Lens weeding theory?

[Vince Lupo]

I was trying to figure out a way to combine the size of my Summicron and its rock-solid dependability, along with my 0.95 Noctilux, which gave those very special qualities wide-open. As much as I loved the Noctilux, the weight of it was finally getting to me. So I sold both of those lenses and got a 6-bit Summilux, which seems to (at least to me) combine the general characteristics of both those lenses.

So I no longer have the bulk of the Noctilux, nor the feeling that I need to have two 50mm lenses. I am much happier.

 

[mfogiel]

I'd say, that if you have even started considering this, something is wrong with your commitment to photography. For family snaps and selfies the Iphone is sufficient. Think what is it really, photographically, that you could not do without: portraits, street, landscape, MF film? If there is anything, keep it and sell the rest.
Alternative advice: keep everything and work harder to pay for the bathroom. 😀

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Is OP is author of the writing about Summilux 35 where lens is compared with some ladies?
If so, this might help:

My wife and mother-in-law were deciding which name to give to our first daughter. I was also asked. I gave them my grandmother name, because she was good example. My grandmother was smart and hardworking. She worked as the store manager before war, she worked in the forest to cut trees all year around during the war and she worked some simple jobs after war, but made decent money. My relatives also told what she was beautiful. She was also straight and honest. The name I suggested was also matching religious calendar for names giving on birthdays. This calendar was given to me by nice people in the publishing house where I installed new Macs and where my articles were published.
But my wife and mother-in-law didn't liked the name. It was too common and simple for them....

Due day come and despite what doctors were talking about boy, it is girl. And name I suggested was given. Our daughter is smart, choose to work at the age of thirteen and she is beautiful. ....

One day my wife told me... They couldn't decide which name to choose and they didn't liked name I suggested. So, they wrote them on small paper strips and put them into Russian fur hat. They did it three times. All three times they pull out the paper stip with same name. It was the name of my Grandmother.

 

[jsrockit]

This... 2. By subjective qualities - What ones do want to keep because it'll make you feel you lost something that works well for your style of photography.

 

[michaelwj]

Dante, if you don't know what to sell and keep, don't do anything until you know. I only sell lenses I don't bond with, and I know that I won't continue to use. For me, it's subjective.
On the other hand, if you need he cash, we'll the most expensive one you don't use.

 

[lawrence]

This is probably of no help to you but until recently I had four M mount 35mm lenses:

• Biogon ZM 2.0
• Nokton 1.4 SC
• Summicron M IV
• Summicron ASPH

I wanted to pay for a trip to Italy and decided that either the ASPH would go or all the rest. Why? Because the ASPH does everything almost perfectly and the others are good in their own ways. I got rid of the ASPH because I don't need perfect and I'd rather have three lenses than just one.

 

[rscheffler]

I'll give you a heads up if I get around to listing anything else. Then you'll know when to avoid the classifieds. 🙂

I hear you on the second point. Thinking about the sell-then-buy-back, I have done this with:

- Jupiter-3 (like 15x)
- 50/1.4 Nikkor LTM (4x)
- 50/1.2 Canon (4x)
- 75 Summilux
- 21 Kobalux (3x)
- 28 Kobalux (2x)
- 40 Rokkor (3x)
- 50 ZM Sonnar
- GS645 (3x)
- GL690 (2x)
...among others.

Maybe the best solution is to hold onto anything where I have done this before. Way too expensive!

Dante

In a thread on another forum, a member stated if he bought back a lens three times, it was on an eternal 'do not sell' list.

IMO, you can never have enough 50s (I see now Contarama beat me to this point), particularly in a range of vintages. And such rangefinder lenses are usually very small anyway.

I realize I'm not helping. 🙂

I'm thinking of some spring cleaning myself. Our local shop is having their annual sale and will have a KEH rep present to buy unwanted equipment. Yeah, I won't get market value for it, but the lazy side of me finds this appealing despite the certainty of leaving money on the table...

 

[MCTuomey]

I weeded out my "excess" RF fifties a couple years ago, that I thought I loved to keep, leaving me with *only* a nice 50 lux.

I haven't shot it in nearly a year. Having fewer lenses caused me to shoot more regularly with a 35 and 75. Less time angst'ing over what to carry, I just grab the bag and go. Not a thought of rebuying, pleasant surprise. Down to one high use 35, one low use 50, one high use 75 (and a 28 that might be sold but for some fav pics it's made). From a high of over a dozen. And I was able to do some travel and house fixes, yes, all of which was real good.

Dante, on the other hand you like and enjoy and shoot all of your stash, so I don't know what to say.

 

[sepiareverb]

Circumstances over the last year have had me slimming down and settling my gear (another ad coming soon) into items that I use regularly, or can use with multiple set-ups (the flash I got from you has fit this bill incredibly well). There are several things off my table for sentimental reasons. For me with lenses it is signature that is most important, whether it is the fifth 50 or the third 21 becomes irrelevant if it does something unique well. I too have sold and bought the same lens multiple times, but I've realized that if I've sold it thrice I'll sell it again. That seems to indicate I like it for some reason other than what it does to the pictures.

I have too many bodies, and choosing what to sell has been tough because I've used everything I own without regard to babying it, so my bodies are not lookers. I keep them in top notch working condition, but don't care if the paint has worn or the strap has left marks. The MP-3 is pretty worthless compared to other MP-3s because I didn't leave it in the box. So I'm thinking of selling other bodies instead because they were bought used in used condition and so have more value compared to what I have in them. So I'm approaching my current choice for selling bodies from a value position - can I get back close to what I have into something? If so it will go.

As to kids, if the bathroom is perfect there will be something else that was inadequate in their upbringing. Despite having put aside many of my own needs for my kids I've not found accolades for the sacrifices all these years later. YMMV.

 

[Steve M.]

This is the sort of thing that nearly ruined my photography. What I found was that I had sold a lot of cameras and lenses that I should have kept. They made great images, but I sold them to buy others because I was insane w/ the stupid Buy/Sell addiction. Same w/ film and developer. Should never have done all that testing, just stuck to D76 and Tri-X because it was perfect for me. So I don't have any suggestions, other than you're probably looking at a bigger problem than you consciously realize. Agendas are often well hidden behind something else.

 

[shimokita]

Regarding the '2016 Lens Weed', my approach would be

a) determine which camera bodies are the most used
b.0) retain at least one lens of each FL for only one of the bodies above
b.1) the target is only one lens of each FL
b.2) realizing that can't get all 'feature' in one lens (e.g. sharpness, bokeh, fast, look cool as hell, tiny, and the real thing), some decisions are difficult.
b.3) the 'real thing' is the default primary choice to keep
c) exceptions, in principle none... however for 28 & 50 multiples are okay only for different bodies
c) sell all other lenses, even if they have close to zero street value

Enjoy what you have after the weeding...

Casey

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

One cannot ever have enough lenses...especially 50's. ... My opinion.

Well, maybe one could ever have enough bathrooms, but usually one more helps a lot. My opinion.

Dante, I know you'll do the right thing.

 

[Dante_Stella]

The kids' bathroom thing is a little bit of a joke; that's the one that does not need to be done until last. As it turns out, there is nothing else I can add to the new renovation without delaying selling the old place and carrying two houses, so there is actually no upside to accelerating anything.

I realize that this latest push might be a stress reaction; the major selloff that occurred recently had a concrete purpose: paying for a 75/1.4 and a 2.8GX, both of which appeared at very opportune prices (and pocketing some cash as well). Maybe that's the better way to attack these things (who's got an extra Flextight?) 🙂

And in packing, you know what took up the most space? Not a Silvestri. Not the big-arse Fujis. Not even the Leica lenses I thought were contributing to "clutter." It was filters and hoods. Apparently one of each b/w contrast filter for each size actually takes up an entire small packing box. Maybe option 7 should have been "weed lenses by filter size."

But to more concrete questions, if you were looking at

18mm ZM (undistorted, sharp, big)
21mm f/4.5 ZM (tiny, sharp, no distortion, good for mono, bad for color)
21-35mm Hexanon Dual (big, sharp, usual WA distortion)
21mm Kobalux (undistorted, very little color shift, big)

Which one(s) would you cut loose, if any?
Dante

 

[aizan]

i'd sell all of them, but that's just because i don't really like any photographs taken with superwides. what are they for? maybe replace them with a voigtlander 21/4 or leica 21/3.4 just in case?

 

[Darthfeeble]

Like some other's have noted, I've sold and then re-bought so many things now that I just acquire, won't sell any more. Unless........

 

[Dante_Stella]

i'd sell all of them, but that's just because i don't really like any photographs taken with superwides. what are they for? maybe replace them with a voigtlander 21/4 or leica 21/3.4 just in case?

Considering that I have sold thousands of dollars in prints from 90º lenses, I would beg to disagree.

21mm lenses (and the 50mm on a 6x9) are ace for architecture because a good one has low distortion, and you can get very close to a subject.

The Super-Elmar might be a possibility someday if there is a good way to overcome its weird distortion. The CV 21 is not even a contender.

D

 

[nasmformyzombie]

...But to more concrete questions, if you were looking at

18mm ZM (undistorted, sharp, big)
21mm f/4.5 ZM (tiny, sharp, no distortion, good for mono, bad for color)
21-35mm Hexanon Dual (big, sharp, usual WA distortion)
21mm Kobalux (undistorted, very little color shift, big)

Which one(s) would you cut loose, if any?
Dante

I'm a Zeiss fan so this one is easy: in what bizarro world or alternate universe would you keep a Kobalux or a Konica lens over a Zeiss? Perhaps the Konica M-Hexanon 50mm f1.2 is a keeper because of its speed, but you're talking wide angle here, so the point about the KM 50mm is moot.

 

[alistair.o]

This is probably of no help to you but until recently I had four M mount 35mm lenses:

• Biogon ZM 2.0
• Nokton 1.4 SC
• Summicron M IV
• Summicron ASPH

I wanted to pay for a trip to Italy and decided that either the ASPH would go or all the rest. Why? Because the ASPH does everything almost perfectly and the others are good in their own ways. I got rid of the ASPH because I don't need perfect and I'd rather have three lenses than just one.

How was the trip to Italy?

 

[zerobuttons]

I see that I agree with most who answered this question: by subjective qualities and by difficulty in re-obtaining. Right now, there is no reason for me to weed - my entire collection consists of the following:

• Summicron 35 Aspherical black paint
• Summicron APO 90 Aspherical black paint
• Konica Hexar 50

And of these, I find that the Hexar 50 performs very close to what I could expect from a Summicron 50. However, this is the lens that would go first, should the need occur. I have considered acquiring a lens with wider focal length. That lens would probably be an item that I wouldn´t "attach" to, as I do to the lenses I have now.

 

[michaelwj]

The kids' bathroom thing is a little bit of a joke; that's the one that does not need to be done until last. As it turns out, there is nothing else I can add to the new renovation without delaying selling the old place and carrying two houses, so there is actually no upside to accelerating anything.

I realize that this latest push might be a stress reaction; the major selloff that occurred recently had a concrete purpose: paying for a 75/1.4 and a 2.8GX, both of which appeared at very opportune prices (and pocketing some cash as well). Maybe that's the better way to attack these things (who's got an extra Flextight?) 🙂

And in packing, you know what took up the most space? Not a Silvestri. Not the big-arse Fujis. Not even the Leica lenses I thought were contributing to "clutter." It was filters and hoods. Apparently one of each b/w contrast filter for each size actually takes up an entire small packing box. Maybe option 7 should have been "weed lenses by filter size."

But to more concrete questions, if you were looking at

18mm ZM (undistorted, sharp, big)
21mm f/4.5 ZM (tiny, sharp, no distortion, good for mono, bad for color)
21-35mm Hexanon Dual (big, sharp, usual WA distortion)
21mm Kobalux (undistorted, very little color shift, big)

Which one(s) would you cut loose, if any?
Dante

i'd sell all of them, but that's just because i don't really like any photographs taken with superwides. what are they for? maybe replace them with a voigtlander 21/4 or leica 21/3.4 just in case?

I love 21mm lenses. But I would also sell them all and get something different (but the 21-35 is intriguing). What exactly I'm not sure ... (if I was you I mean - I know what I'd want).
But, you should know what you want, you say you've sold thousands of dollars of prints from 21mm shots, so what could 'we' offer you? If they each offer something different that you want and use, then keep them all. Otherwise, you'll know what to do.