Al Kaplan
Mentor
Yes, lenses have different "looks" to the pictures they produce. If you're making photographs as a hobby you can often pick the one that suits the subject, but in a fast paced news situation that ain't gonna happen. My main money maker was always the 35 and over the years, just for Leica mount, I've had an f/2.8 Schneider Xenogon, an f/1.8 Canon first version, an f/1.4 Summilux first version, an 8 element f/2 Summicron as well as the newer 7 element Summicron. The 7 element is the only one I have now. Sometimes I miss the signatiure of the 8 element Summicron or the flaring softness of the Summilux.
The best 90 I had, both for sharpness and for signature, was the 3 element Elmar. I still have an f/2.8 Elmarit mostly because it'll take 39mm filters. Otherwise I put on my 85mm f/2 Nikkor. I like the photos better!
The best 90 I had, both for sharpness and for signature, was the 3 element Elmar. I still have an f/2.8 Elmarit mostly because it'll take 39mm filters. Otherwise I put on my 85mm f/2 Nikkor. I like the photos better!
Rico
Well-known
Greetings, Al! The 3E Elmar is one of my favorite lenses, period. And speaking of mixing the brands...Al Kaplan said:
Still unusual is mounting Leica M to an SLR (as shown above), probably because of the arcane adapters and tubes required. I'm definitely psych'ed about the digital applications of Visoflex, and the price is right. Build quality of this classic system is awe-inspiring.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
No red, not even a single dot ...
No red, not even a single dot ...
lots of blue dots, though. i fell in love with Zeiss ZM lenses not long after falling in love with RF photography. find it much easier to use lenses that all have the same feel. love the handling and look of ZM lenses. always wondered though why they are not called Cosina Zeiss?
I have a few from other makers (currently Konica, Nikon, Komura, CV), too.
All manufactured in Japan, come to think of it.
Mostly all modern lenses, svae for one Nikkor.
Only thing I don't have are any Leica lenses.
Nothing from Leica at all for that matter. Zero. Nada.
But if I could, I would nab a 75/2 summicron. wa-ha-ha! but instead i'll get another CV 75 one day. the only CV lens i really miss so far.
oops, come to think of it there's a red dot on my konica lens! better staunch this now!
No red, not even a single dot ...
lots of blue dots, though. i fell in love with Zeiss ZM lenses not long after falling in love with RF photography. find it much easier to use lenses that all have the same feel. love the handling and look of ZM lenses. always wondered though why they are not called Cosina Zeiss?
I have a few from other makers (currently Konica, Nikon, Komura, CV), too.
All manufactured in Japan, come to think of it.
Mostly all modern lenses, svae for one Nikkor.
Only thing I don't have are any Leica lenses.
Nothing from Leica at all for that matter.
Zero. Nada. But if I could, I would nab a 75/2 summicron. wa-ha-ha! but instead i'll get another CV 75 one day. the only CV lens i really miss so far.
oops, come to think of it there's a red dot on my konica lens!
better staunch this now!
Last edited:
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
I must be in the minority here because when I go out to shoot I dont like to mix and match lenses if I can avoid it. But in the same respect I own a number of different brands. I just have a few small sets. So when I am using the 40mm Summicron I use the Leica 28 and 90 on my CLE. When I use the Minolta CLE Rokkor I take the 28 and 90mm Rokkors. When I use the Voigtlander 40 I use their compact 28mm with it. I have the Sonnar 40 but haven't built a kit around that one yet. So yes I do like continuity between a few lenses when I shoot. One exception is when I know I will have the need for filters then I mix a bit choosing those lenses with 39mm threads.
Spyderman
Well-known
For rangefinders I usually buy what I can afford (i.e. FSU lenses in LTM).
But in SLR world I have completely different priorities. I've got an OM-4Ti to shoot mostly slides (or is it 'chromes'?). With slides it's very important to keep the same contrast. Even with Zuikos, the SC vs. MC lenses differ in contrast greatly (in a slideshow it's obvious), and therefore I try to stick only to MC lenses.
But in SLR world I have completely different priorities. I've got an OM-4Ti to shoot mostly slides (or is it 'chromes'?). With slides it's very important to keep the same contrast. Even with Zuikos, the SC vs. MC lenses differ in contrast greatly (in a slideshow it's obvious), and therefore I try to stick only to MC lenses.
pvdhaar
Peter
I certainly don't mix and match brands of lenses. Nothing screams 'amateur' more than doing something cheap as that. Come on, be honest, noone will take you seriously!
And what's more, off-brand lenses have inferior metal in their bayonets, which means real nasty scratches on the mount that harm your best lenses again. You can argue all you like, but I've seen that happen cause I compared 100% crops of brick wall shots!
And what's more, off-brand lenses have inferior metal in their bayonets, which means real nasty scratches on the mount that harm your best lenses again. You can argue all you like, but I've seen that happen cause I compared 100% crops of brick wall shots!
Al Kaplan
Mentor
Peter, if you're worried about scratches on your lens mount the solution is very simple. Put each lens on its own body and leave it there. I'm more cocerned with getting photos than in preserving the pristine finish of my mostly 1950's through early 1970's vintage Leica bodies, and they were bought second hand already a bit beat up. Scratches and brass showing through the chrome on the edges. They're tools, not toys.
When I got into photography back in the early 60's we WANTED our cameras to look well used. It showed (or at least we thought it did in our youthful enthusiasm) that we were serious photographers, not Sunday Shooters.
As for lenses, back in the days when color meant 'chromes I had a jillion warming and cooling filters plus the FL-D flourescent light filter. It made sense to dump my Canon lenses that used 40mm filters and the Nikkors that used 40.5mm filters for a set of Leitz lenses that all used 39mm filters. I really missed my 85mm f/2 Nikkor and my 19mm Canon was stolen. I still have a 90/2.8 Elmarit but I managed to find another 85/2 Nikkor, heavy but as sharp as all but the latest aspheric 90mm 'cron. Today, shooting color negative instead of 'chromes I rarely need filters. My absolut favorite optic is the 15mm Voitlander Heliar. That is a fantastic and fun lens, and it sits just about glued on one camera body all the time. The front edge is now "polished" aluminum, the black long ago worn away. I carry that camera everyplace, a constant companion. The strangest thing though is that I was cleaning the front element so often that I was afraid I'd scratch it. I stopped cleaning it over a year ago. It's filthy, greasy, dusty, unscratched of course, and I can't see any difference in the photos!
Pretend that noplace on your lenses does it say who made it. Choose them on whether or not you get the results you seek. But I still miss that 3 element Elmar.
When I got into photography back in the early 60's we WANTED our cameras to look well used. It showed (or at least we thought it did in our youthful enthusiasm) that we were serious photographers, not Sunday Shooters.
As for lenses, back in the days when color meant 'chromes I had a jillion warming and cooling filters plus the FL-D flourescent light filter. It made sense to dump my Canon lenses that used 40mm filters and the Nikkors that used 40.5mm filters for a set of Leitz lenses that all used 39mm filters. I really missed my 85mm f/2 Nikkor and my 19mm Canon was stolen. I still have a 90/2.8 Elmarit but I managed to find another 85/2 Nikkor, heavy but as sharp as all but the latest aspheric 90mm 'cron. Today, shooting color negative instead of 'chromes I rarely need filters. My absolut favorite optic is the 15mm Voitlander Heliar. That is a fantastic and fun lens, and it sits just about glued on one camera body all the time. The front edge is now "polished" aluminum, the black long ago worn away. I carry that camera everyplace, a constant companion. The strangest thing though is that I was cleaning the front element so often that I was afraid I'd scratch it. I stopped cleaning it over a year ago. It's filthy, greasy, dusty, unscratched of course, and I can't see any difference in the photos!
Pretend that noplace on your lenses does it say who made it. Choose them on whether or not you get the results you seek. But I still miss that 3 element Elmar.
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
My statement was in jest of course..
Of course, Peter, I take your comment with the humor it was offered. No one wishes to be seen as a wanker...
I'm just indecisive, with alternating CV, Zeiss, and Leica glass along the focal length trail, sometimes duplicating, maybe with a different max aperture. So I could be consistent in packing only Zeiss for instance on a trip (so the other tourists won't sneer at me.)
No one wishes to be seen as a wanker...I'm just indecisive, with alternating CV, Zeiss, and Leica glass along the focal length trail, sometimes duplicating, maybe with a different max aperture. So I could be consistent in packing only Zeiss for instance on a trip (so the other tourists won't sneer at me.)
peter_n
Mentor
I used to have CV, Nikon, Konica, FSU, and Leica lenses. But five years into RF use I'm now almost completely Leica, that after a lot of experimentation. I break it down by signature rather than brand, so I have a small set of lenses that give me a vintage look, and another small set that are modern ASPH.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
Oh yes. Love it. Leica, Zeiss, C/V, Nikon, a converted Contax 45/2 G lens, Canon ltm, Pentax in ltm, Konica, Unkranian odd-ball -- variety is the spice of life!
Ben
Ben
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Summiluxes have different character than Summicrons. Which are different than Elmars, which are different from Elmarits. Not to mention the variation from era to era and version to version. Where's the consistency within Leica?
If the Nokton 50/1.5 said Leica on it, one might think it was a modern Summitar. If the CV 35/2.5 said Summaron on it, it would just be an evolutionary step of an old Leica classic.
A Leica Elmar is a Tessar formulation. Zeiss is well known for its Tessars.
People have always opined that the Konica 35/2 was "based on a Summicron formulation" or was a direct copy of a Summicron.
It goes on and on. There's no reason not to use whatever you want. If you require one, single, homogenous 'signature,' you'd have to stick to one lens.
If the Nokton 50/1.5 said Leica on it, one might think it was a modern Summitar. If the CV 35/2.5 said Summaron on it, it would just be an evolutionary step of an old Leica classic.
A Leica Elmar is a Tessar formulation. Zeiss is well known for its Tessars.
People have always opined that the Konica 35/2 was "based on a Summicron formulation" or was a direct copy of a Summicron.
It goes on and on. There's no reason not to use whatever you want. If you require one, single, homogenous 'signature,' you'd have to stick to one lens.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
A bunch of Nikon glass along with some (3) Tamron zooms and a Vivitar Series 1, 135mm 2.3 (Nikon mount)...
benmacphoto
Well-known
On my Leica I mix a bit, Nikon Schneider Voigtlander Leica. With my Nikon however I only use Nikon lenses.
Thardy
Mentor
On My RF kit I have, Leica, Industar and a couple of CV. Yeah, it's a blended family.
I would like to add a CV 50 f/1.5.
I would like to add a CV 50 f/1.5.
Bingley
Mentor
I mix and match, like a lot of others. When there are so many intriguing lenses to try, why not? Right now, my 50s are Canon and Leitz (Elmar), the wides are CV, and the tele is Canon. Who knows what the combination will be in a year, or even six months?
hans voralberg
Mentor
Any lens I can afford =) Canon, Nikon, Leica, CV, FSU. For DSLR there's Tamron, Tokina, CZ etc
tyrone.s
Well-known
I mix any brand so long as they silver coloured. I mean, after all ...
All of my new lenses have been CV's: 15/4.5, 35/1.7 & the 50/2. I must admit that there's been some 'collectoritivity' about that - getting a nice matching set and all. But I'm also happy to use my old Elmar 3.5/50 and Fed 3.5/50 and Jupiter 50/2 on whatever body I'm running with at the moment. Although I did cross over to the dark side with a black rigid Industar 3.5/50 the other day. Has a few traces of fungus so I guess I got what I deserved
All of my new lenses have been CV's: 15/4.5, 35/1.7 & the 50/2. I must admit that there's been some 'collectoritivity' about that - getting a nice matching set and all. But I'm also happy to use my old Elmar 3.5/50 and Fed 3.5/50 and Jupiter 50/2 on whatever body I'm running with at the moment. Although I did cross over to the dark side with a black rigid Industar 3.5/50 the other day. Has a few traces of fungus so I guess I got what I deserved
Ronald M
Mentor
I got a 12 & 15 CV from the CV rep doing a demo a Central Camera in Chicago. I tried the lenses, went home to develope the film, called the store and said I want those exact lenses. I got them.
Later I got a 24 because I wanted a smaller kit than 21 & 28 Leicas for travel.
Other than that, they are all Leica glass from 3.5 uncoated elmars to the latest 50 2.8 and 90 4.0 . BTW, those last two are killer lens if you don`t need speed.
Been buying Nikon glass lately for a D700. Amazing digi cam if you like that sort of thing.
Later I got a 24 because I wanted a smaller kit than 21 & 28 Leicas for travel.
Other than that, they are all Leica glass from 3.5 uncoated elmars to the latest 50 2.8 and 90 4.0 . BTW, those last two are killer lens if you don`t need speed.
Been buying Nikon glass lately for a D700. Amazing digi cam if you like that sort of thing.