One version of each focal length?

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can’t remember who said if the framing is wrong, move your feet, but thinking further about focal lengths I’ve come to question the benefit of having more than one lens in the same focal length.  It goes against the grain.

My view has always been, think about the focal lengths you need, buy well, then get on with taking photos.  Now, I find that I have multiple lenses in the same lengths, and I question how I got there.  That’s rhetorical.  

Another round of rationalisation, and I’m looking at dumping my SL, 24-90 zoom and 180/2.8 Elmarit-R and some of my M lenses (I feel a tightness in my chest just typing this).  I have one 21mm lens; two 28s; two 35s; four (four!) 50s; and one 75mm.  Now, each is different - in most cases, old and new.  

In all honesty, despite the enjoyment of each, is there any justification holding more than one lens in each focal length?

[Advertisement]

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

[david strachan]

Well you might want different apertures in the same focal length.

...

[IkarusJohn]

3 minutes ago, david strachan said:

Well you might want different apertures in the same focal length.

...

They all have aperture rings …

[rtai]

If you are after a certain look and a particular lens gives you that look then it’s enough to justify having it. For example vintage vs modern, portrait vs technical lens, etc.

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

As you already said, a mix of fast lenses and vintage lenses in the same focal length depending on the subject/your mood?

One can never have too many lenses, especially 35mm and 50mm focal length. 

Maybe go on a photo trip with lenses you don’t use much, to confirm you want to let them go?  

 

[darylgo]

It’s the mood, different rendering for each personality, it helps my schizophrenia. 
 

Seriously, lower contrast lenses for bright sunny days and vice versa.

 Second reason:  when photographing a subject after multiple times a change in lens (rendering) yields a different image. 

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

32 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

[...] is there any justification holding more than one lens in each focal length [...]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, all lenses of the same focal length have not the same character and may not fit for the same purpose. An obvious example is lenses made for macro. As excellent as a Tessar 85/4 may be it cannot compete with a Macro-Elmar 90/4 on close ups or macro shots. Also, one may prefer the look of photos taken with a triplet lens compared to a double gauss or vice-versa. Or with a Sonnar vs a Planar or a Summicron. Or the glow of a Summilux pre-asph vs that of a Nokton SC. Also, an ultra-sharp lens may not fit well for portraiture, or a soft lens may not fit well for landscapes, etc.

[IkarusJohn]

24 minutes ago, lct said:

At the risk of beating a dead horse, all lenses of the same focal length have not the same character and may not fit for the same purpose. An obvious example is lenses made for macro. As excellent as a Tessar 85/4 may be it cannot compete with a Macro-Elmar 90/4 on close ups or macro shots. Also, one may prefer the look of photos taken with a triplet lens compared to a double gauss or vice-versa. Or with a Sonnar vs a Planar or a Summicron. Or the glow of a Summilux pre-asph vs that of a Nokton SC. Also, an ultra-sharp lens may not fit well for portraiture, or a soft lens may not fit well for landscapes, etc.

Isn't that rather dancing on the head of a pin?  If you move your feet, you can achieve a lot with a 28mm lens.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, or myself - doing a bad job of that, actually.

By way of example, in the 28mm focal length, I have the Summaron-M and the Summilux.  One a re-make of an old design, slow at f/5.6, and the other modern and fast.  But, where the primary issue is composition, do I really need the Summaron?  It's lovely, diminutive on the camera and a pleasure to use, but ... similarly, in 35mm, do I really need a Summilux ASPH and a Summicron (which has macro)?  I suspect my 50 Summicron will do everything I need ...

Maybe I'm just being grumpy.

[tedd]

One lens that you like is enough in any focal length to make a good (or bad) picture. 

If you want more then that is fine too, it's just a hobby (probably.. I haven't seen many pro's with a bag of 50's on them) and it is okay to have more. Things get messy when we try to justify them with logic! 

[RexGig0]

Four Fifties? Well, to use an Archie Bunker-ism, I resemble that remark! 🙂 In order of acquisition: Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, Summicron-M 50mm 50-Jahre Special Edition, with “Version V” glass, Elmar-M 50mm, and, a Summicron-R 50mm converted to rangefinder-coupled M, by Skyllaney Optic Mechanics. The last one was bought as a wild-card experiment, but the first three each have their use cases.

It seems perfectly normal, to me, to have more than one lens, in the same focal length. One may have specific flare/glow/ghost characteristics that I will want to use, in specific circumstances, while at other times I may want to shoot against the light, side-lighting condition, or other special light conditions, to produce images without flare, glow, or ghosts. To use an extreme example, I were to start product photography, or were to resume forensic/evidentiary/investigative photography, and felt compelled to use Leica gear, I would not want to use my Thambar-M, but would add a Macro-Elmar-M 90mm. 

Edited to add: I am not saying that I like carrying a bag full of lenses. One or two, at a time, is normally preferable.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by RexGig0

[sebben]

I keep simplifying then for whatever reason I always end up with more lenses. It’s terrible. 

I kind of want to end up with just 50mm APO and the 21mm Super Elmar or the 28mm Elmarit ASPH. 

[IkarusJohn]

The 50s are the worst of it.  I like the focal length, don't get me wrong, but ... 50/2 Summitar LTM (weird swirly bokeh); silver chrome, brass 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH; 0.95 Noctilux; and black chrome APO 50 Summicron ...

In all honesty, the APO Summicron really does most if not all I need ... if I sell the others, will I find myself wanting to buy them back, and why.  Character, shmaracter and speed.  For most purposes, when would the APO not do it all?

For old character, I'd still have the 75 Summilux (and take a step back); the 35 APO Summicron is small, has lovely smooth bokeh and close focus; the 28 Summilux is faster and covers a similar field of view; and the 21 Summilux has its own character in an ultra-wide field of view.

I think I'm going to sell my duplicates - I know part of me will regret it, but this has got out of hand.  I'll start with the Noctilux, full boxed, paperwork etc and with the slip on lens cap - USD 9,000, I reckon.  On the Classifieds shortly.  Others to follow, if this one sells (otherwise, off to e-Bay).

[lct]

51 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Isn't that rather dancing on the head of a pin?  If you move your feet, you can achieve a lot with a 28mm lens.

Better liking big noses then

[lct]

6 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

the APO Summicron really does most if not all I need ..

I do like mine but i find it too harsh for portraits. Great for landscapes though but my favorite lens is the Elmar-M 50/2.8 there so i end up bringing the 50/2 apo for travels mainly.

[IkarusJohn]

20 minutes ago, lct said:

I do like mine but i find it too harsh for portraits. Great for landscapes though but my favorite lens is the Elmar-M 50/2.8 there so i end up bringing the 50/2 apo for travels mainly.

One step back, and the 75 Summilux is perfect, without big noses!

[IkarusJohn]

Noctilux listed 🥲

[jakontil]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I can’t remember who said if the framing is wrong, move your feet, but thinking further about focal lengths I’ve come to question the benefit of having more than one lens in the same focal length.  It goes against the grain.

My view has always been, think about the focal lengths you need, buy well, then get on with taking photos.  Now, I find that I have multiple lenses in the same lengths, and I question how I got there.  That’s rhetorical.  

Another round of rationalisation, and I’m looking at dumping my SL, 24-90 zoom and 180/2.8 Elmarit-R and some of my M lenses (I feel a tightness in my chest just typing this).  I have one 21mm lens; two 28s; two 35s; four (four!) 50s; and one 75mm.  Now, each is different - in most cases, old and new.  

In all honesty, despite the enjoyment of each, is there any justification holding more than one lens in each focal length?

There’s of course justification holding more than one lens in a focal length

depending how mad i shoot at certain focal length, particularly in 50mm and then 35mm..

i have 4 in 50mm, 

and usually 35mm in films bodies, i have 3 

And  in 21mm, and 28mm each

 

may be what i was after is different looks and characters

but i only carry a single lens when go out n about

Edited June 8, 2023 by jakontil

[pgk]

Like many things in life there is a 'blance' to be sought. Too many lenses probably means that few, if any, will really get the use they deserve and you are unlikely to 'learn' their finer characteristics as well as you might do. So I'm a believer in whittling down to a really usable set. At the moment I have 21/35(2)/50/75/90(2) & 135 M lenses (8 all told) which is too many. But I do use most, a lot. The least used are the 50 and 135. And I've disposed of some (35 Summliux pre-asph. & 75 Summilux) because, nice as they were, I didn't actually find them as satisfying as I do more modern lenses (heresy!). I occasionally miss them but not enough to want to buy another. So I'm with you on this but I would suggest that you apply a little caution and make sure you keep the lenses which give you most pleasure from both using them and from their results. If I HAD to I could live with 3 M lenses, but that said I don't really want to. And I'm happy to have duplicates where one of the two is cheap (for Leica) and not tying up huge amounts of money which might e more enjoyably spent elsewhere.

And, FWIW, I still own, use and enjoy my M9s. If this changed I will re-evaluate which to move to in future but they are still lovely cameras to use and I enjoy using them. My SL has gone because it didn't fit into this requirement, excellent camera though it is. Determining what it is that makes photography a pleasure is not really about owning lots, its about owning and using the equipment which gives you most pleasure (and in my case certainly not about owning one 'do everything' fixed focal lens which I can crop - this would give me no pleasure at all.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Olaf_ZG]

I don’t have this feeling with lenses (yet) but with the cameras. Having three systems (sl, q and m) this is one too much…

[PeterGA]

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Noctilux listed 🥲

Tough decision, one I have been considering for years myself....😂