Patman
Established
I don't quite understand what people mean when they say 'for the price' is the price a substitute for quality? I like my lens sharp with good contrast and good color rendition if i'm shooting color. I'm also not concerned about the build of the lens, not looking for junk, but a lens that meets my stansards. I recently got my M8 and since i'm homebound right now due to surgery, i've been testing my lenses around the house. My 35mm Summaron , 50mm Summicron both gave me better results than my Zeiss 21mm. My 135mm Hector, was sharper & my 135mm 2.8 Elmarit blew them all away. To me that says a lot, the 35, 50 and 135 Hector are all over 50 years old, with no signs of wear, fungus or dust and operate perfectly smooyh and have never been serviced. How can anything beat that. When i was shooting strickly B/W with my M3, sharpness and contrast was more apart of the film i was using, the developing and the final print. Today with digital i can view the results of the lenses that i am testing and their are no variables. I've also tried the 50mm 3.5 Heliar, which was all hype, lens showed me nothing.
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
kevin m said:
So, the Porsche 911 is eqalled or outperformed by a Volkswagen Golf?
Best regards,
Uwe
retow
Well-known
Uwe_Nds said:
Not the 911 maybe, but the base Boxster is outperformed by many other makes. Cheaper ones, that is.
kevin m
Veteran
Leica lenses offer nothing like the sort of huge performance advantage that a high-powered sports car has over an economy car.
A better analogy might be 911 Turbo vs. Corvette Z06, where the performance advantage (when measurable) of the former comes at a price double that of the latter.
Actually, that doesn't work, either, because Leica can't manage to produce a lens that only costs double the competition...:bang:
peter_n
Veteran
My experience of non-Leica lenses is limited to Konica & CV. I use mostly Leica but have also used the Konica M-Hexanons quite a bit and I think they are excellent. I've kept the 28mm and 90mm M-Hexanons and will not be replacing them with Leica equivalents. I do think the build quality of the Konica lenses is way better than modern Leica but I don't want to beat that dead horse again.
Rafael
Mandlerian
My frame of reference includes lenses by Canon, Nikkor, CV, and Zeiss. The ZM 50mm Planar is my favourite lens of all that I have tried. So, I'll vote for Zeiss. But there are certainly others that I have really liked for various reasons (especially the Canon 50/1.5).
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I bought my first konica/hexanon lens about a month ago - a 28mm. I haven't been able to use it that much, but as far as build goes, I don't think they get much better. Very solid. Crisp movement of the aperture ring and the focus is just oh so smooth.
I've owned at least 6 different versions of Voigtlander glass. While I agree the price/performance ratio is wonderful, I just don't believe they are built as well as most leica lenses or the one hexanon lens I have. I can't really pinpoint exactly why, but they just don't feel as solid to me. Maybe it's the weight. Or the way the finish seems to wear so fast on the black versions.
I do still love them though, counting a 35 nokton and a 15 in my current kit.
I've owned at least 6 different versions of Voigtlander glass. While I agree the price/performance ratio is wonderful, I just don't believe they are built as well as most leica lenses or the one hexanon lens I have. I can't really pinpoint exactly why, but they just don't feel as solid to me. Maybe it's the weight. Or the way the finish seems to wear so fast on the black versions.
I do still love them though, counting a 35 nokton and a 15 in my current kit.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Roger Hicks said:
I believe I do -- maybe. I have a few years less experience than you do (I've got about 20), but I collect, repair and restore cameras in addition to using them, so my experience is with a bunch of different cameras and lenses. However, I have not tried every lens ever made, by any means. For example, lots of people here are rhapsodizing over Konica Hexanon lenses and I've never tried one. In my opinion, the best lens manufacturers out there (of the ones whose stuff I have tried) are:
1. Leica
2. Rodenstock
3. Zeiss
4. Schneider
5. some of the top grade Nikkors
6. Canon "L glass" (if you happen to like retrofocus lenses).
Despite being numbered, my list is in no particular order. Truth is that all of these companies make excellent lenses, and you probably won't notice much difference, if any, unless you blow the prints way up.
Also, the answer to your question depends on what you mean by "best." That is kind of a trick question; best for what? Do you count cherry picked individual lenses? Do you count large format lenses?
Last edited:
Dektol Dan
Well-known
I'll Second That And Add One
I'll Second That And Add One
Toss in the top grade Zuikos for No.7
I'll Second That And Add One
FallisPhoto said:
Toss in the top grade Zuikos for No.7
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
Patman said:
Interesting point. Guys, what do you think of Patman's opinion?
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Dektol Dan said:
Yeah, how could I forget those? Might as well throw in the better commercial Ektars too, while I'm at it, for #8.
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
I think pursuing diminishing returns on lens 'quality' for ever increasing sums of money is a waste of time, past a certain point.
All these lenses we're discussing are "good enough" to make excellent photographs, and there are very few real dogs out there, particularly in the M mount. Pick a focal length you like, the speed you want and ergonomics you can live with and you're all set.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
We all have opinions. This is the great thing about it all.
The price factor does come into play in my case. I am happy with the lens choices that I have, and nearly all ofmy RF lenses are older design lenses. If I had a few additional thousands of dollars to spend, I would then only try out a modern design [more expensive] lens.
I like the Canon 85mm/1.9 Serenar for portraits. I get very pleasing results from this lens. It is not a lens that has great reviews by others, but "in my opinion" it is a great lens.
I agree with Patman on the 50mm Summicron. It is my alltime favorite lens.
The price factor does come into play in my case. I am happy with the lens choices that I have, and nearly all ofmy RF lenses are older design lenses. If I had a few additional thousands of dollars to spend, I would then only try out a modern design [more expensive] lens.
I like the Canon 85mm/1.9 Serenar for portraits. I get very pleasing results from this lens. It is not a lens that has great reviews by others, but "in my opinion" it is a great lens.
I agree with Patman on the 50mm Summicron. It is my alltime favorite lens.
alternatve
Well-known
I have no preference. I use what I have, Canon L, Nikon Nikkor, Minolta Rokkor or Leica / Zeiss. At the price to performance ratio, I'm leaning towards CV and Zeiss, esp Zeiss, since I'm using copies of their optical design to very good effect.
Samuel
Samuel
otaku
Established
zeiss kicks ass imo. I hear voigtlander is quite good. Leica is still my fave
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
For my line of work (in vintage PinUp`s) it`s still got to be vintage LTM Canon lenses.......
The f1.5 50mm is "the" lens with the chrome f1.8 50mm right behind her, two very "usable" lenses perfect for vintage styled photography
I also like what I see from the f1.4 50mm (black barrel - Planar formula) and also from the f1.8 35mm
(though I DON`T own either one yet) looking for some attractive offers
This is a really hard call, while the vintage Nippon Kogaku (Nikkor) lenses are also hard to beat....the f2.0 50mm is bullet proof, even though I have a well worn example, it shoots like an old trooper and has that certain "look" and "feel" that only the Leitz Summitar has
Vintage Japanese glass on my Leica IIIC`s that`s what works for me best
Tom
The f1.5 50mm is "the" lens with the chrome f1.8 50mm right behind her, two very "usable" lenses perfect for vintage styled photography
I also like what I see from the f1.4 50mm (black barrel - Planar formula) and also from the f1.8 35mm
(though I DON`T own either one yet) looking for some attractive offers
This is a really hard call, while the vintage Nippon Kogaku (Nikkor) lenses are also hard to beat....the f2.0 50mm is bullet proof, even though I have a well worn example, it shoots like an old trooper and has that certain "look" and "feel" that only the Leitz Summitar has
Vintage Japanese glass on my Leica IIIC`s that`s what works for me best
Tom
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I voted "Others" - Carl Zeiss, by themselves.
raid
Dad Photographer
LeicaTom said:
Tom,
I also like the Zeiss Jena 5cm/2 Sonnar, the Summar, the Summitar, the Summarit, the collapsible Summicron, the Nikkor 5cm/2, and the Luxon for a vintage look [in LTM/M]. I love them all.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
LeicaTom said:
While I love the look of old Canon glass as well as the shots in your recent thread, have you ever considered doing your work with what was common for the old pinup shooters? That is, a 4x5 Speed Graphic with one of the various Ektar (127/4.7, 152/4.5, or 203/7.7) lenses? It can give a very wonderful retro look quite different from anything that can be achieved on 35mm film.
William
foto_fool
Well-known
Not voting. Not fond of the question - it smacks of a stalkinghorse with an agenda. I probably should have avoided this thread altogether. But here we go...
The best lens is the one I am using at the moment. I would not have spent hard-earned money if I did not think I was getting good value.
My experience with Zeiss goes back over 40 years - dad taught me to shoot with his Contax IIIa. My experience with Zuiko goes back 30 years - I got my OM-1 in the mid 70's. My more recent RF & MF experience includes Konica, Canon, Leica, Zeiss, Mamiya, Fuji and Nikkor. Not once have I ever looked at a bad image I made and blamed the lens.
Build quality is another matter, but then the 1945 CZJ Sonnar I have is built like junk - and makes glorious pictures when I use it right. And hey it's 63 years old so "built like junk" is pretty relative I guess.
Brand loyalty is real but not rational. One lens may "outperform" another when comparing MTF charts, but these extrinsic results do not make that lens intrinsically "better" than the other. IMO that kind of belief is delusional.
- John
The best lens is the one I am using at the moment. I would not have spent hard-earned money if I did not think I was getting good value.
My experience with Zeiss goes back over 40 years - dad taught me to shoot with his Contax IIIa. My experience with Zuiko goes back 30 years - I got my OM-1 in the mid 70's. My more recent RF & MF experience includes Konica, Canon, Leica, Zeiss, Mamiya, Fuji and Nikkor. Not once have I ever looked at a bad image I made and blamed the lens.
Build quality is another matter, but then the 1945 CZJ Sonnar I have is built like junk - and makes glorious pictures when I use it right. And hey it's 63 years old so "built like junk" is pretty relative I guess.
Brand loyalty is real but not rational. One lens may "outperform" another when comparing MTF charts, but these extrinsic results do not make that lens intrinsically "better" than the other. IMO that kind of belief is delusional.
- John