I used to have this lens, it is fabulous. The only thing I am not a fan of, is the size. 🙂 But I'd pick it every time over the equivalent Leica glass, the later 35/1.4 and FLE which are also great.
You can only choose one lens…
- Thread starter splitimageview
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 166
- Views 11K
I used to have this lens, it is fabulous. The only thing I am not a fan of, is the size. 🙂 But I'd pick it every time over the equivalent Leica glass, the later 35/1.4 and FLE which are also great.
OK here is the list so far.
What I find interesting is the great breadth of time, from the early Summar all the way to the recent Zeiss 35/1.4 (2014) and the even more recent Voigtlander 40mm from 2022.
What I find interesting is the great breadth of time, from the early Summar all the way to the recent Zeiss 35/1.4 (2014) and the even more recent Voigtlander 40mm from 2022.
lamefrog
Well-known
I’d pick the Summicron 35mm ASPH
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
The choosing is difficult. And made more difficult by some wonderful lenses being very rare. An example would be the original Canadian Elcan made for the US Army. Few of them survive and those that do command some real bucks. Yes, LLL has made an honorific replica which is a fine lens. But this is not so for all those lovely rare lenses, some heavily coveted. I am safe in assuming, I think, that the Leica lenses will be valued here. The Sonnars are also wonderful lenses. I have a few that are really good. I have three disparate ones; a '43 CZJ f/1.5, a '57 Jupiter 8 and a recent Skyllaney Bertele Sonnar. They all have their charms. A rare, common and very rare. All shoot well but none the same.
So, just among the Sonnars I am at a loss. For me it is like asking a mother to name a favorite child.
So, just among the Sonnars I am at a loss. For me it is like asking a mother to name a favorite child.
Hilmersen
Established
For me it would be summilux 50 1.4 (APSH FLE??)- the version before close focus...
The konica m-hexanon 50 would be first runner up.
The konica m-hexanon 50 would be first runner up.
besk
Well-known
Voigtlander 50 2.5 Color-Skopar. Of the lenses I own it is he most versatile.
hap
Well-known
for me...it's the lens I am coveting but haven't bought. that would be CV 50mm 3.5 apolanthar
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I choose not to choose. My photography is not defined by the qualities of any single lens, or camera.
G
G
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
C'mon, now. This is RFF! How can we get by without gear fetishism? 😉
JohnGellings
Well-known
He meant to say his Pentax 43mm for Leica. 😉
JohnGellings
Well-known
50mm Summarit 2.5
DownUnder
Vamoosed (for a while)
Agree. I sold mine in 2023 after someone made me an irresistible offer for it. Still kicking myself...
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
The only problem with the lens is that you had to use it on the G series. I had two G1's which were great. Like a fool, I traded them for G2's. Endless problems, under warranty, that kept recurring. I ditched the whole system out of frustration.
shawn
Veteran
There are adapters for mirrorless (some with autofocus) and there are also adapters to make it M mount.........
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Put another vote down for the Summar. I bloody love that lens - small, surprisingly sharp, and full of character.
CMur12
Veteran
cboy
Well-known
50 mm summicron v5. Classic for all intents and purposes 😁
Archiver
Veteran
My second one and done lens. Third would be the Elmarit 28 asph. But Distagon 35 is just mmmmwah! (Note: I have not tried any Summilux or Summicron 35s, so I cannot say if any of them would equal my love for the Distagon.)
DownUnder
Vamoosed (for a while)
Sadly, like just about everybody who bought into the G series. At times I've thought the 'G' in the G1 stands for aGgravation...
The G1 and G2 were classic one-trick ponies. In almost everybody's experience those cameras often notoriously malfunctioned even during the warranty period. As good (and they are good) as the G Zeiss lenses are, they don't seem to adapt well to digital use even with an (expensive) adaptors. I know several who went digital with the lenses, all complained about peripheral problems - fringing, odd colors, wayward exposures. it seems the Zeiss Gs were not designed for 21st century digital camera use.
As for the cameras, well, Both my G1s work well but one occasionally won't rewind a film. I've figured out a way to do it by hand, but I need to have a film loading bag with me if my emergency steps fail in the bush or wherever I am. Not an ideal way to go about picture-making.
Recently I lucked into a find for repairing G1s. Someone in Singapore still does them (or at least did mid-2023), but as expected will offer no guarantee on the work, no spare parts being available. Thanks for nothing, Contax.
I still have two G1s and four lenses (21-28-35-90). I could have sold out a few years ago for good money, but instead I opted to dump the one lens I should have kept, the 45. My mistake.
Now and then I unfreeze a couple of rolls of old 35mm film and take a G1 out for an airing. If only to keep it alive and reduce the pile of unloved films in my fridge. I find the images I make with film are much like those I do with digital, but at higher cost when I factor in film processing and scanning. My G1s are now so old, inevitably I worry about if and when the camera will cark on me while I'm focusing it at some pretty landscape. Which is all I seem to be using them for these days.
Last edited:
I’ve never had issues with color etc. as you describe with the 45 on digital. I find it a great performer. I had an AF adapter for Sony and it was a pleasure to use.
The 28 being an RF lens with a deep rear element will definitely be a challenge on digital just like other similar non-retrofocus wides.
The 28 being an RF lens with a deep rear element will definitely be a challenge on digital just like other similar non-retrofocus wides.
Similar threads
- Featured
- Article
- Article