Do you prefer "classic" lenses or contemporary designs?

[quietglow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Those of you mostly-film-shooters: do you tend to prefer lenses from the original era of film (or current lenses of that type of design) or "modern" lens designs (i.e. the ones that digital folks sometimes ditch for classic lenses because they're too "clinical")? 

[jakontil]

It really depends on what im shooting, for streetphoto i prefer the old lenses or even reissues line up, because its small for what it is, while doing a studio shoot or professional works, i just pick my modern asph 

[Advertisement]

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

[spydrxx]

Whatever suits the subject. More often for me are the classic lenses as most of my work is in B&W.

[TomB_tx]

I use both, and find differences are slight in my use. I prefer the simplicity and handling of older designs (except for Summarit 2.5 - best of both eras).

[hansvons]

On Ilford Delta 100, Portra 160, 5207 250D, you will see the difference between a modern, sharp lens like the 35mm Summicron ASPH, which was at its release the pinnacle of film 35mm lenses, and an older glass that is based on classic double Gauss design with vintage lead-based coatings. On high-speed films like Tri-X, Portra 800 or 5219 500T, an older lens might look more appropriate–if you leverage their moody quirks like flaring, a bent focal plane at f2.0 etc... But I find that even high-speed B&W benefits from a sharp lens. 

I have the Summicron mentioned above and the 35mm Nokton V2 SC because, regardless of the film I use, there are times when I want complete optical precision and times when I want a more moody interpretation. 

[a.noctilux]

I use happily (what ? asph. lens) my Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 which is classic/practical enough and if the results count, it's my favorite lens.

Even if I have other choices, but none is as practical as MATE.

I accept many flaws though = not a big deal.

At 28mm setting I need (sometimes for better framing, not always) an auxiliary 28mm VF.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me, weight and size (for the aperture available) are the determining factor.

I bought into Leica M 22 years ago to get away from the bloat of SLR lenses (aperture and AF actuation mechanisms) - and my back has thanked me ever since.  

Sometimes that means a Classic lens (35 Summicron or Summilux pre-ASPH, or 50mm v.3, or 21 Elmarit pre-ASPH), and sometimes it means a Contemporary lens (C/V Nokton 75mm f/1.5 or 135mm APO-Telyt).

I don't care overmuch about the imaging, unless I find it really unpleasant. If it is interesting (or mildy weaker) - I make use of it, or work around it, as needed.

I should note that, these days, my Ms are all digital. But the principle applied when I shot film Ms pre-2006, and still applies with my current 6x6 film cameras (Rollei TLR instead of Hassy SLR; Hassy SWC 38mm instead of Hassy SLR 40mm).

[BernardC]

It depends on the project. I have a set of "classic" lenses that I started accumulating in high school (they were just regular lenses then), and a set of modern lenses. What I find is that I can't mix them within the same project, for instance with prints that will be shown together.

[oldwino]

What happens when the "modern" lenses are re-creations of "classic" lenses, with better IQ?

[BernardC]

24 minutes ago, oldwino said:

What happens when the "modern" lenses are re-creations of "classic" lenses, with better IQ?

I find that the main difference is lens coatings, and flare resistance. For instance, one of my most modern-looking lenses is a ZM Planar 50. I can shoot that lens with a bright window right behind the subject and get absolutely no flare, and no light wrapping around. The same shot with a 1970s Planar has a Close Encounters alien effect, where the back-light overwhelms details like ears and hair!

That's an extreme example, and quite frankly I wouldn't shoot such a composition with an old lens. On the other hand, classic Hollywood lighting styles typically use a bare light behind the subject's head to create a halo effect. That's something that doesn't look quite the same with a modern lens.

[quietglow]

On 8/20/2023 at 1:19 PM, adan said:

For me, weight and size (for the aperture available) are the determining factor.

I bought into Leica M 22 years ago to get away from the bloat of SLR lenses (aperture and AF actuation mechanisms) - and my back has thanked me ever since.  

Sometimes that means a Classic lens (35 Summicron or Summilux pre-ASPH, or 50mm v.3, or 21 Elmarit pre-ASPH), and sometimes it means a Contemporary lens (C/V Nokton 75mm f/1.5 or 135mm APO-Telyt).

I don't care overmuch about the imaging, unless I find it really unpleasant. If it is interesting (or mildy weaker) - I make use of it, or work around it, as needed.

I should note that, these days, my Ms are all digital. But the principle applied when I shot film Ms pre-2006, and still applies with my current 6x6 film cameras (Rollei TLR instead of Hassy SLR; Hassy SWC 38mm instead of Hassy SLR 40mm).

This is a good take, and I think it's probably the closest to mine. I spend lots of time walking long distances with my cameras, and the overall size and handiness of the M system is always what has attracted me. I asked the question as I was contemplating a lens with a contemporary design, and it is indeed much than the lens it would replace. Thanks for the reminder.

Also: the SWC is one of the last remaining cameras on my "one day I'll have" list. One day!

[quietglow]

On 8/20/2023 at 4:31 AM, hansvons said:

On Ilford Delta 100, Portra 160, 5207 250D, you will see the difference between a modern, sharp lens like the 35mm Summicron ASPH

I recently bought a V5 Summicron 50 and the difference in sharpness is quite noticeable on 250d vs my old trusty Summicron collapsible. Wide open, it's easy for me to tell which lens a photo was taken with. The V5 really does lovely things with the 250d.

With HP5, on the other hand, I don't think I could reliably tell the results apart. The most obvious difference is the increased contrast with the V5, but this isn't as pronounced as the variance in sharpness. 

Nothing surprising about any of that, but I think this is the first time I have noticed a lens offering more resolution on film (in 35mm). I am looking forward to seeing how 50d, with it's even lower grain, looks with the newer Summicron.

[aesop]

       ...my most modern lens is the film-era 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH from 2004. I have little or no interest in lenses designed primarily for digital sensors. I shoot film only. Anything else gets covered by my omnipotent iPhone.😬