You can only choose one lens…

[Erik van Straten]

It would be my 1959 black paint Summilux 50mm f1.4 No.1703XXXX on my 1958 black paint Leica M2 button rewind. On the lens my black paint cylindric Nikkor 50mm rangefinder shade from the same period.


This would be a result with this set. Lens wide open.

Carla, 2024

gelatin silver print (summilux 50mm f1.4 v1) leica m2

 

[Dogman]

I haven't owned a rangefinder in years. But I do have a number of Leica mount lenses adapted for Nikon Z and Fuji XF cameras. I mainly use the Nikon these days. If I had to give up every lens but one the one I would keep would be the Zeiss Biogon 35/2 ZM. It's not the sharpest and it's not the most characterful lens I own. But it's sharp enough, the Zeiss look is there and the 35mm focal length works for just about anything for me. 'Course I could say the same thing about the 50mm but I won't.

 

[Mark240590]

Well, you know… this question has me wondering where my allegiance lies As a Soviet cameras/lens collector and shooter.

Because I think if I could only keep one it would probably be the Canon 35mm f1.8

I love its vintage rendering, it’s got decent low light capability and wide enough.

That being said it would be a really tough fight n my mind when I’d whittled it down to the last 2 (the other being my Jupiter 3) my mind could simply be changed by my Nissan potentially causing me bother that day and pettiness taking over 🤣

 

[Pioneer]

It has been my Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 for a long time now. However, the Voigtlander Heliar 50/3.5 lens has lately become one of my favorites so the Biogon may have a run for its money if I had to make the choice right now.

 

[mfunnell]

It's probably 20 years since I shot with the Contax G series, but that 45mm was probably the most amazing lens I've ever had on a 35mm camera, bar none. I'm still astonished when I look at images I made with that lens!

About 18 months ago, I bought that lens converted to M-Mount (from a forum member). I've not regretted it 😃


...Mike

 

[splitimageview]

The 45/2 Planar is truly a gem.

 

[mfunnell]

I was day dreaming on a recent bike ride, and for some reason or another this thought crossed my mind:

Strictly speaking of rangefinder lenses (including lenses permanently affixed to RF cameras.) Not mirrorless, not SLR or DSLR, only glass for RF cameras qualifies. (Contax G is considered an RF for this exercise.)

You can only choose one lens for the rest of your photographic life.

Which single lens would be your choice?

There are so many contenders, just among lenses I have. Some I'd be tempted to select would include a collapsible Summicron 50mm/f2, an M-Hexanon 50mm/f2, a Canon 50mm/f1.4 (LTM), a ZM C-Sonnar 50mm/f1.5, a converted G-Planar 45mm/f2, a UC Hexanon 35mm/f2, an M-Hexanon 28mm/f2.8...

However, the one I'd end up picking would be the Elmar-M 50mm/f2.8 - which renders (IMO) very nicely indeed and makes for a compact package when collapsed with hood off. Making it easy to pack/carry often means it's what I have with me - and having it there means I can take photos with it 😃


...Mike

 

[Archiver]

It has been my Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 for a long time now. However, the Voigtlander Heliar 50/3.5 lens has lately become one of my favorites so the Biogon may have a run for its money if I had to make the choice right now.

Which version of the Heliar do you have? I had the nickel collapsible limited version, and while I loved the rendering, I didn't use it that much because of the smaller aperture. The collapsible Heliar had the most 'round' organic rendering I'd seen in a modern M mount lens, without the glowy swirlys.

 

[luuca]

summicron 35 f2 Asph, hands down.

 

[Godfrey]

Do I pick the exquisite Summilux 35/1.4 v2 for it's light weight, small size, beautiful imaging? or the breathtaking Summaron-M 28/5.6 for its superb crisp yet classic look (and the small size, light weight)? Or the steadfast, tried and true Summicron-M 50/2, or Heliar Classic 50/1.5 VM with its unique imaging qualities, or Color-Skopar 50/2.5, or truly vintage and classic Elmar 5.0cm/3.5? How about the outstanding Color-Skopar 28/3.5, or the unique and superlative Pentax-L 43/1.9 Special? Or ... or ... or...?

No, I won't choose any "one lens forever." I've made about equal numbers of extremely satisfying photos with all of my lenses, which is why I have them. In general, a 35 or 50 or 28 are what sit on the camera most of the time, but which one—and which camera—is a big variable. I choose not to limit my thinking by saying "this one is best".

G

 

[Joerg]

Voigtländer Nikotin 75/1.5
Or
Zeiss Sonnar 85/1.5
Or
Leica Summicron 90/2

 

[wlewisiii]

Do I pick the exquisite Summilux 35/1.4 v2 for it's light weight, small size, beautiful imaging? or the breathtaking Summaron-M 28/5.6 for its superb crisp yet classic look (and the small size, light weight)? Or the steadfast, tried and true Summicron-M 50/2, or Heliar Classic 50/1.5 VM with its unique imaging qualities, or Color-Skopar 50/2.5, or truly vintage and classic Elmar 5.0cm/3.5? How about the outstanding Color-Skopar 28/3.5, or the unique and superlative Pentax-L 43/1.9 Special? Or ... or ... or...?

No, I won't choose any "one lens forever." I've made about equal numbers of extremely satisfying photos with all of my lenses, which is why I have them. In general, a 35 or 50 or 28 are what sit on the camera most of the time, but which one—and which camera—is a big variable. I choose not to limit my thinking by saying "this one is best".

G

There is no best lens really. But for me the fun is in thinking about the compromises that go into making images. Every lens is a little bit of this, a little bit of that.

I prefer the FOV of a normal lens.

So on FF/35mm I'll want a 50mm or on my APS-C a 35mm lens.

Then we can consider the look and it's many varied compromises. I won't go into the long list of back and forth that can be argued, we all know them in our hearts. Suffice to say I know what I like to see after 41 years since I bought my first SLR for myself and usually it's based on something Zeiss had a hand in developing, often before they got around to those new fangled coatings 😉 Tessar, Sonnar, Planar (though it _needed_ those coatings!) 🤣

Your mileage will, obviously, vary 😀

 

[1936ContaxII]

Probably I'd go with the 1937 uncoated Zeiss collapsible 50/2 Sonnar. It's got it's quirks but it's so much fun. I could easily live with it.

😎👍
Funny, my choice would be exactly the same lens (even same year, 1937 😉 )...

 

[wlewisiii]

😎👍
Funny, my choice would be exactly the same lens (even same year, 1937 😉 )...

View attachment 4853603

View attachment 4853604

It's not perfect but that's not what I want. I want what that lens gives me. Sometimes it's a gift and sometimes it's a slap in the face 🤣

But when it works, and even sometimes when it doesn't, it is just magical.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

It's not perfect but that's not what I want. I want what that lens gives me. Sometimes it's a gift and sometimes it's a slap in the face 🤣

But when it works, and even sometimes when it doesn't, it is just magical.

Yeah. I've been in relationships like that...

 

[wlewisiii]

I had to think if I wanted the Heart or the Laugh on that one 😀

 

[splitimageview]

This is meant as just a hypothetical fun exercise, pretty everyone here has multiple favorite lens options. It’s not about defining the “best”, either, as there really is no way to define such a lens across broad ranges of focal lengths.

What makes things interesting is the wide variation in responses. Some are choosing 80+ year old uncoated glass with minimal element count and others are choosing modern computer-assisted high-speed designs with modern coatings with high contrast and resolution. This is why I restricted the scenario just to RF glass since there are nearing 100 years of potential options.

There are no wrong answers. 🙂

 

[Pioneer]

Which version of the Heliar do you have? I had the nickel collapsible limited version, and while I loved the rendering, I didn't use it that much because of the smaller aperture. The collapsible Heliar had the most 'round' organic rendering I'd seen in a modern M mount lens, without the glowy swirlys.

I have the nickel collapsible version and it is a wonderful lens. The smaller aperture can be an issue sometimes so I have to be aware of the light when I use it. But most times with EI400 film it works out well for me. And there is always monopods and/or flash if I need.

 

[wlewisiii]

I have the nickel collapsible version and it is a wonderful lens. The smaller aperture can be an issue sometimes so I have to be aware of the light when I use it. But most times with EI400 film it works out well for me. And there is always monopods and/or flash if I need.

Yup! When I'm in Tessar mood, I'm in full agreement with you. A 50/3.5 Tessar is an exquisite lens and there is a reason Zeiss used to call it the "Eagle Eye" in their advertising copy 😉

 

[ocmex]

ZEISS Biogon T* 2/35 ZM