Do you mix and match your lens brands?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I just cannot think this way. I'd rather my photos be matched by content than by lens signature. Most of the people looking at your photos will not notice the relatively subtle differences in lens signature. I do have a few friends that think this way and that's cool. It's just not for me. For me, there are only lenses worth using and ones that aren't.

Exactly.

Cheers,

R.

[ferider]

Originally Posted by MIkhail

I wonder if you could elaborate with examples. I am not quite understanding how can 28mm match the 50mm summicron , and what importance does it have?
Thank you.

I find the 28/1.9 Ultron and 50/2 DR Summicron to have similar resolution (center vs. corner, at similar f-stops), contrast (low to medium, pastell colors depending on film, of course) and distortion (meaning very little) behavior. I pick the pair in particular for landscapes, and don't have to think much of different needs wrt exposure, film choice, color filters, etc. For color landscapes, the match is even more important than for B+W, for me. Whoever looks at my photos might not notice or care - but it's part of the "fun factor" for me.

I can very much understand why people don't care for subtle differences such as this. Then again, if you don't, spending > 300 US on a lens is probably overkill. Or using vintage lenses in the first place. Etc.

My 2 cents,

Roland.

[BillBingham2]

Having had so many different kits it's hard to say. My last kit was a mix of Nikkor (105 & 50) and CV (24). The CV was because of my LUST for the 25/4. Never had the cash for the Nikkor 25 and didn't want to change to a 21 or 28, the 25, at least to me is that good.

I started back into RF before that with a pure leica kit (21, 35, 90). Had pure CV kits, older leica (35/3.5 & 90/4) and a few others. While I have not had as many kits as Joe, I still had too many, though each was fun. I loved traveling with an M4-P and the old leica glass kit. Simple, clean and surpisingly flexible.

I still think you find the lens that paints light the way you like. Be it CV, Nikkor, Leica, ZM or what ever and build from there. For me it was the CV 25/4 at the wide end and the Nikkor 105/2.5. My Nikkor 50/1.4 fit very well in the center and a CV 15mm at the other end.

It takes some time and some cash to change, but if you do it right it's not a lot.

[back alley]

i found the zm lens line to be the most consistent grouping of lenses re. character and contrast etc...but i doubt that i could pick one out of a crowd.

[Captain]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I just cannot think this way. I'd rather my photos be matched by content than by lens signature. Most of the people looking at your photos will not notice the relatively subtle differences in lens signature. I do have a few friends that think this way and that's cool. It's just not for me. For me, there are only lenses worth using and ones that aren't.

Im spray painting my car at the moment for the first time and everyone says it looks fine but I can see the subtle blemishes in the paint that they do not but will fix them because I want to do the job for myself as I want to do it right and feel I have accomplished something. I think most here could say the same for their photography they dont directly do it all for others. We see that subtle difference in our photos too it guides us to certain lens choices. If we all bought a lens that could technically do the job, Voigtlander would get all the business and Zeiss get nothing. How many threads have there been about those seeking that Sonnar look or comparisons with the classic look of Mandler designed lenses over their modern ASPH counterparts. I remember one thread here that had 34 pages about the virtues of the 21mm f3.4 SA over the 21mm Biogon- C f4.5 a lens technically the best 21mm lens out there. One could argue most others wouldnt see slight differences in film types either but all film users have their preferences. Then there are the Bokeh lovers who make their choice of lenses on the subtle out of focus character of their lenses.

So The question about that Cuckoo in the nest is it an integrated success or failure is a valid one. I had a set of Mandler Leica lenses all with 39mm filters and got the Voigtlander 21mm to match. technically it was a great lens, probably better than the old 70's Leica lenses but there was just something about the images that stood out to me personally (although as you say no one else would) . The only word I can use would be the images were 'stark". I ended up selling the Voigtlander and got an Elmarit 21 but had to forgo the 39mm filter. I have recently posted a thread on another forum looking for another replacement however, I just cant justify the most expensive lens I have only used for a small percentage of shots. So I asked about the 21mm F4 R SA which only costs half as much and i could get more use from it using it on both M and Rs to help pay its way but still retain that Mandler look I like from my other lenses. It doesnt get a favourable feedback though so still making a decision on that one. So I really do think more rangefinder users than not consider those subtle character traits in their selection and if it will blend in with their kits. Some only Leica will do, others only Zeiss others have success with pairing up brands, other maybe just dont notice so it doesnt bother them ( I wish I was in that camp things would be easier!) . Sorry for the long response It was hard to all put into written words.

[rbsinto]

I've got manual focus SLR lenses by Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, & Vivitar, and Rangefinder lenses by Nikon, and Voigtlander, and use them based on their focal length and application, rather than by brand or characteristics.
Neither my photography nor my photographs are so sophisticated that I worry about such things.

[one90guy]

For my Nikon FG my main lens is a Vivitar 38mm 2.8 which I am most pleased with. Also a very old Nikon 28mm 3.5, looks like crap but has great glass with smooth focus and crisp F stop setting.