If you can only have 1 lens

One lens forever, in realistic financial terms? There are lots of choices. For me it would be a 50mm. Which one would be based upon my budget. $500? probably an old Summicron. $300? I'd look for a Canon lens, or maybe an old Elmar, Summar or something. $50? Research a good FSU lens. There are loads of choices in LTM lenses; buy M adapters. Speed costs, and the better it performs the more it costs, so keep that in mind budget-wise.

No matter what you get, you might or might not see differences in performance, many of which depend upon your technique. If you perform the same-f-stop-16x20-prints test you describe- and use a tripod, a cable release, and, say, f5.6 for each shot, you will see differences; I doubt how much useful information this would yield.

In real-world (hand-held?) shooting most lenses when used carefully or appropriately will give you pretty good results. Buy the best you can afford, giving yourself a reasonable budget which your conscience can still approve. Don't forget the film.
 
Last edited:
Jamie Pillers said:
If there's such evidence, please point to the website. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Jamie, it's kinda like asking is there evidence that a rangefinder will give you a better photo than an SLR? Like with golf clubs, sample variation can be higher on cheaper clubs, but as long as the head doesn't fly off, someone with skill could use it. Some of the modern very expensive drivers look like the tin from an entire canned ham with super gravity force and what not. I can hook that s.o.b out of bounds just like I can take crappy photos with a Noctilux. There are differences between clubs and lenses, but I think the differences only show up under certain circumstances.

Sorry, back to lenses:
One inexpensive rangefinder lens? I'm with L39UK, Summar.

One inexpensive SLR lens? Pentax 50mm Super Takumar f1:1.4.
 
Response to MikeL

Response to MikeL

MikeL,
I also can take a brand new Callaway driver and hit the "power fade" into the trees with no effort at all. :)

I guess my point is that I've never actually SEEN the differences these lenses can produce... I only hear people TALK about it. If someone could tell me that on average my prints made with a Summicron are going to blow my Nokton prints out of the water, then I start thinking hard about making the sacrifices necessary to buy the Summicron.

I'll raise your golf analogy with a watch analogy, because I thinks its closer to the lens question. A Rolex keeps the same time accuracy as my Timex, at least as far as normal humans can perceive, short of a battery of scientific tests. So why buy a Rolex... it LOOKS beautiful, and its heavier, but it does the same job, right?

And getting to your points... I bet Gary Winogrand would have made outstanding photographs with a nice old Nikon/Nikkor kit. And Tiger can beat the pants off us with a set of K-Mart Specials.

So... do we really need Summicrons to make outstanding photographs... I don't think so. Lets take all that extra cash and give to our schools for our kids instead! :)
Jamie

P.S.: What is that L39 Summar lens you mentioned? And do you know where I can find a good list of descriptions of the different Leica lens models? I think I beginning to see that some, like Summicrons and Summiluxes are defined by there speed. Is that consistent? Thanks.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
MikeL,
I guess my point is that I've never actually SEEN the differences these lenses can produce... I only hear people TALK about it. If someone could tell me that on average my prints made with a Summicron are going to blow my Nokton prints out of the water, then I start thinking hard about making the sacrifices necessary to buy the Summicron.

I'll raise your golf analogy with a watch analogy, because I thinks its closer to the lens question. A Rolex keeps the same time accuracy as my Timex, at least as far as normal humans can perceive, short of a battery of scientific tests. So why buy a Rolex... it LOOKS beautiful, and its heavier, but it does the same job, right?

So... do we really need Summicrons to make outstanding photographs... I don't think so. Lets take all that extra cash and give to our schools for our kids instead! :)
Jamie
Click to expand...



Keep this attitude and go shoot with what you've got, stay away from this place and you'll do fine. ;)

Todd
 
...and to add to this, why not look for a Canon QL17, Olympus SP, or a similar fixed lens RF? Great cameras and you'll never worry about which lens to take.

Todd
 
If we're talking about a lower price range, I definitely think it would be the Ultron 35/1.7 for me. I've used one on and off (sometimes exclusively) since 2003, and a couple of my best enlarged prints are from that lens. I always found its slip on lens cap convenient as well.
 
with that i have - hands down the summicron 40.

if im buying, probably a fast 35, summilux or something (i dare not research the options too deep just yet!)
 
Jamie Pillers said:
MikeL,
I also can take a brand new Callaway driver and hit the "power fade" into the trees with no effort at all. :)

I guess my point is that I've never actually SEEN the differences these lenses can produce... I only hear people TALK about it. If someone could tell me that on average my prints made with a Summicron are going to blow my Nokton prints out of the water, then I start thinking hard about making the sacrifices necessary to buy the Summicron.

I'll raise your golf analogy with a watch analogy, because I thinks its closer to the lens question. A Rolex keeps the same time accuracy as my Timex, at least as far as normal humans can perceive, short of a battery of scientific tests. So why buy a Rolex... it LOOKS beautiful, and its heavier, but it does the same job, right?

And getting to your points... I bet Gary Winogrand would have made outstanding photographs with a nice old Nikon/Nikkor kit. And Tiger can beat the pants off us with a set of K-Mart Specials.

So... do we really need Summicrons to make outstanding photographs... I don't think so. Lets take all that extra cash and give to our schools for our kids instead! :)
Jamie

P.S.: What is that L39 Summar lens you mentioned? And do you know where I can find a good list of descriptions of the different Leica lens models? I think I beginning to see that some, like Summicrons and Summiluxes are defined by there speed. Is that consistent? Thanks.
Click to expand...


Jamie,

It's never that easy. On one spectrum are people who maintained that *any* modern lens is just as good for them, On the other end, those who swear that they like Summilux or Biogon and won't touch anything else.

You have to find your place in that spectrum. Thanks to sites like this and others, you just have to do an online search to "taste" the lenses. Just like real food tasting, subjectivity is your number one enemy if you're looking for objectivity...

... and taste changes :)
 
Jamie, for a more modern look, the 50 Nokton is great. If you are looking for less contrast and more flare, the Summar runs in the $50-$100 range. It sounds like you are in the bay area, and if you want to borrow a Summar (my everyday lens) and Summicron Rigid, let me know and you can see if you notice any difference.
 
Hacker said:
A 50 Lux ASPH, a very versatile and good all rounder lens.
Click to expand...

With unlimited budget, I'd have that same lens on an M7. With my budget, I picked up a very nice used R3A and a "like new" M-Hexanon 50/2.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
What if you could own only one lens, what would it be?
Click to expand...

A 35mm Summicron ASPH. I love mine, and it's used for at least 75% of my shooting.


And to get even closer to my conundrum, assume it could only be a lens in the price range of the CVs... not those wonderful, but out-of-reach Leicas.
Click to expand...

A 40mm Summicron, no question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top