The "look" of lenses. Your favourite?

[charjohncarter]

We all have our favorites for one reason or another. I like my Super-Takumar 50mm f.1.4 and the Super-Takumar 28mm f.3.5. The 1.4 is under the lamp right now curing a small amount of thorium element discoloration. The Spotmatic that goes with these lenses is the easiest SLR for me to focus. Though not an SLR lens I like very much my 50mm f.3.5 Elmar.

 

[Robert Lai]

In rangefinder-land, I'm partial to the Sonnar designs. The Zeiss ZM 50mm C-Sonnar 1.5 is almost always in use.

I just discovered the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 SC, which is a modified copy of the Zeiss Sonnar 1.5. It has such lovely glow and dreaminess wide open. Stopped down, it is quite sharp.

Then there's Lomography's reintroduced J3+, which is distinctive in its own way. Sort of in between the Nikkor and the C-Sonnar in its rendition.

For SLR, I'm partial to the Canon FD 50mm 1.2 L and the 85mm 1.2 L, both sold to me by Timmyjoe here on RFF. They go on my FTb.

 

[maryland_fotos]

Nippon Kogaku 10.5cm f2.5 P Sonnar lens, the 135 f2 AIS Nikkor, 55 1.2 S Nikkor, the 180 2.8 P Nikkor and the 85 1.4 AIS Nikkor.

 

[splitimageview]

C/Y as a line, and Sonnar as a design

 

[raid]

Is there a noticeable difference between the 8 and 7 element Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 ?

I doubt it. Both are superb. The claim by some users of the 8 element version is that it is "super superb"!

 

[kuuan]

Is there a noticeable difference between the 8 and 7 element Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 ?

I'd say yes, due to superior coating the later version 7 element version doesn't loose contrast as easily when used against light, has better flare resistance. ( I consider the coating of most Super Takumars and later Super Multi Coated Takumars to be superior to those of pretty much any other lenses of the same vintage )
The 8 element 'may' be perceived even a bit sharper wide open and some also prefer it's oof rendering but imo the 7 elements also fare very good in those respects. The 8 element gives 'cool' tones similar to early Auto Takumars, the later versions possibly warmer tones, at least in case the lens shows 'yellowing' due to radioactive glass which is very common with any 7 element version.

I consider the 7 element and the later S-M-C and SMC to be the more universally usable lenses but the 8 element 'can' and for some users does give something special,
e.g. colors of the 8 element ( on NEX5n )

Untitled by andreas, on Flickr

and wide open sharpness + bokeh ( also on NEX5n)

Untitled by andreas, on Flickr


Untitled by andreas, on Flickr


Untitled by andreas, on Flickr

 

[Ronald M]

Look of lens. I tried for years to reproduce the look / tones of photos in the paper sample books in all the camera stores. No luck. I had 12 Pentax lenses all new and current.

Then I was loaned a Leica . Same film batch, same developer, same paper and there it was ! WOW.

Then I found a 125 mm Hector and cobbled up a mount for the Pentax.
I did a roll of SLIDES with flash at a party with photos intermixed Takumar and Leica.

Sold all the Pentax and bought Leica.

Even today the Leica lenses look better on my D800 than Nikons current glass.

When I shoot a color checker, look at the reds. Leica reds look like apples, Nikon AiS and Ai and current all make reds look orange.

Dond`t take my word for it. Go to Imaging resource Comparometer and compare the M9 with any Nikon. Use the image the studio set up containing wine bottles and crayons and yarn samples. Look at the red yarn and the color checker. Red is third from left above the greys.

When I do an outside shoot, Nikons greens are are over saturated and photo is lowish contrast. We are talking SAME camera here, just changing lenses.

If you want to really be shocked, use 100 2.8 APO on the Nikon.

Conclusion is Leica lenses are obviously superior, not in sharpness totally but the look.

Zeiss lenses from `80 s were also nice. Not as nice as Leica, but nice. They were not as well made either. CV makes the new ones. Don`t trust CV for various reasons.

 

[raid]

I don't find M9 at that website, Ronald.

 

[presspass]

For black and white film work, most uncoated or early coated LTM rangefinder lenses are excellent. Right now, my two favorites are a 35mm f3.5 Elmar and an 85mm f2.8 Super Rokkor LTM. That lens in particular is outstanding. I would love to find some other LTM Rokkors.

 

[defconfunk]

Having tried a few SLR systems there's definitely a distinct "look" to each company's lenses.

My first camera was an AE-1p and I used a 50mm 1.8 and briefly a 1.4. Looking back on the results I miss the system (camera died on me)

My wife used to use an OM10 and I loved the look of the OM lenses. ...

I'm considering getting back into Canon. But what about everyone else? Which SLR lens system has the most pleasing "look" to you?

Most my 35mm lenses are FD right now. I find they really don't have a distinct look. They do nothing to draw attention from the subjects. They are just very good lenses. The only partial exception to that in my collection is the FL 85mm F1.8. It's a bit of a cheat since it is FL not FD, but wide open it is very soft and has a particular feel when shot F2.8 or F4. I think it was designed to purposely give up subtle details for pleasing portraits.

I particularly like OM lenses for the colour bias. They seem to have a special way with earth tones (greens and browns) I can't put into words well.

Right now, my favourite 50mm is actually my Carl Ziess Jena Pancolar 50mm F2 in exa mount. It is still very good, but seems to have more of the character I want than the FD or even OM. I think I just have a special affinity for how Tessar and Planar style lenses render - or maybe it's just the Thorium affecting my brain 😉

The nice things (for me) about FD are:

• FD / FDn lenses are great

• Immediate access to the "lower quality / higher character" FL lenses

• FD has a short register distance, and for $10 you can get a glass-less adapter that lets you mount M42 lenses if there are specific looks you are going for, without having to own M42 bodies.

I'm a camera slut, I own many systems, I've got lenses I like in all of them. But I'm settling on most my 35mm shooting being handled by FD, and I'm happy with that.

 

[tunalegs]

I forgot to mention the Pancolar 2/50. Wonderful rendering.

fireworks by Berang Berang, on Flickr

paint by Berang Berang, on Flickr

 

[bayernfan]

across the systems:
1. Leica 50 Summicron V1 (my favorite "look" even though i don't jive with 50mm, it's just stunning from f/4 to f/8)
2. Leica 35 Summicron V2 (my favorite 35mm lens)
3. Nikkor-O 35/2 (pre-ai) (when i need to shoot an SLR, this is the lens i prefer. i've not found another nikkor that renders like this one)
4. Rokkor-M 40/2 (the most modern look of the lenses i use, very similar to a 35 summicron v4)

 

[Chris101]

I really liked the look from the old style (ltm) 35mm f/1.7 Ultron. It seemed that oof regions of the photo were rendered with lower contrast than the focussed part. I think I got tired of only shooting with 35mm - there's always a lot stuff in the picture whether you want it or not. So now I have a 50mm Summicron. I just got it, so I'm not familiar with it's character yet. My second two rolls will be finished by the weekend.

 

[Canyongazer]

35mm f1.4 Fuji

Am looking to buy another Fuji X body
just so it will always be mounted and ready..

"...welded to the body" as some RFFers say.