Lens weeding theory?

[aizan]

anybody know how the converted contax g 21mm is on digital? i can't think of anything else to try.

oh, i see ricoh made the 21/3.5 in screw mount, too.

 

[lawrence]

How was the trip to Italy?

It will be in October to celebrate my 65th. We decided on Sicily and will be staying in Palermo and Taormina and it's now booked and paid for 🙂. I'll take one of the remaining 35s, probably the Biogon as it's excellent for landscapes.

 

[lawrence]

• 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)

Of these I have and love the Biogon, however I don't have a digital M so problems with CA or whatever don't bother me. I would definitely cull one or two of these but it's not immediately obvious which should go. Personally I don't much like large lenses on an M body so it would probably be the largest of them.

 

[MCTuomey]

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 agree with *aizan* - sell them all and buy the leica SEM 21/3.4 (small, sharp, undistorted, takes 46mm filters), provided the 21 continues to be a focal length you'll use regularly. Pretty much same for the ZM 21/2.8, except for bit bigger size, bit less performance.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

How about: I don't have a camera to put the lens on?

 

[Dante_Stella]

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.

The same bizarro world where the Zeiss name is farmed out to Cosina, the build quality is ok but not the same as Leica or Konica KM, and where none of the lenses are pushing any envelope of performance?

Dante

 

[harpofreely]

....But the really acute problem is splitting hairs among 50mm lenses, where some are killer-sharp (50 Hexanons), some have good bokeh (50 ZM Sonnar), some are really fast (MS Sonnetar), some look cool as hell (collapsible Hexanon), some are tiny (40mm Rokkor), and some are the real thing (Opton Sonnars). But you can't get all of those things in one.

D

Choose one 50mm out of each of these categories. That's only 6 50s. Possibly some of the 50s cover two categories w/o too much compromise.

 

[nasmformyzombie]

The same bizarro world where the Zeiss name is farmed out to Cosina, the build quality is ok but not the same as Leica or Konica KM, and where none of the lenses are pushing any envelope of performance?

Dante

I never mentioned anything about Leica.

Yes, there have been issues with Cosina build quality with some Zeiss ZM lenses. I have owned several, and had no issues with any of them. Zeiss has farmed out 35mm camera lens production for years. Initially, Contax SLR lenses were made by Zeiss in what was then West Germany, but eventually most lens production was shifted to Japan by Kyocera after Kyocera acquired Yashica in about 1983. Zeiss Master Prime cine lenses are still made in Germany.

Contax G lenses were made by Kyocera and the 45mm Planar is as good optically as any 35mm camera lens ever made. The 28mm and 21mm Biogons are outstanding, as is the 90mm Sonnar.

As for performance of the ZM lenses, the 21mm f4.5 is perhaps the most distortion free super wide angle lens ever made. The 21mm f2.8 is no slouch. The 25mm f2.8, the 28mm f2.8, the 35 f2 and 35mm f2.8 are outstanding. The 50mm Planar is outstanding. The 50mm Sonnar, while difficult to use at times, renders beautifully. The 85mm ZM is outstanding. KM? The build quality of the KM lenses is top notch, Konica apparently used a considerable amount of heavy brass in the construction of these lenses. While the KM lenses do a fine job, I am not aware of one KM lens that has undeniable optical performance superior to that of its Zeiss ZM counterpart.

If you want to circle back to Leica, you can pay 3X to 4X for new Leica vs. new Zeiss.

 

[lawrence]

I am not aware of one KM lens that has undeniable optical performance superior to that of its Zeiss ZM counterpart.

The 28mm maybe?

 

[Dante_Stella]

nasmformyzombie, I am well aware of the post-war history of Zeiss, which is equal parts design and aggressive marketing. I was being facetious about "bizarro" because Zeiss, like Iron Maiden, sells more T-shirts than albums.

But I stand by my point on Zeiss' not pushing any limits. Higher and higher performing versions of staid focal lengths at conventional apertures are not tremendously exciting. 35 and 50mm lenses basically come in two varieties: (i) sharp and (ii) friendly to humans and bokeh. I have little interest in 28s.

On (i), there are plenty of lenses in the moderate-wide to normal focal length that can max out the M's sensor. Zeiss is really good at making lenses, but in 2016, it's a pretty crowded field - and I'd say that if ultimate performance is your issue, you might want to look at Zeiss' lenses for other platforms (or other platforms like the XF Fujinons). The ZM lenses (except the 18/4 and 35/1.4) are also disadvantaged to various degrees by being designed before digital took hold. The 25 does a really good job with only minor (and usually correctable) color shift. The 21/4.5 - notwithstanding a lack of distortion - does not have the corner performance of a retrofocus lens, and having to correct out massive color shifts probably doesn't help.

Konica's prime KM lenses are not designed to be insanely harsh and contrasty (this appears in their literature from the beginning). I have some that are well-calibrated, and even wide-open, will generate moire on my M. Regardless, though, the one major advantage from a practical standpoint is that all three wides (the dual, the 28, and the 35) are retrofocal designs much more friendly to digital (and almost entirely devoid of color shifts). Konica knows how to design lenses as well as anyone; it has been supplying the lens designs for the Leica T, and if accounts are to be believed, the Q.

When you get to category (ii), which is lenses with good bokeh and pleasant imaging, I'd argue that the ZM Sonnar is sui generis, and not necessarily in way that merits praise. Zeiss arguably started with the wrong lens design. Sonnars - as has been borne out by my testing of pre-war and post-war 1.5s - are not soft focus lenses at all (the "glow" - front focusing - is not characteristic of a correctly focused image with the lens). Dialing in enough spherical aberration to overcome the high performance of the lens - to get better bokeh - injects unnecessarily challenging focus issues. To their credit, my current ZM Sonnar is far easier to live with than the first one; but it may be because I shoot at f/1.5 or 5.6 with it.

And when you ask why an X over a Y,

- The Kobalux has no distortion, has better corner illumination, easily corrects as an Elmarit 21, and is equal to better in the corners than the 21/4.5. This is amazing considering that they were all hand-made.

- The 21-35 Dual Hexanon is sharp, has extremely smooth mechanics, exhibits no color shift and higher corner performance than symmetrical wides. Erwin Puts even begrudgingly admitted it was a lens that Leica could learn from.

Dante

 

[noisycheese]

I voted for "Forget it, the kids' bathroom can wait!"

If you have a back deck at your house, problem solved; the kids can pee off the back deck as the late, great Edward Abbey once advocated as an act of defying societal protocol and expressing personal freedom.

Keep your camera gear - yes, even if you don't use every single piece of it every single day - and follow Ed's lead. You could do worse...

 

[jmilkins]

Since I joined RFF in 2005 and in no small part thanks to your very informative and enjoyable reviews Dante, I have subscribed to the theory that the kids can manage with a good spray down with a hose. GAS has certainly been freely circulating.

However, the day of reckoning has come and I too am about to Renovate (shudder).

The Great Cleansing of 2016 means that decision paralysis will be about the 50 shades of white at the paint store rather than what to take out shooting. <sigh>

So, in the I voted character (subjective quality).

Good luck Dante. (I think I'd keep the C-biogon. I am, and trying not to add a Super Angulon 3.4 )

 

[zleica]

I've always regretted selling my lenses and bought back most of them at a greater cost. So I voted "kits' bathroom can wait."

For 21mm, I would keep the Konica 21-35 Duo. I am extremely fond of all Konica M lenses and 21-25 Duo is a very unique lens in term of its performance and built-quality.

Cheers!

 

[Ronald M]

Gave a few away to my son when he started 8th grade.

Got rid of a few common R lenses to buy my M9P.

Other than that, I keep what I have. As Leica updated, I have duplicates.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Definitely by how much you shoot the lens or if there's any emotional value. I weeded out all the stuff that I don't use by watching it take up space in my tiny NYC apartment and never getting used. If it doesn't get used, then it has no place. Sell it to someone who will enjoy it or if just space is an issue then let someone borrow stuff. I love my V2 90mm Summicron but it's big and I rarely use it. I haven't seen it in over a year because my friends are passing it around haha but I can get it back whenever I need it.

 

[Rob-F]

I go by feel and emotion, which, for an ex-mechanical engineer, is totally non-sceintific.

What's my history with the lens. How long have I had it and what adventures did it go on with me. (This is assuming all the lenses perform properly, if one doesn't perform, it is gone immediately). What adventures would I still like to do with it.

And does the lens make me happy when I'm shooting with it.

Totally un-sceintific and completely subjective, but that's how I look at them (again, this is assuming all the lenses in question perform properly)

This is the approach i resonate with. Which lenses are like extensions of your own eye and brain? Which ones have you bonded with? Taken your best pictures with? Can't do without? Those are the keepers.