DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
VM Nokton Classic 40mm/1.4 (I have the multicoated version)
It was the first Leica M-mount lens I bought, and still one of my most used lenses. It's a versatile focal length, very compact, great in available light and I like how you can get either a slightly soft look at f1.4 or sharper at smaller apertures.
Untitled by Bryan Costin, on Flickr
Yellow Solo Cups by Bryan Costin, on Flickr
by Bryan Costin, on Flickr
A good lens. Also pleasing images. Kudos!
This photo speaks many things, albeit silently. Note the distance between the two cocktails. denoting the drinkers are friends and not intimately involved. Or this is a business 'situation'. Or as is most probable, the lady is a model. Either way, pleasant. The warm tones give the overall atmosphere something - sexual?
Also the glasses at the far end of the table. A fine party and/or a good drinking session to follow.
On a more serious vein, were I to be doomed to only one lens in life, the 40 would surely suit me. As long as my two feet will allow me to move into wide angle or telephoto distances. So a fine choice. In everything.
Last edited:
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Better yet, just learn to say the word "yes" in any language. Often as not it will get you everything you want (not to forget or overlook a lot of trouble if you aren't careful.)
Last edited:
Roastchestnuts
Established
I could settle for the nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 S mount as my only lens. I have captured so many important memories with that lens. its cheap too and pretty comparable to the 35mm summaron f2.8. I have an amadeo adapter and I use it alot on my m3 and digital ms. (guessing framing with the m3) I use it on my s3 often zone focusing quickly to grab a shot.
I once did a side by side test of the Nikkor vs the Summaron, they were so close I couldn't really tell the difference.
Roastchestnuts
Established
I have owned the goggled summaron f2.8 and it was fantastic but at like 1/4 the price this 3.5cm nikkor is pretty amazing. Longer focus throw on the nikkor (I beleive) but the goggled summaron f2.8 does focus alot closer. I have an easier time zone focusing the 3.5cm nikkor too. For whatever reason I always enjoyed using the nikon more. its even weird on the leica adapted with an amadeo adapter because the focus direction is reversed. I shot the photos below with the nikkor and my leica m8.2. first one was zone focused. even though I missed focus (might be more low shutter speed) I sitll love that photo.I once did a side by side test of the Nikkor vs the Summaron, they were so close I couldn't really tell the difference.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Very, very nice photo, Eric! I'd like to see more shots done with the Amotal; I'm wanting to increase my understanding of the subtleties in the signatures of some of the great lenses. Though I feel it takes more than a great lens to make a great photo like this one.
38Deardorff
Well-known
"One lens?"..... I've likely taken more photos with the 35mm than anything else. I've had and highly regard the Elmar 3.5cm, Summaron 2.8, many Summicrons & a Summilux..... not to mention various Pentax, Nikkor....
One lens.... i'd go w the new Steel rim Summilux.
One lens.... i'd go w the new Steel rim Summilux.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
That’s easy. 28mm. This focal length can do anything. It’s wide but not too wide so corners get weird if you don’t level it well enough or huge noses in environmental portraits. It’s wide enough to zone focus easily for street. F/5.6 @ 3 meters is my sweet spot. With practice it is not hard to zone at f2.8. A 28 on 1.3x and 1.5x cropped sensors are very much usable. On cameras with auto perspective a 28mm is a competent lens for buildings. I have the 28mm Summicron Asph v1 and it’s a fine performer. The Q2M is pretty a grail camera.
Tom R
Established
Over the last nearly 40 years, I used a 35mm Summicron for the vast majority of the photographs I’ve made (I own 28, 35, 50, and 90mm lenses that I use on several M bodies). A few years ago, I picked up a 35mm Summaron 2.8 as a “spare” and have been pretty happy with it. If I could use only one, however, t would be the Summicron for a number of reasons, size, weight, … .
Ljós
Well-known
The setup I had at one point and miss the most is Leica M2 with a nice Summaron 35mm f2.8 (plain, no goggles). Obviously a liiiiiiiiiittle bit more speed would have been useful at times, but you can get a lot done with 400 speed film, f2.8 and a rangefinder, strictly talking low light here. It was such a solid, small, unobtrusive package. So that would be my answer: 35mm Summaron 2.8.
pixelated
Established
My favorite 35mm of what I own is the under water Nikkor from my Nikonos, but it doesn’t technically qualify as a rangefinder, I guess. Otherwise, my taste usually goes to the long side, so for rangefinder and film compatibility, it would be my 90mm Elmar.
The Nikkor 35/2.5 in the Nikonos is the same optic as the Nikon S and LTM rangefinder versions, if I'm not mistaken.
s_zemliakov
Member
For a few years, I used the Summaron 3.5 LTM and really enjoyed the classic rendering it gave, both in bw and color. About two years ago, I came across a well-used Minolta CLE paired with the Rokkor 40mm, and since then, I’ve almost entirely shifted to that focal length. I find the 40mm to be a great balance between 35mm and 50mm, it allows for more 'specific' framing without feeling too tight. It’s also much quicker to focus, and the f2 is a big plus.
Sasha Zemliakov, su Flickr
Sasha Zemliakov, su Flickr
dexdog
Veteran
I have been putting off commenting on this thread, but given that I prefer a 35 to a 50, I would go with the 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM. Sonnars are lovely, but unfortunately are 50s.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
For the one lens forever question: I’m going to say 50mm Summilux v3 11868.
It has a more balanced performance than the new ‘classic’ v4 11714 which I’ve been using a lot lately.
The v4 gained resolution in the centre, and smoother background bokeh, but foreground bokeh and corner detail have been compromised.
Over time I fell out with the ASPH v1 focus mechanics.
Second choice is the Voigtländer 40/1.2 ( a smooth all rounder ), and third the 35mm Summilux ASPH 11874 pre-FLE ( loses points for flare handling ).
It has a more balanced performance than the new ‘classic’ v4 11714 which I’ve been using a lot lately.
The v4 gained resolution in the centre, and smoother background bokeh, but foreground bokeh and corner detail have been compromised.
Over time I fell out with the ASPH v1 focus mechanics.
Second choice is the Voigtländer 40/1.2 ( a smooth all rounder ), and third the 35mm Summilux ASPH 11874 pre-FLE ( loses points for flare handling ).
Photar
Established
Currently, my Voigtlander Nokton Vintage Line 28mm f/1.5 Aspherical Type II VM lens (in black paint) gets lots of action.
(shot with Leica CL and Leitz Focotar-2 4.5/50mm enlarger lens at 5.6)
(shot with Leica CL and Leitz Focotar-2 4.5/50mm enlarger lens at 5.6)
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Who is your favorite child? Who is your favorite friend? What is your favorite lens? Each lens has its own qualities that make it special. But like Animal Farm where, "All Animals are Equal, But some Animals are More Equal than Others." I'd have to go for the XCD 55V which equates to a 35mm 43mm lens. It sees the world beautifully. I have put other non HB lenses on the X2D but the non-HB lenses do not have that subtle magic. So if I had to choose just one, this would be it.
Krosya
Konicaze
There are a lot of lenses i like, in different mounts and brands. But if it has to be a rangefinder, one I really like is - Summitar. I have "better" and more expensive lenses, but Summitar is rather special.
F456
Established
I agree with Godfrey but I'm going to have a go at this anyway...
For a very long time my late production Summilux-M 35/1.4 with the circular unscrewable hood for Series VII filters was the lens that could do almost everything for me — almost all my pictures were of people, not usually for sport but still in fluid / active situations. The fact it was a wide-angle (a very moderate one) meant that I could shoot at riskier low speeds and include more informative background than I could ever manage successfully on my next longer lenses. And I loved the look on colour transparency or prints and on b&w. The widest apertures were more aberrant, especially the coma, but not the cause of failed or unattractively represented subject matter.
In recent years, I have shot more with a 50 (also Summilux-M) and like the calmer feel of images taken with this focal length. I wonder if this is age-related. I noticed that Roger Hicks in his writings had always sworn by the 35mm Summilux, which was what led me to Leica and to that lens, but in his later years he seemed to spend more time with a Zeiss C-Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 and even for a time a Noctilux f/1.
Back to the question: I'd better answer it! I'm going to go now for the 50mm Summilux-M (v2, with the slim-line 43mm filters and detachable hood) but won't pretend I can use it for all the same subject matter as the 35. To me they are not so close as to be interchangeable. The image area of the 50mm if I am correct is about half that of the 35. But the switch would be an invigorating opportunity to experience some novelty or at least more practice with this classic focal length, which I think would repay some patience on my part. This is all on film, by the way.
For a very long time my late production Summilux-M 35/1.4 with the circular unscrewable hood for Series VII filters was the lens that could do almost everything for me — almost all my pictures were of people, not usually for sport but still in fluid / active situations. The fact it was a wide-angle (a very moderate one) meant that I could shoot at riskier low speeds and include more informative background than I could ever manage successfully on my next longer lenses. And I loved the look on colour transparency or prints and on b&w. The widest apertures were more aberrant, especially the coma, but not the cause of failed or unattractively represented subject matter.
In recent years, I have shot more with a 50 (also Summilux-M) and like the calmer feel of images taken with this focal length. I wonder if this is age-related. I noticed that Roger Hicks in his writings had always sworn by the 35mm Summilux, which was what led me to Leica and to that lens, but in his later years he seemed to spend more time with a Zeiss C-Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 and even for a time a Noctilux f/1.
Back to the question: I'd better answer it! I'm going to go now for the 50mm Summilux-M (v2, with the slim-line 43mm filters and detachable hood) but won't pretend I can use it for all the same subject matter as the 35. To me they are not so close as to be interchangeable. The image area of the 50mm if I am correct is about half that of the 35. But the switch would be an invigorating opportunity to experience some novelty or at least more practice with this classic focal length, which I think would repay some patience on my part. This is all on film, by the way.
steveyork
Well-known
For me if would be something like a pre-aspherical Summilux, in 35mm of course. It's like having two lenses in one -- stopped down vs wide open. Limited to only one lens the rest of your career, you would want the variety. Or one of the early Summicrons, like an 8 element, and travel a lot for variety.