Surprises

[Roger Hicks]

I'd have to say the Zeiss 35mm f2. But my reasoning is a bit different. It is just a great journeyman lens that doesn't add or subtract anything from the photo and allows the subject to be the center of attention. It just sits there in the background delivering very good optical quality, is reasonably fast and adequately compact. Of course it is my favorite focal length.

Or it may well be the Mamiya 7 80mm lens for exactly the same reasons above.

I want someone to view my photos and only think of the subject matter and not the lens, not the film, not whether it was 35mm or MF, not the print quality. Just the subject.

Dear Bob,

A fascinating line of argument, for which I am sure we all thank you; but another philosophical point is immediately raised.

Can there be any such thing as an objective 'adds nothing, subtracts nothing' lens, or is such a choice merely selecting 'the lens that sees closest to what I, persnally, remember'?

Cheers,

R.

 

[JonasYip]

I have several lenses ending in 'lux, but the one that stands out is the 75 lux. Unfortunately my current camera of choice doesn't have 75 framelines and I haven't found a comfortable solution for using that focal length... so I haven't been using it regularly. Perhaps I should revisit that issue.

Other lenses that stand out in my mind... 35 lux ASPH. Contax 645 120 Makro Planar. Whatever the lens is on my Fuji 645....

j

 

[sepiareverb]

Sepiareverb, that's a great photo. The 'intrusion' of the in focus branches makes me think of creeping tentacles for some reason. Neat.

Thanks Matt. This lens is really fantastic in the woods.

I have several lenses ending in 'lux, but the one that stands out is the 75 lux. Unfortunately my current camera of choice doesn't have 75 framelines and I haven't found a comfortable solution for using that focal length... so I haven't been using it regularly. Perhaps I should revisit that issue.

I don't know what you're shooting, but I had the 75 framelines put in my M5, it is possible, though the price has gone up with parts.

 

[icebear]

2.8/25 Biogon

2.8/25 Biogon

I never really liked my 28 Elmarit but since I have got the 25 Biogon I use it a lot. One example at close distance:

 

[JonasYip]

I don't know what you're shooting, but I had the 75 framelines put in my M5, it is possible, though the price has gone up with parts.

Epson RD1. There have been some suggested mods... I asked Steve of Steve's Camera (the de facto RD1 repair guy) to look into it, but there was no solution he was comfortable performing at the time so I left it at that.

j

 

[Roger Hicks]

I never really liked my 28 Elmarit but since I have got the 25 Biogon I use it a lot. One example at close distance:

Another very important point: seemingly trivial differences in focal length can matter a lot. My wife Frances Schultz doesn't really care for 15mm or 21mm -- but loves 18mm...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

Mamiya 7 lenses - all of them. WOW! does not matter what you have shot before, when you see a neg shot at a decent shutter speed on high res film at f8-11 prepare to fall off your seat. These easily keep pace with my Zeiss ZMs....on a neg twice the size. They quite expensive (though not by Hasselblad/Rollei standards) but you do get what you pay for: Incredible performance, even from wide open.

35mm - I agree with the comment earlier on the 35 biogon. Does what it says on the tin! I have a number of images on my wall/portfolio which were shot with this lens which seems to do everything really very well. At 2.8 it is tack sharp on centre and by f4 edge performance is quite staggering..and it is darned good wide open too! The planar 50 and 28 biogon are wonderful too, but the 35 just seems to be the one that takes most of the shots and has not let me down in any aspect of its performance.

Other formats and non-RF:

5x4 - 203 7.7 Ektar - Tiny, cheap, super sharp, good coverage and beautiful images.

10x8 - Rodenstock geronar 300 f9. Tiny, cheap, good contrast, good coverage for landscapes and very sharp stopped down. People complain about these Geronars, but when you shoot a 10x8 on one at f22/32 there is nothing to complain about at all! far cheaper than a Nikkor 300 f9 or Fuji f8.5 but does the same thing at f22 all with the ubiquitous 58mm thread.
Rolleicord Va 75mm Xenar. shot fairly wide it has beautifully soft corners, good resolution and lovely dreamy bokeh. Should not have sold mine. It was cheap too. Really lovely.

 

[BillBingham2]

Nikkor 50/1.4 Millennium, got me to realize that 50 is not a bad focal length. While 50 is still not the first one I pick up, I might some day.

B2 (;->

 

[sepiareverb]

Epson RD1...

Ah, out of my area. External finders I guess eh?
🙁

 

[mfogiel]

In RF, great lenses are more a rule than an exception, especially in the latest Zeiss and Leica offerings - for me, two which stand out are the C Biogon 21/4,5 and C Sonnar 50/1,5 for reasons quite known to everybody on this forum. Beyond this, my favourites are the Hasselblad SWC Biogon, and the Zeiss Makro Planar 100/2.

 

[JohnTF]

A friend twisted my arm a bit to buy one of a pair of CV 35mm Noktons, but I was pleasantly surprised to find I did think the images were better. I started using 35mm more.

I tend to think in terms of focal lengths than glass, but then again I tend to stick with Zeiss, Leitz, and CV.

With film or full frame numbers, I like the CV 12, Contax G 28 and 90mm, and in M mount the Leitz 90mm 2.8.

First lens I bought that made a huge difference in sharpness, contrast, and over all image quality, was my Nikkor 50mm 1.4 on my F2 in the 70's.

Another veteran was my Pentax 35mm 2.3 which had to be manually reopened, two or three lenses then were a luxury.

Regards, John

 

[JohnTF]

I would ask Roger if there are particular lenses he feels have such a significantly and specifically good character as he might be able to spot their "signature" in most prints?

Perhaps an article on "signature" lenses?

Not an easy question I might suspect, but Roger, you certainly have the background if it is answerable.


Regards, John

 

[rolly]

I was shooting all the Contax G lenses, but that whole system became an evolutionary dead end. I thought if I ponied up and got a used M body and sunk some money into used Leica lenses I'd be all set for the M8, which was at the time two years away. A friend lent me an m5 and a cron 50 -- there was something glow-y about that borrowed summicron 50mm... wrong focal length for me, so my friend offered a 35 cron, 2nd ver. I was intrigued by what that family of lenses does with light in BW photography. I ended up buying a summicron 35 4th ver, sticking with film and forgoing completely the M8-- mainly because the cron 35 4th is such a great accomplishment-- the Vermeer of lenses, at least when paired with film.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . the Vermeer of lenses, at least when paired with film.

Dear Rolly,

Beautifully phrased. That's how I feel about both the Thambar (which I have the good fortune to own) and the Noctilux (which I do not) -- at least with the right subject, and on the M8.

I think it was Heinlein who said, "Never trust a writer. They will take what you said, file off the serial numbers, and claim it as their own. "

If you hear a rasping/grinding noise...

Cheers,

R.

 

[JohnTF]

I was shooting all the Contax G lenses, but that whole system became an evolutionary dead end.

I loved the fast light weight kit of two G2's and three lenses. I liked the prime glass and the images.

My friend Igor said he could see how this system could have become digital.

He also said he is considering having his 16mm modified to M mount, though I have only heard of this from him, and the conversion price is only worth it for the very unusual lenses.

More questions than answers right now for fine work with digital, at least for me.

Commercial work is something quite else.

As you are back to film, any thoughts of returning to the Contax?

Regards, John

 

[rolly]

Roger, re writers::angel:

John, re Contax G-- No I'm not returning to the Contax G system, but I have to say if I were shooting color only, AND doing street-type work, I'd definitely re-acquire the body, the 45 and 90. Those were such nice lenses to use, and the 21 was really tops. But I am going backwards, like Nick in Gatsby (Roger, are you a Gatsby guy?) "boats against the current," towards really involving myself with BW and for that I am sticking to the cron 4th ver. on an MP, shooting agfa apx400.

 

[sepiareverb]

I came back to Contax G for the 21, after trying and not liking the ZM21/2.8.

Just back from shooting it alongside an M7 & and MP, simple enough to move between the three.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Rolly,

No, I never appreciated Gatsby much: I suspect it may be a bit too culturally specific, and I am too much Old Europe. Yes, I understand that's part of it, but it never gelled for me. Then again, it's been decades, so maybe I should try again.

Nor for that matter was I a great fan of the Contax G: I never liked the way the deep-set viewfinder window misted up, and the focus 'hunted' a bit too often for my taste. The results were superb, when they happened; but there were enough misses that I was never sure of a hit.

Nevertheless, I fully understand your retro leanings. At one point I even hand-cammed a 150/4.5 Apo Lanthar to my MPP to get 'the look'.

The Apo-Lanthar, incidentally, was the first one where I heard the term 'the quality of the out-of-focus image' as a reason to favour a lens, from the late Colin Glanfield over 10 years ago: the term 'bokeh' had not at that time achieved wide currency.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[rolly]

re the Contax G-- yes, once compared to Leica VF the Contax is sort of tight and tunnely. The AF was noisy by comparison to the silence of manually focusing a Leica, but the AF was 99% spot on. I never had a problem in 9 years shooting the G2. Re Gatsby-- I like it now as a piece of writing (someone described it once as having come out of Fitzgerald whole like an egg) but the themes seem still up-to-date with the pull of the Old World-New World-- and those could be Europe-America or the codgers and youth, Dems v Reps, film v digital....what is v what could-should-oughtta be...

 

[JohnTF]

re the Contax G-- yes, once compared to Leica VF the Contax is sort of tight and tunnely. The AF was noisy by comparison to the silence of manually focusing a Leica, but the AF was 99% spot on. I never had a problem in 9 years shooting the G2. Re Gatsby-- I like it now as a piece of writing (someone described it once as having come out of Fitzgerald whole like an egg) but the themes seem still up-to-date with the pull of the Old World-New World-- and those could be Europe-America or the codgers and youth, Dems v Reps, film v digital....what is v what could-should-oughtta be...

I like Fitzgerald in general, Gatsby in particular, but not so much the movie. Great character development.

The G2 was certainly quicker and more sure on the focus than the G1, and I started to pay much more attention to the focus indication to verify the focus.

The glass does was it is supposed to do, and does it well.

I was very happy with the images and bokeh, though the lenses could have been faster.

I did not use the manual focus much, but did have to search a few times for something with some contrast or lines for focus.

Are you saying that one is better with color, or one is better with B&W?

Coming from AF or an SLR to a RF you also have to remember that focus in the frame is not the same as on the film. ;-)

I do work more slowly with the Leicas.

Regards, John