M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
The Greatest 35mm (FL) lens of All Time.
- Thread starter Magus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 7K
telenous
Well-known
Dear Magus - just to point out - my difference with you is not on whether the Summilux and Summicron 35 Asphs are different (they are) but rather on the degree they are. I think their difference is not as deep or wide as to warrant serious soul searching. Like I have told you in the past: presented with identical circumstances, they stand and they fall together.
Range Loser
Established
In my experience, the sharpest lens on any 35mm camera I have ever used is the 45mm Fuji lens on the TX1/XPan. It's amazing, even when blown up to 5 feet wide.
Andy.
Andy.
Rafael
Mandlerian
This is an interesting discussion, particularly as my own experience with 35mm lenses is quite limited. However, it seems quite evident to me that "quality" and "signature" are two very different characteristics of a lens. Different lenses can produce very different looks and still be of the same quality. Therefore, I would think that if someone wanted to argue that a particular lens is "the best," he or she would have to do so with reference to a particular type of photographic situation or application.
Obviously, different people approach the choice of lenses differently. My own preference is to learn the characteristics of several lenses in a given focal length so that I may choose from amongst them according to the image I have in my mind of the photograpgh I wish to make. This learning process is a long one. Personally, I have only just begun to learn the characteristics of several 50mm lenses. So I am certainly no expert on 35mm lenses (as I own only one). But I do think that the principle behind this approach to learning the different characteristics of lenses is important.
George Orwell famously argued that we should be very careful not to allow the words we choose to dictate our meaning. Our meaning should dictate the words we choose. In many ways, I believe that the same applies to photographic lenses. A portrait made with a Sonnar will be different from one made with a Summicron. In my opinion a very good photographer will consciously choose from amongst those looks when making a photograph. The answer to the question of which lens is "better" will, therefore, depend in no small measure upon the look of the photograph that the photographer intends to make.
Obviously, different people approach the choice of lenses differently. My own preference is to learn the characteristics of several lenses in a given focal length so that I may choose from amongst them according to the image I have in my mind of the photograpgh I wish to make. This learning process is a long one. Personally, I have only just begun to learn the characteristics of several 50mm lenses. So I am certainly no expert on 35mm lenses (as I own only one). But I do think that the principle behind this approach to learning the different characteristics of lenses is important.
George Orwell famously argued that we should be very careful not to allow the words we choose to dictate our meaning. Our meaning should dictate the words we choose. In many ways, I believe that the same applies to photographic lenses. A portrait made with a Sonnar will be different from one made with a Summicron. In my opinion a very good photographer will consciously choose from amongst those looks when making a photograph. The answer to the question of which lens is "better" will, therefore, depend in no small measure upon the look of the photograph that the photographer intends to make.
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
Range Loser said:
Have you ever tried the 30 asph? It's insane sharp. I have all three for the pan, love em!
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
If optical perfection is the basis then the modern asph. lenses must be it. OTH from the historical POV I would vote for the pre asph. Lux 35mm. It lead the way and opened up new possibilities for available dark photography in that FL. Not on par with todays crop of asph lenses but true to the RF concept of small and portable. I can forgive it's optical flaws for that reason.
Bob
Bob
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Luckily for us, everything artistic is subjective. The best and greatest 35mm lens of all time is whatever you, in your own mind, think it is.
Since I am temporarily totally digital, I can consider this problem anew before taking the plunge in to film and rangefinders again — as I know I soon will.
A good problem to ponder.
Since I am temporarily totally digital, I can consider this problem anew before taking the plunge in to film and rangefinders again — as I know I soon will.
A good problem to ponder.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Range Loser
Established
Of course it is all subjective, the "best" lens doesn't necessarily take the best pictures, I have seen brilliant photos from Holgas. Nevertheless, an interesting set of opinions, and beats Christmas shopping.
Andy.
Andy.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Magus, I try never to take offense at differing opinions.
If, by "absurd relativism" you mean our society's drift toward no personal responsibility or no objective standards in school, for instance, or the lost ability to discern artistic efforts from commmercial blandness, then yes it is a scourge.
But, there are no universal objective standards for lenses are there? One manufacturer may place emphasis on MTF curves, another on some other criterion, not to mention the user who has ideas of his own and a budget, too.
Are you saying that there IS one best 35mm lens?
If you tell me which one it is, I'll bet I can't afford it!
Thanks for your critique. Happy holidays!
If, by "absurd relativism" you mean our society's drift toward no personal responsibility or no objective standards in school, for instance, or the lost ability to discern artistic efforts from commmercial blandness, then yes it is a scourge.
But, there are no universal objective standards for lenses are there? One manufacturer may place emphasis on MTF curves, another on some other criterion, not to mention the user who has ideas of his own and a budget, too.
Are you saying that there IS one best 35mm lens?
If you tell me which one it is, I'll bet I can't afford it!
Thanks for your critique. Happy holidays!
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Rafael said:
Well said, Marc, I agree ...
Words seem to suffer from hyperbole these days. This extravagance in expression tends to weaken the value and import of the words in the long run. Some return to humility and accuracy in language is not entirely undesirable 🙂
FrankS
Registered User
Dougg said:
But the point is: Any of today's 35mm lenses are good enough by miles to do what it's supposed to do. With any 35mm lens, even "inferior" ones, it will be the photographer's skill which is the limiting factor, and it is indeed a delusional photographer who blames his equipment for his unsatisfactory results, unless he is photographing lens test patterns of increasing numbers of line pairs per millimeter. Please consider the great photographic art created in the earlier days of photography when the lenses used where clearly inferior to today's options. Just my opinion.
I still like my Rigid 50 Summicron best.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I'd agree with that, personally. Someone else might go for cheap. Or sharpness. Or that bokeh thing that is so in vogue now.
Anyway, a 35mm lens of some sort is in my future. Just as soon as I sell one digital system (I'm keeping the 5D) and just as soon as I get an RF camera to put it on.
Interesting opinions. That's what I like about RFF, even sans RF!
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I think there are two ways to answer the original question.
a) In technical terms
b) In subjective terms
Here's an example.
I have both the current 2/50 Summicron and a 2/50 Summicron-DR that was fully rebuilt by Leica.
In technical terms the current Cron is the better lens. It is sharper, has more contrast, is more flare proof etc. etc.
But I still think the DR is the best 50 I've ever used, because I love all of it's little 'flaws' that produce it's beautiful fingerprint.
As a photographer I choose which lens I will use, depending on the subject. In total I have perhaps 8 or 9 50's in LTM or M mount. These range from the Elmar and Summar to the pre-ASPH Summilux. Sometimes I want a crisp and modern look, so I will shoot with the current Cron. Other times I want to capture the glow of the light falling through a window and I'll shoot with the Summar.
It's a little like being a cinematographer for the movies. You try to capture and evoke a mood by matching the character of each lens to the subject you are shooting and the mood you want to conway.
a) In technical terms
b) In subjective terms
Here's an example.
I have both the current 2/50 Summicron and a 2/50 Summicron-DR that was fully rebuilt by Leica.
In technical terms the current Cron is the better lens. It is sharper, has more contrast, is more flare proof etc. etc.
But I still think the DR is the best 50 I've ever used, because I love all of it's little 'flaws' that produce it's beautiful fingerprint.
As a photographer I choose which lens I will use, depending on the subject. In total I have perhaps 8 or 9 50's in LTM or M mount. These range from the Elmar and Summar to the pre-ASPH Summilux. Sometimes I want a crisp and modern look, so I will shoot with the current Cron. Other times I want to capture the glow of the light falling through a window and I'll shoot with the Summar.
It's a little like being a cinematographer for the movies. You try to capture and evoke a mood by matching the character of each lens to the subject you are shooting and the mood you want to conway.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
