Do you prefer "classic" lenses or contemporary designs?

[Sebastian S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I went from the very very good modern rendering Nokton 1.2/50 to the Summicron 50 DR and never looked back. Also admire the V2 preAsph 35mm. So it's safe to say thet i have a thing for classical renderings on film. I can do nice and clean with my digital canon set up for product shots etc or slide on the hasselblad, but if I want to capture life, I need a little bit of abstraction to create distance to the things you see, which gives room for heart and soul. sounds cheesy, i know, but it feels right for me.

[Advertisement]

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

[Steadimann]

Both. It's 3rd year since I went Leica route for my personal stuff and I found myself having both type of lenses - vintage and modern. And the more I shoot Leica, the more I think I should have basically two sets of lenses - vintage and modern. Depending on where i'm heading, I know which lens will work best for me. Add grading to this and I have two extremely different cameras, which makes me very happy

[3D-Kraft.com]

Am 19.8.2023 um 00:45 schrieb quietglow:

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")? 

Not shooting film but M9 (still pretty close to film) and Sony A1. For 90% of my typical photographic situations, I prefer modern lens designs (which for me usually means, they include ASPH elements and use modern coatings). But in about 10% of my shots, I like to use lenses like the good old Noctilux 50/1.0 for "painting".

[LeicaIIIfContaxIIa]

If I could afford a Leica M ☺️ (wish I could), I would at least think about using a Sonnar lens:  the Zeiss Sonnar 50 mm f/1.5 ZM.

This year I started to really discover the imaging properties of the ‘real’ Sonnar 50 mm f/2 from 1937 (Zeiss Ikon Contax) on slide film. This image is unfortunately blurred (exposure time 1/2 sec. without tripod, wide open, Fomapan R100), but it seems to me to profit from the character of the old (uncoated, I admit) Sonnar.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

With it and also with the 1947 85 mm f/2 and 1952 135 mm f/4 Sonnars, I notice special characteristics that sometimes make the images almost a little bit painterly. I have not yet noticed something like that with a modern Gauss type lens (for example).

I did see pics taken with the new Sonnar ZM on a Leica M and they also showed a bit (a bit) of this effect. 👍

(Zeiss Opton Sonnar 135 mm f/4 coated, wide open, Fujichrome Velvia 50, Skylight filter KR 1.5)

Edited December 20, 2024 by LeicaIIIfContaxIIa

[TomB_tx]

33 minutes ago, LeicaIIIfContaxIIa said:

If I could afford a Leica M ☺️ (wish I could), I would at least think about using a Sonnar lens: 

I have a couple of Contax II & IIa, and 1.5 & 2.0 Sonnar. I also got a focusing adapter that let me try them on my M10, and the images are indeed very pleasing. I thought about getting the ZM version, but decided to try the new Nokton 50 1.5 II, which doesn't have the focus shift of the Sonnar ZM. Size is about the same, and I really like the performance. I'll be using it on my M6, as I like the 2.5 Summarits on my M10.

Bach to "classic" lenses (which I prefer), I have a 35 Summicron ver1 with goggles for my M3, bit don't like the VF with goggles. So I just got the modern version - the LLL 8 element 35 that seems to be a very faithful copy. New lens, classic design = best of both.

[pippy]

3 hours ago, LeicaIIIfContaxIIa said:

...This image is unfortunately blurred...but it seems to me to profit from the character of the old...Sonnar...

That makes sense.