What's your favorite lens ?

[nickperzik]

my 35 summicron is my absolute favorite ever. the next would have to be the plastic 65 on my holga. so crappy it's beautiful.

[nesrani]

24/2.8 asph and 35/1.4 asph - neither of which I own anymore.

[kevin m.]

Brad and Grant, what gives? You guys are both good photographers and evidently take some pleasure in posting your pics on this forum. If other forum members have different pleasures that you don't share, why not let them have their fun, too?

[nesrani]

They protest a little too much to be really good...

[Brad_]

Kevin, just having a little fun as well - that's all.

[gerald_widen]

A Canon 35/2 on my M2

[tommy_baker]

> Yeah grant, but the OOF areas gotta be creamy smooth, reminiscent of a

fine wine with slight overtones of oak and pinenutz. Will the asph really come

through for me?

 

Nope. The whole ASPH glass line is abrasive and too contrasty except for the

35/1.4 ASPH. You want Pre-ASPH lenses.. but maybe you already knew that

as it sounds like you are goofing around and pulling our chains.

 

HeeeeeeEE HaaaAAW!

[christopher.]

Konica Hex 50/2, the best value out there. I think over time prices on this lens will increase.

[jim_simmons]

> Yeah grant, but the OOF areas gotta be creamy smooth, reminiscent of a fine wine with slight overtones of oak and pinenutz.

 

for the creamy smooth OOF backsides: 40mm Summicron

 

for the pinenuts: 90mm Summicron R with Elpro

 

to tame those harsh oak overtones: 25mm Skopar

[leslie_cheung]

>>>>> The whole ASPH glass line is abrasive and too contrasty

except for the 35/1.4 ASPH.<<<<<

 

 

please explain...

[john_elder1]

The one Grant is using!

[tommy_baker]

Leslie,

 

it is subjective, but I have shot and owned both versions, pre-ASPH and

ASPH and I much prefer the look of the non-ASPH lenses. It comes down to

personal taste, but side by side comparision, i prefer lenses which pick up fine

detail, tonal gradtions and have a smoother character. I find the ASPH lenses

too contrasty and harsh in most instances.

 

take the following:

 

28/2 ASPH vs 28/2.8 (last pre)

 

the 90/2 APO ASPH vs 90/2 (last Pre)

 

the 35/2 ASPH vs 35/2 (pre, 4th V)

 

all of the above ASPH lenses have IMHO much more contrast and tend to

block up mid tones; very sharp and almost clinical lenses. compared to earlier

non-ASPH versions which are more delicate on detail and colour IMO.

 

For instance, you'd be hard pressed to get away with velvia 50 on an 90/2

APO ASPH and get a clean image. You would have to shoot with a less

saturated film like Provia 100F to balance this lens out.

 

The 35/1.4 ASPH however I find to be not as constrasty and harsh. Its a good

lens. The other lens I think is stunning, but I still prefer the pre version is the

90/2 APO ASPH, it is razor sharp and at f2.0 is impressive.

 

Some people like the ASPH lenses, others do not. It comes down to the look

and signature of a lens you like I guess.

 

Have you tried both types of a particular focal length to see the difference?

[sliu]

Pinhole.

[henry_ting2]

Tommy, I agree with everything you said about the asph. I too happen to find the asph lens just- too clinical. It lacks the characteristics of the Leica glow as in the pre-asph. I particularly like the 4th generation pre-asph 35mm Cron which although not as stunningly sharp as the asph version, but the mid-tones and the details is a distinction I find lacking on the asph versions. However, having said all that, the 35 Summilux asph is a bit less clinical and close to the character of the Leica lens. Again in agreement with you that these issues are all personal.

[tommy_baker]

Henry,

 

Yes. Leitz lenses are some of the best for B&W. The Leica glass is great also,

but I find to my liking only the non-ASPH, usually the last version just before

the ASPH lens.

 

:0)

[leslie_cheung]

Tommy,

 

I'm just wondering the exception to your rule the 35mm ASPH

f1.4 I have read many posts saying it is as sharp as the

summicron 35 asph at f2. Now everyone including yourself have

said that the cron asph is too harsh, too technical, disturbing

bokeh etc....so You are saying the lux asph is as sharp as the

cron asph but somehow it have smooth bokeh in addition. How

can the Lux asph differ in this way compared to all the asph?

[leslie_cheung]

...I know it's all subjective but perhaps people are drawing this

conclusion (asph lux is very sharp but somehow not clinical, not

technical etc...) due to 35 lux pre-asph being "a dog" of a lens in

the pre asph line up? How how how are the 90 cron asph, 35

cron asph and 28 cron asph too clinical and harsh while the lux

asph have that classic look AND sharp as hell at the same

time?

 

Hm...Is this the super lens? the sharpness of the asph

combines with the bokeh of the 4th cron:O) or is it just hype?

[pensacolaphoto]

I favor the Summicron 50mm first version lens among my own Leitz lenses. I don't have any new lenses. I am "stuck" with the first generation Summicrons; 35, 50, and 90. The first generation Leitz lenses offer a very nice palet and bokeh that is hard to beat. Oh well, it's just my own preference. I have started to use more often the 40/2 for the CL. It also is fun to use. The 90 Elmar has its advantages for softer looking portraits.

[Allen Herbert]

Yeah grant, but the OOF areas gotta be creamy smooth, reminiscent of a fine wine with slight overtones of oak and pinenutz. Will the asph really come through for me?

 

Obviously your talking about my 1.2 Nockton Voigtlander. Six elements of ASPH glass. Of course it's all a matter of taste.

 

Grant, Vic....loved the wit.<div></div>

[michael_matsil]

For the M: My current favorite is a 40mm Rokkor. You can't argue with it's image quality

and it's my favorite handling M lens of all.....convex edged focus tab, aperture ring knurled

in just the right places...mmmm...sweet to use! Using the 40 while viewing through my

M7's 50mm frame has made my framing quite precise with this lens....who knew?

[tommy_baker]

Leslie,

 

This is from my own observations and my own personal taste.

I said the 35/1.4 ASPH is a good lens. Not 'stunning'. I think it is a technically

good lens and at 1.4 I would say is notches above most lenses at 1.4.

However, that doesn't mean it produces an image that grabs you and you say

'wow'. But of all the ASPH lenses, if I was asked, which lens I would you have,

I would say this lens (and the 90/2 ASPH) for the reasons I have mentioned in

my earlier post.

 

To answer your questions directly, I would say the 1.4 ASPH is more delicate

and sharp in its own way compared to the 35/2.0 ASPH. As to the bokeh, I

would say that it is 'smoother', but not as smooth as say the 90/2 pre-ASPH

lens.

 

>How can the Lux asph differ in this way compared to all the asph?

 

Simple. It is a different lens design to the 35/2.0 ASPH all together. The 35/2.0

ASPH is made of 7 elements of which 1 is aspherical; in 5 groups while the

35/1.4 ASPH V2.0 has 9 elements of which 1 is aspherical in 5 groups. Both

these lenses have completely different optical diagrams. Have you seen this

in Leica lens reference books? Have a look, they are cross sections which

show the stacking and convex, concave lenses in the design.

 

I have to say that I do not consider the 35/1.4 ASPH as having a 'classic' look.

If you want classic, shoot with a 35/2.8 summaron (a totally underated lens

due to its star brother in the Leitz line: the), 35/2.0 8 element, or a 50/2 DR

 

> due to 35 lux pre-asph being "a dog" of a lens in the pre asph line up?

 

there are several versions of the 35/1.4 'PRE' the ASPH lens, of which:

 

1st version in chrome (rare) and black (very rare) OLLUX hood Canada: this

lens is very soft, probably for too many people and has been labled a dog. But

I like this lens for its own look, lots of glow, flaring, vignetting, whatever you

want to call it. But a lot of people would disagree.

 

2nd version in black with infinity lock, 7 series filter, Canada: slightly smaller,

slightly sharper, still has glow, better on the edges

 

3rd version in black without infinity lock, 7 series filter, Canada: IMO slightly

sharper and still glows - nice IMO

 

4th version in black and titanium without infinity lock Leitz/Leica: I havent had

a chance to shoot with this lens, its still waiting when I have the time, but I

would say this lens is as good as the 3rd V, if not better and these two are

IMHO good classic lenses with that glow, but has adequate sharpness -- And I

wouldn't call these lenses "dogs". This is my point, most people tend to lump

all these 'pre' ASPH into one category and label it, but there are differences in

the line.

 

> Hm...Is this the super lens? the sharpness of the asph combines with the

bokeh of the 4th cron:O) or is it just hype?

 

IMO no. I think you should try borrowing or look at photos made from these

various non-ASPH and ASPH lenses to see what lens signatures you like and

make your own judgement.

 

Thats my advice. Have fun finding out :0)