Meeting your heroes: What lenses have you lusted after only to not get along with?

NaChase

NaChase

Well-known
Local time
3:04 PM
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
541
This question may have been asked before, but I was thinking about it today. I remember handling a 28 Elmarit ASPH (V1) at B&H in NYC a number of years ago and being blown away by how small, well-made, and,"cool" it seemed. Fast forward half a decade or so and I finally bought one. I eagerly awaited its arrival and went shooting with it the second I got my grubby mitts on it. However, after that first frenetic outing, I never really used it again. Don't get me wrong, it's an awesome lens, it just didn't motivate me to shoot with it, and when I wanted to use a 28mm, I grabbed my Nikon 28Ti instead. Thus, I sold it to fund another lens.

So now I'm wondering what lenses you have lusted for only to realize that they weren't right for you?
 
50mm f2.0 Summicron in M mount. I have two of them, they are OK but I much prefer an LTM Nikkor 50mm f2.0 . Heresy, I know and in the words of Roger Hicks, "Donning flame proof suit." Joe
 
Rolleiflex TLRs do it for me. Love the idea but when I've owned them, I've never used them.
 
Been a couple. For RFs, I've been mostly lucky. The two I don't care for as much as I thought are the thin Tele-Elmarit and 135 Elmarit-M. Got both for very low prices from Japanese sellers. The former I had DAG look at (and took nearly a year) for focus being wildly off; when I got it back, I found it very low-contrast, something it's noted for. But it's what I can afford for that length so I use it, and just bump mid-contrast in post.

The latter was a very, very cheap find. Optically I love it, but those goggles keep going out of whack on me. I seem to just attract focus problems with every used lens Ive bought...

for SLRs: Years and years ago, I pined over a fast super-wide. I was very proud when I saved my money for a Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4. While I had a lot of fun with it and grew to love super-wide lenses, it was absolute crap in the corners at 17mm, even stopped down, on film/full-frame. Got lots of unusual shots with it, but also a lot of ruined one-of-a-kind shots.
 
Noctilux 50 .95
One trick pony to impress peeps with the look at the zero DOF.
So big it ruins the point of having a compact M.
Blocks 1/3 of the VF.
A technical achievement but pretty much any other 50 makes more sense for actually taking photos.
 
Konica LTM 50mm 2.4.

Looks like a collapsible lens but it isnt really and overhangs on an LTM mount, while with an LTM->M adapter it lines up with the M mount perfectly! Go figure!

Too annoying on a Barnack so off it went.
 
Honestly? Every vintage Leica lens I've tried from before the 70s. People rave about the collapsible and rigid Crons, but they're just not that much better than contemporary lenses from the likes of Canon and Nikon's LTMs. And besides fetching absolutely insane prices now, they also just have too many potential issues - soft coatings, haze, balsam cement, etc.
 
PRJ said:
Rolleiflex TLRs do it for me. Love the idea but when I've owned them, I've never used them.
Click to expand...

Yep. Me, too. I've had two Rollei T, and a 2.8 something or other with Planar lens. Mantle Queens. I have always preferred my Hasselblad.
 
Voigtlander Heliar 50 f/3.5 LTM for me. Spend two years lusting for it and when I finally got one (not cheap), I just couldn't get along with its ergonomics. It is a fantastic lens, but just couldn't get along with.

Went back to collapsible Summicron and that made me happy.

Regards

Marcelo
 
I have that experience quite a bit.

Mainly because I enjoy experimenting with older classic lenses and when I read a glowing review of something new that I have never tried and especially if I have never even heard of that lens before I am inclined to lust after it big time.

And then I buy one and try it and too often find, yes its good enough but no better than this alternative or that alternative. I seldom find I hate a lens or "not got along with" a lens though its more a "Yeh.....OK but...." experience. Or perhaps this would be good as a portrait lens (a lens lacking in sharpness), or a landscape lens (a lens with poor bokeh) or a this lens or a that lens so as to compensate for its shortcomings.

In the mean time though until it arrives its pure love at first lust.

My impression of Roger the Rabbit giving an impression of what lens lust is like....... :)

vleh94s75gr6ieiymlm9.jpg


My impression of what a few lenses are actually like when you try them (though very few)

ep64-throwmomma.jpg
 
I love TLRs and I always aspired to owning a Rolleiflex. My first TLR was a late-model Minolta Autocord (CdS-III), followed by a Mamiya C330f, several Yashicas, other Autocords, a Ricohflex/Diacord, and finally, a couple of Rolleis.


My favorites are the Autocord and the Mamiya, but I haven't given up on the Rolleis yet!


A lens that calls to me is the Minolta 58mm f1.2 MC Rokkor, due to its reputation. I have a 50mm f1.4 late MC and a 58mm f1.4 early MC, but I rarely use these focal lengths, instead typically jumping back and forth between my 85mm f1.7 MD Rokkor (my favorite lens) and a 28mm f2.8 MC Rokkor. So, the lovely 58mm f1.2 would likely live on the shelf and see little use.


- Murray
 
It's the Rolleiflex for me as well. I actually love using it. Then I look over the images and realize that "square" and "standard focal length" just aren't for me. It's happened enough times I've found a place on the shelf for it look pretty.

After that, the Voigtlander 28/3.5 color skopar. Amazing size, nice build and ergonomics. At the end of they day, I just didn't like the way it rendered images.
 
Digital Leica rangefinders. I have owned an M9 and MP. Clunky things. Maybe the M10 is better, but I don’t have any interest. It’s funny. I stopped in Adorama today on 18th st. to check out their used inventory. I picked up a couple of digital bodies, a GR, an x100F. After using Leica film bodies and now a Rolleiflex for some time I had forgotten how flimsy those digital cameras feel in the hand. All GAS for digital was quickly dispelled.
 
35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH v2. It is a love/hate thing. I really like the small size and quality of the photos I can achieve with it but the ergonomics (missing filter thread and over-sized lens-hood) almost every time stop me from using it more. Maybe it is time to look for the v1 (steel-rim) where I could use a screw-in filter and be done.
 
maddoc said:
35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH v2. It is a love/hate thing. I really like the small size and quality of the photos I can achieve with it but the ergonomics (missing filter thread and over-sized lens-hood) almost every time stop me from using it more. Maybe it is time to look for the v1 (steel-rim) where I could use a screw-in filter and be done.
Click to expand...

I know, but filter, shmilter! I stick a clear UVa in the hood and forget about it. It's still a nice small lens for the street. At first I was put off by the dismal performance wide open. But who needs to use it wide open? That's what my Summilux ASPH is for. In the daylight, the pre-ASPH is just fine at f/5.6 or 8!

Besides, I like having to worry about whether to use it, or my 2.8 Summaron. I need things to obsess over!
 
Zeiss ZM Planar 50mm f2.0. Fantastic optic, and I admire the photos I’ve seen with it, but I don’t like the high contrast and the size. So my copy is for sale. See my signature below and add in classifieds...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom