4-2, new Zeiss and CV glass on my M5 bodies, and a 2014 lens on my M4-P). It really doesn't bother me to mix and match, but I like the idea, and would love to be a bit more "historical" with my gear... if I only could afford it.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

Op, no I don't match, but I like old glass for 'the look.'

 

[Roger Hicks]

M2 + CV 35/1.4 + CV 21/4.0 (LTM). Sometimes the 21mm lives on my IIIf.

No, I'm not matching either brands, nor periods, nor mounts. I'm using what fits and gives me the best price-performance ratio. I'm also not believing in magic properties that are linked to the name that's stamped on a camera or lens... either it works and gives me the performance (+ ergonomics & handling!) I want or it doesn't 😉

Now define "performance"...

Seriously, I agree completely. If I get the results I want at a price I can afford, I'm winning.

Cheers,

R,

 

[Roger Hicks]

I remember a former moderator saying that those of us who know the historical matches to our lenses and hoods and cameras were kind of sweetly pathetic...

I can do that quite easily: see A History of the 35mm Still Camera, Focal Press, 1984, http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-History-35mm-Still-Camera/dp/0240512332

But it's nothing to do with taking pictures.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Does anyone know how to get hold of http://free373.qefihy.org/ who appear to have stolen the copyright of A History of the 35mm Still Camera, Focal Press, 1984?

Assuming it has been copyrighted under US law I am quite happy to pay 10% of the statutory damages, after legal expenses (which I am sure we can keep low) for assistance in proving and successfully prosecuting copyright infringement.

Cheers,

R.

 

[DNG]

I remember in the 1980's when I working in a Camera Store. This was when lenses like Tamron had a line of lenses that had interchangeable mounts to allow one lens to be used on cross brands....

As a salesman at the time. I said to one customer that it would really great if I could use my Nikon glass on my Pentax, or Canon, or my Minolta.. or visa versa....

Well mirrorless cameras has made that possible with the modern digital cameras being able to take just about any lens made for 35mm to be adapted..
Well, at least using other makers lenses with an adapter on one body... similar, but not the same.

So, with me (I bet you saw this coming), I love to adapt old lenses to newer cameras...
I have a 1953 J9 fully restored, a 1972 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S, a 1960's? 105mm f/2.8 Soligar T2 Preset (Tokina made by research).
A 24mm f/2.8 Ais CFC.. and a Konica AR 57mm f/1.2, all with adapters for my Fuji X-E2.......

BUT, on my Nikon, I can use the 2 Nikkors + the 105 Soligar... I have no problem using different decade lenses from the same make as the camera.
I buy lenses for their personality, not wither it was made at the same time as the body...

One reason Leica has kept the M mount 100% backward compatible, save a few bodies (M5/CL) that had a swing meter in the way of a few...
But, you could always adapt the mount to NOT activate the swing arm). So you could use any LTM or M mount on any M body (save the two above).

Leica seems fine with using past lenses on future bodies!