Lenses: Speed Kills (Your Thai Bank Account)

Well, having ALL the FL lenses in superfast versions is missing the point. In practice, I find that a fast 35mm lens for really low light photography pays off. I've had the original Nokton 35/1.2 for a long time before selling it to a friend who REALLY WANTED IT, and now I'm using the 28 Summicron as a substitute, but still think of getting a 28/1.4 or 35/1.4 next time I will really feel like I need to shoot in low light. Another type of fast lens which is good to have, is a portrait lens. It can be a 50-60mm range or 80-90mm range, and in this case I prefer SLR lenses over RF, although the RF Summilux 50 pre asph is a lovely portrait lens for sure. My picks would be Pentax 50/1.2, Olympus 55/1.2 or Minolta 58/1.2 for the shorter range, and Summilux 80/1.4 for the longer range. Yes, I know there are some sharper lenses available now, and I still think every now and then about the Noctilux f1.0, but as said above, wanting the very best over a very good is detrimental to your bank account. For everything else, lenses like the above mentioned 35/2.8 Summaron, 50/2.8 Elmar v2 or the 90/2.8 Elmarit R are far more practical.

A very well written and thought out response from your good self as usual. Thank you. Just how good was the VC 35.12? It's a real possibility for me at some point between that or the 1.7 if I want speed and minimal financial pain. That's why I'm asking. How good is it compared to any Leica glass you've owned in that FL? I am sorry if that's a bit broad but I value your opinion and a general answer would be fine.
 
As much as I like Tri-X and TMY-2, my favourite b&w film is APX-100. So the extra stop or two can matter, especially where I live, which doesn't consistently have the super bright conditions that make a fast aperture irrelevant.

I agree with you, however, that the financial and weight expense of one or two extra stops really is hard to justify most of the time. The fastest lens I have is the Zuiko 50/1.4, and it's not even the best version. It could be sharper in the centre wide open, but I really like its "gentle" rendition. I also am happy with my 35/2.8 and 100/2.8

The extra money for the Zuiko 50/1.2, 35/2 or 100/2 (or 85/2) would buy a lot of film, or contribute to a trip to some destination I've always wanted to see - I can't make photos in those locations if I can't afford to go. And I wouldn't miss many shots, if any, by not having those faster lenses.
 
Given that 35 and 50mm FLs are almost all I need, and that for about 10-20% of my photography I need speed, I adopted the following policy.

Standard lenses: late Summicrons in both focal lenghts (35 Asph and 50 v.4).
Fast lenses: 35 1.4 Nokton and a very recently aquired (on last Saturday) M-Hexanon 50 1.2.
Therefore, I've spent much less in fast than in medium speed lenses.

When I occasionally need something longer, it's not by night so I can happily use the excellent 90mm M-Rokkor f/4.

When I need to make my M2 very portable, I have an ultra-cheap 50mm collapsible Elmar 2.8 in M mount.

This setup works fine for me as a compromise between quality/speed/finance, and I don't really need anything else.
 
Back
Top Bottom