The Greatest 35mm (FL) lens of All Time.

[Harry Lime]

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.

Yes! I couldn't agree more.

I always get a good laugh when I peek in on a list and someone is lamenting the fact that their camera doesn't have 45 autofocus points and therefore will never produce a properly focused picture of their kid playing soccer. Or that it only shoots at 5 fps. Or that it is only 10 megapixels. Or that it only goes to 3200asa.

Then I always think of someone like Capa, HCB, Eugene Smith or any of the other thousands of photographers who in the past shot without a meter or parallax compensated viewfinders, with slow film, slow lenses, no motordrives, no autofocus, running from mobs, dodging bullets and some how STILL managed to shoot better pictures than almost anyone alive today.
😉

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[3js]

Two strange nominees, for slr the Canon 2.0 Fd "rare earth" with concave front element, they don´t make these anymore, quess why🙂 And for the rangefinder the Retina Curtagon 2.8, anyone who´s ever tried one knows why😀

 

[FrankS]

.
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.

Yes, a kindred spirit!

 

[Pherdinand]

Back in my old SLR times
(about 3 years ago i guess), in a shopcase in Amsterdam when walking by, I've noticed a 35/1.4 G lens for the minolta slr system. (G is their top lens line. Was.)
It was between second-hand lenses, and the box was next to it. The price tag on the box showed 126 euro !!
I immediately went in and told the guys I want that lens. They took it out of the case, i had it in my hands, and then, the guy said, wait a minnit man, this must be more expensive. Aah, it's not 126, it's 1260!
:bang:

 

[Dougg]

Pherdi, there's the one time you could wish for a know-nothing part-time teen-age clerk!

 

[Pherdinand]

🙂) I probably would have had bad feelings buying it 90% off if i noticed they indeed wanted 1260 for it...

Anyway, the moral of my story was...that was my only chance to get a "best" 35mm lens. In fact, the only 35mm lens I ever had was the one glued strongly on the yashica electro35 cc.
Man, what a great lens that is!

 

[FrankS]

(Playing along with the game...)
There's a pretty good 35mm lens attached to the Hexar AF.

 

[RayPA]

(Playing along with the game...)
There's a pretty good 35mm lens attached to the Hexar AF.

Thank you! That's the best I've shot with (so far). 🙂

🙂

 

[x-ray]

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.

Frank, you are a wise man. A lens or camera by itself can not make a photograph and an inferior photographer can not make a superior image with a superior lens unless the photographer is superior. A losusy photographer with exceptional equipment does not equal exceptional photography. The system is only as good as the weakest link.

 

[x-ray]

Yes! I couldn't agree more.

I always get a good laugh when I peek in on a list and someone is lamenting the fact that their camera doesn't have 45 autofocus points and therefore will never produce a properly focused picture of their kid playing soccer. Or that it only shoots at 5 fps. Or that it is only 10 megapixels. Or that it only goes to 3200asa.

Then I always think of someone like Capa, HCB, Eugene Smith or any of the other thousands of photographers who in the past shot without a meter or parallax compensated viewfinders, with slow film, slow lenses, no motordrives, no autofocus, running from mobs, dodging bullets and some how STILL managed to shoot better pictures than almost anyone alive today.
😉

More words of wisdom. I've said this many times and truly believe this. It's not the equipment it's what's 2 inches behind it.

 

[Dougg]

Then I always think of someone like Capa, HCB, Eugene Smith or any of the other thousands of photographers who in the past shot without a meter or parallax compensated viewfinders, with slow film, slow lenses, no motordrives, no autofocus, running from mobs, dodging bullets and some how STILL managed to shoot better pictures than almost anyone alive today.

More words of wisdom. I've said this many times and truly believe this. It's not the equipment it's what's 2 inches behind it.

Agree completely that the photographer is the most important ingredient in memorable photos. But without film and a camera functional in even trying conditions, there would be no photo at all. Without painting materials, even the best painter can't produce a painting. So the gear is necessary. It must be operational and stay operational or the day is done. Better to have good gear than junky gear, but you use what you've got...

So let decent gear be just the respected tool, not an idol to be worshiped, that facilitates the photographer's effort and makes the photo possible.

 

[Meatboy]

(Playing along with the game...)
There's a pretty good 35mm lens attached to the Hexar AF.

Frank, thanks for bringing that up. I will add there is a pretty good 35mm lens attached to the Contax T3 and that lens with body, circuits and mechanics all attached is smaller than some of the lenses mentioned here - well almost.

I've got some great 8x10's from this optic, shame they are made no more, but I suspect we could all list 50 cameras we feel that way about.

Tim

 

[summilux]

it is a lens that does not endear itself to everyone, but I will get the Noctilux.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Nachkebia]

I find Nocti to be most non elegant, non practical, not leicie lens on line-up 😀 (don`t take this serious) 😀

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Nachkebia]

Myth ology.... common how goodf can you focus with f/1 in the dark? maybe you can on not moving object`s but common.... 😀

 

[MikeL]

As regards to noctilux, I'd definitely try before you buy. I've been playing around with the CV 35mm 1.2 and the noctilux, and for a low light lens I'll be keeping the CV 35mm 1.2.

 

[x-ray]

So let decent gear be just the respected tool, not an idol to be worshiped, that facilitates the photographer's effort and makes the photo possible.

Excellent!!!