If you can only have 1 lens

George, I am quite glad to hear that you are still happily shooting away with your camera. 😀


If I could have only one lens, it would be a 50mm. Since I still have had so little time to try out any other lenses really... I'd just have to say for now that I'd want a 50mm. No specific 50mm lens in particular, mind you. 🙂
 
I'd go for a 50mm lens too. IMO best all-arounder is Hexanon 50/2 - great price/performance too. Another fun lens is - Summitar 50/2. These are my 2 most favorite 50mm lenses. But for some things I like J-3 50/1.5. Canon 50/1.2 can be fun too.
 
On an RF, I think I'd be using a 35mm lens. The type of photography that I'd like to do with a rangefinder is more fun to do with a wide-angle lens. Plus, I'd be using one the advantages of using an RF: easy focusing with wide-angle lenses.

As to which one, I don't think there's a "bad" 35mm lens for RF, is there? 😛
 
Shadowfox,
I'm with you... wide angle is definitely the way to go. I'm debating whether the CV 40mm is a bit too long and that maybe I'll instead opt for a 35mm or even a 28mm. I'm going to take the 40 out for a few more outings and see how it "feels". And I agree with you that probably any rangefinder 35mm lens would be fine. I'm the sort that feels that getting out and "capturing the moment" is way more important than whether I've squeezed every last bit of sharpness out of the equipment.
 
I would probably go with 40 or 35mm, but certainly not with an interchangeable lens camera. There are better single lens alternatives
out there. Like a Hexar AF, or a TLR.

Roland.
 
Since I use this lens for about 99% of my photography, I'd say I could live very well with my CV Ultron 35/1.7.
 
I only have two lenses and barely use one of them. A 50mm Carl Zeiss Planar f/2 and an old Canon 35mm f/2.8...which is the one I rarely use.

For me its the 50 everytime and frankly I'm a little surprised, when I first looked through a rangefinder and saw those, comparatively, small 50mm framelines I thought I'd never be able to use them. Now it just seems to fit and the 35mm is dauntingly 'open' and hard to fill.

As for specific lenses, well the Planar is a stunner and I'm overjoyed I got it ( It was a bit of a toss up between that and the Hex but I found it at a good price and so that was that!) The first 50mm I had was the Canon 1.8 and thats an excellent starting point for anybody - Canon put together some real quality and my 35 is also fantastic esp. for the price.
 
35mm Summilux ASPH in Chrome.
Optically insane and that build quality; the lens in average everyday professional use, will probably last 85 years.
 
If I had to pick one out of the lenses I own, Helios 103 53mm f1.8. I am a cheap b****d but I believe the Helios 103 is truly an incredible lens for the price.
 
cmogi10 said:
I would probably go with a 50mm asph summilux 🙂
Click to expand...
an extremely wise choice carl. you are wise beyond your years🙂 i am curious what your top three or four or five would be? as for me:

if 3:> lux asph 50, zm 25, lux asph 35 for the speed

if 4:> same as with 3, just add zm 35 for the signature

if 5:> as for 4, just add a lux 75 for its boootiful oof areas.

edit: reasons for roland's post, remove asph
 
Last edited:
I was in a similar situation when I got into rangefinders. I managed to score an M3 for a steal on the evilbay, and had to wait another seven months before I could afford a lens for it. I eventually scored an early 50mm summilux (version 1) from the same source. It's got speed, it's well built, and it people avoid it like the plague (keeps the prices down). It was my only lens for over a year, and I still use it quite regularly. Personally, I think the poor reputation is undeserved, it's a great lens.

If you prefer new glass, I'd suggest the voigtlander 50/1.5 nokton. It's cheaper, even with an M adapter, and it has speed too. People seem to like it as well. I haven't used one, but almost bought it for my IIIf. The only reason I didn't was I managed to find an old summarit in decent shape for less money.
 
24/28 biogon f1.4 if existed 🙂 for now Nikon 28mm f/1.4 is the perfect lens, for rangefinder I guess I would choose 25mm biogon f/2.8 🙂
 
Why?

Why?

Ok, you all have tweeked my interest. In my original post I asked what you're one lens would be, assuming "it could only be a lens in the price range of the CVs... not those wonderful, but out-of-reach Leicas". So I was assuming I'd read a lot of advice about old used Canons, Jupiters, CVs, maybe even some old 'primitive' Leicas. But instead, many of you suggest that you'd still recommend that I buy Summiluxes, Summicrons, ZMs... even a Noctilux! If I read the RFF and ebay ads correctly these lenses cost in the range of $1,000 to.... $10,000!!

So I'm interested in what I'm missing by not saving up for the next few years to buy one of these lenses. I've read a lot of technical reviews of the Leicas and comparisons with the CV lenses. I've never read anything that says that if I pay five times the cost of a CV lens I'll get anything like five times the quality. But I know I'm just READING... I'm not SEEING.

So here's another question. Has anyone ever done a test like this and then posted the pictures on the web for us to see? Take one rangefinder camera body, put in on a tripod, point it at some difficult-to-capture scene, or some beautiful scene, or ?, and then mount a Noctilux, a Summilux, a Summicron, a ZM, a Canon, and a CV lens (all the same focal length and all set at some set of f-stops) and shoot the scene with all six lenses... or five, or whatever. Send all the negatives to a printer, get the 16x24 prints and then mount them on a gallery wall and have a look (or scan the negs and put them on the web). Would I see astoundingly different amounts of beauty in the different prints?

If there's such evidence, please point to the website. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom