Recommendations for a 50f1.4 or faster

[michaelwj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@Shiva. The only issue is when people look down on others for not being able to afford entry. Otherwise, like you said, you want to, you can afford to, it's not hurting anyone, no problem. It's not like one lens has a different environmental or social impact than another.

 

I shoot Leica because I want to shoot a nice RF and I like the haptics and ergonomics of the body and lens. It's also more repairable than other brands. Then again, I wear an old Timex (only when running), and drive a clapped out old Hilux 4WD with 350k kms on the clock. The Leica, Timex, and Hilux all get the job done without any fuss.

Edited December 10, 2016 by michaelwj

[Sandokan]

Mechanical watches are pretty nice too. But poor time keepers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mine runs about 2 seconds fast each day. I can live with that as i run 3 mins slow. .

 

As for this thread.

 

YMMW. I now find it boring.

 

I have the Voigtländer 50/1.1. Harsh bokeh. 50/1.5 is smooth but soft till 2.8. Summilux 50 pre asph, is smooth but a little fidgety focusing. I will look for one with a long focus throw. The Nikon 58/1.4 is buttery smooth and was in my camera till the Canon 40 went on. I am also a fan of the Contax 50 lenses which are lovely for portraits.

 

You forgot the MS Optical 50/1.1 which has a variable output and I am still getting to grips with.

 

Then ther are the olympus, Canon FD and many Nikons available. Minolta 50/1.2.

 

Each is different and each gives me pleasure to use.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ktmrider2]

Have a Rolex Submariner I bought in Singapore in 1980 for $320.  I wear it daily and just had a CLA done on it for four times the cost new.  And even though my $29 Timex is more accurate, the Submariner is my jewelry.  And I like Mount Blanc fountain pens as well.

 

I apologize if there were some misunderstandings on this thread.  I should have made myself clearer but my comment about if you want to spend the money for Leica lenses, then go for it meant that I have no problem with that as it is your money and only you can know if $4000 for a Summilux ASPH is worth it to you.  I have six M lenses and half are Leica, two are Voightlander and one Zeiss.  I like them all and that does not count the Leica R or Nikon lenses in the cabinet.  Photography certainly is not a cheap hobby but probably better then getting into motorcycles (which I am), cars or guns.  And we won't even talk about owning horses (4 of them at one time).

 

Am off to Mexico for two weeks and will be traveling with 21/50 and either 90 or 135.  After a week in Mexico City with my daughter, we are meeting my wife in Cabo and thinking the 135 might be good for whale watching.   I worked in the US embassy in Mexico City coordinating between Mexican law enforcement and US law enforcement trying to intercept drug smugglers back about 2004 so know the city well and can't wait to show it to my daughter.

 

And the film M going along is a Leica M5 which I am now convinced is the best shooting film M there is.  I have owned all of the film M's (just sold an M9) but did not get around to the M5 until a few months ago.  I got one from Sherry and it really is a revelation.  And for digital, I have a new Fuji X70 which really is a hoot for the street.

Edited December 11, 2016 by ktmrider2

[otto.f]

I liked the Summilux 50 asph enormously on my M7. But since my M9 I sold it. Somehow, in my subjective view, it draws better on colorfilm or slide