How to stop overthinking this whole lens thing

[JoshuaRothman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been mulling it over, and have concluded that I've been overthinking the lens situation for my M cameras.

For the last couple of years, I've been pulled into a real rabbit hole of lens choice. Different lenses with different renderings, all of various sizes—there's just so much choice in the M system. The result is that, after years of experimenation, I own multiple lenses in various focal lengths. It's been a GAS explosion, abetted by too much forum reading and a change in circumstances that's allowed me to buy gear I could never have previously afforded.

Do I really need a 28 Summaron, 28 Summicron, and 28 Elmarit? Do I actually benefit from a 35 Steel Rim Reissue and a 35 Summicron v3? What value do I actually derive from owning a 50 Elmar-M, 50 Summilux ASPH, and 50 Summarit f/2.5? Just typing this out, I'm like, "I can't believe I own all these lenses."

I can tell the differences between the images made with these lenses, and I can feel the difference in my hands when I use them, but I'm probably fooling myself if I think my menagerie is improving my photography. After all, I'm just a hobbyist who photographs my family and the places I go when I travel. I'm not photographing models for an ad campaign or working on some big project I hope to display in a gallery. I deeply admire photographers who work at that level, but my goals are humble.

An example of overthinking: I've long imagined myself building out lens "kits," like a "small" kit consisting of the 28 Summaron and 50 Elmar-M, which I can use as an alternative to my "big" kit consisting of the 28 Summicron and 50 Summilux. But actually, all the lenses are small! Other examples: I've thought about a "vintage kit" vs. a "modern" kit. A Mandler kit vs. a Karbe kit. Now I'm asking myself if I really need to be thinking this way.

I was struck by this recent post at The Online Photographer on "demystification and the six stages of acquisition." I highly recommend it. Basically, the author, Mike Johnston, outlines six stages of coming to grips with a complicated equipment decision: "investigate, choose, challenge, settle, optimize, and then put it in the rearview mirror." I think I've been making my way through these steps with my M lenses. I've been investigating all the options, choosing one to try out, and then challenging it against other lenses. I may now be entering the settle / optimize / stop thinking about it half of the process. 28mm is a good example. I started with the 28mm Ultron II, then moved to the Elmarit. I loved it—it was my choice. Then I decided to challenge it against the Summaron and Summicron. They're great lenses with their own particular strengths, but in the end I think I'm going to settle for the Elmarit. It's just a good overall compromise. It probably makes more sense for me to just own one lens at that focal length and put the whole 28mm "thing" in the rearview mirror.

If I were to do this, I'd sell off a bunch of lenses and end up with five: the 21 SEM, 28 Elmarit ASPH v2, 35 Steel Rim Reissue, 50 Lux ASPH, and 90 Summarit. And then I would just never think about my lenses again. Not that these are the "best" lenses. Just that they'd be the ones I've settled on, given my particular values.

I have half a mind to take all the stuff I'm not using to B&H next week. By trading it all in, II could probably upgrade my M10 to an M10-R and leave with cash to spare. 

Have any of you gone through this kind of a process? I'm not saying that this is the best, only, or ideal way to navigate the M system. But I wonder if anyone else finds themselves in the middle of their own six-step program....

[Jeff S]

I’ve been shooting M cameras since the 80’s, long before forum GAS was a thing.  As a result, I currently own 4 M lenses, not the most recent iterations, and probably one more than I need. Pics and prints have been my focus, while the forum remains a place for sharing and entertainment, not for gear decisions, which remain personal.  

But no right or wrong.  Whatever works.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[Al Brown]

I have reduced my entire lens choice in 2 segments:

The ASPH gang - 24mm to 75mm Karbe crew for daily work
The character crew - Special lenses like Miyazaki, Old Delft and others that are oozing with character.

I have nothing in between, no "semi-character" lenses anymore, Mandlers being some of them. I have kept the 50 lux pre-asph because it is a part of special edition set.

This minimalization helps me decide more clearly on the mission and the image. When parting with M lenses I held onto the 3 main principles: "does it make me happy", "do I use it regularly" and "would I buy it again". If the answers to all three were NO, the lens - regardless of what kind of magic pixie dust it had - was gone.

Super happy now. Ah yes, and my other goal is that all my lenses have to be silver. Helps me cut 70% of (tempting but unnecessary) choices down.

The philosophy of personal inventory reduction (originating in Japan) is deeply rooted in the concept of minimalism, which advocates for simplifying one's life by owning fewer possessions and focusing on what truly brings value and joy. It emphasizes the importance of decluttering physical posessions and mental clutter to achieve greater clarity, contentment, and fulfillment. I believe that such reductions encourage individuals to cultivate mindfulness and intentionality in their habits. It involves consciously evaluating the necessity and purpose of each possession, letting go of excess. Because too large inventory (unless you are a collector) merely hides the problems that - in my case - plague a business: too much choice.

Edited February 23 by Al Brown

[Al Brown]

20 minutes ago, JoshuaRothman said:

And then I would just never think about my lenses again.

Famous last words. Forget about it, never going to happen - unless you log out of internet and forums. Had soooo many friends and colleagues say the same thing... 😆

[evikne]

I think one modern and one classic lens of each focal length one (really) needs is enough. Anything more than that is superfluous.

[BernardC]

1 minute ago, evikne said:

I think one modern and one classic lens of each focal length one (really) needs is enough. Anything more than that is superfluous.

Same here. My lenses fall into "modern" and "classic" categories, and I rarely mix them one the same project. They are different enough that the choice is easy, like oil paint vs. watercolour.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For 4 decades I had only 3 M lenses: 35 & 50 Summicrons & 90 TE. Should have left well enough alone.

[LocalHero1953]

Lenses for business (mainly SL lenses) and lenses for pleasure (mainly M lenses, all of which, apart from the Elmarit-M 28 asph, are older rendering).

Edited February 23 by LocalHero1953

[hepcat]

1 hour ago, JoshuaRothman said:

I've been mulling it over, and have concluded that I've been overthinking the lens situation for my M cameras.

...abetted by too much forum reading ...

I can tell the differences between the images made with these lenses, and I can feel the difference in my hands when I use them, but I'm probably fooling myself if I think my menagerie is improving my photography. 

...Now I'm asking myself if I really need to be thinking this way.

Have any of you gone through this kind of a process?

I am largely brand-agnostic and a Leica heretic.  Don't get me wrong.  I love my Leicas and the couple of Leitz lenses I have, but not enough to make me part with huge sums of money for the latest-and-greatest, 

That said, I have been photographing with Leica since 1974 when I bought my first M2 body,  and have used a legion of other gear along the way.   I am now using three 1950s Canon LTM lenses in my kit for my M10-P, a 1952 Serenar 35mm f/2.8, a a 1956 Sonnar-design Serenar 50mm f/1.5, and a 1954 Serenar 85mm f/1.9.  I've used a variety of Leitz/Leica, Voigtlander and Canon lenses all my career.  I started in 1973 with a Canon IIF and four period Canon Serenar lenses with which I worked professionally.   Which lens you choose, in terms of focal length and aperture is important to your job...  which lens you choose among the various lenses with the same aperture and focal length really isn't of much importance at all. 

While you may be able to tell the difference in rendering between various lenses when carefully compared side-by-side, the bottom line is that when someone looks at your prints, NO ONE can tell what lens/camera/sensor combination made the image; nor should they care.  And the gear does NOT "improve" your photography; at least not your composition, exposure, or timing, which are what's really important.   Whatever differences there may be among your 28mm lenses in MTF and other test charts, there are too many real-world variables involved in any given photo for those differences to be significant.   Most of what people talk about when comparing lenses is sales hype gleaned from those charts.  Leica (and every OTHER company involved in marketing cameras and lenses) has to keep their revenue flowing.  The best way to do that is to keep selling lenses, and the best way to keep selling new lenses is to advertise them as "new and improved."    And while they ARE "new and improved,"  they're just not "new and improved" enough for anyone to see the difference in prints or at 2400px on the long side online. 

The only thing I'm concerned about with my glass is that: a) it's competent to do the job I need it to do; b) that the aperture and focal length are adequate for what I have in mind, and c) that I can tackle whatever job comes my way with them.  My 1950s Canon LTM glass from my Canon Barnack collection remains competent.   Remind yourself that some of the best images in the world have been made with very humble equipment.   So, if you have the focal lengths you need in an aperture size that will do the job for you, and the lenses are generally competent, go out and take photos.  Learn the strengths and weaknesses of the lenses you have, and cater to those strengths as you make exposures.   

[Al Brown]

While you have some fair points in your text you are over-generalizing the matter and trying to simplify it, but it is definitely not a simple matter. Example: The whole film industry and every DoP is basing their lens choices on tiny differences among them, hues, flares, flaws and renders. There are volumes of books and tutorials, even classes on the subject. The DoPs do not care about the general public seeing the difference on their shitty TV sets while browsing their phones, they make the lens choice FOR THEMSELVES (and perhaps for the peers). There is no sales hype in the old Zeiss Super Speeds. I always tell everyone, show your mom the images made with original and re-issue steel rim, she will NEVER be able to tell them apart, but YOU will know, and that is all that matters if it makes you happy. This subject has already been discussed ad nauseam here. So yes, the small differences in rendering between various lenses when carefully compared side-by-side ARE important.

Edited February 23 by Al Brown

[JoshuaRothman]

Thanks to everyone for all these replies.

Re: @Al Brown and @hepcat's posts: I've found trying these different lenses interesting precisely because the lenses differ. I can definitely see the differences in my photographs. And even viewers have sometimes noticed them. So I haven't found it to be true that lens rendering isn't relevant to the how the picture comes across. There's a meaningful difference between the pictures taken with my 28 Summaron and my 28 Elmarit, for example.

But I'm no longer sure that it makes sense for me, personally, to own multiple lenses with different renderings. It might just be above my pay grade as a photographer. Even owning modern and vintage alternatives, as @evikne suggests, has begun to feel superfluous to me. I know that many photographers can take advantage of owning multiple lenses that render subjects differently, but I'm not sure that I can or even want to any longer. I might be reaching a stage where I'm happy saying, My 28mm looks like this, and my 35mm looks like that, and my 50mm looks this way, and that's what I own—and then the curtain falls on this whole lens adventure.

And then I take the money I've been spending on lenses and buy, like, a really nice kayak.

Basically, I am trying to downgrade my engagement with Leica M glass from a constant, expensive, ongoing obsession into a thing that I used to be obsessed with. 

Edited February 23 by JoshuaRothman

[dpitt]

Maybe you are at a stage just before admitting that you have become a collector. It took me a few years of using my Leica's before I  realized that I had become a collector. What began as a way to get some cheap lenses for my M8 and M2 became a goal in itself.  Now I have 2 hobbies:

I have a small set of every day gear that I always use, and that is very stable over the years. Just like you, I am not a pro and just document my family and travels for myself. I enjoy seeing the results, and enjoy using the Ms most, but occasionally take the SL and TL2 out to play.

And then I have built up a set of lenses that I bought to test them, compare them and probably sell them again one day, without regret. I love to see the small steps Leica made over the years and just admire the craftsmanship, and the results they give. And I do not consider my collection to be expensive. Most of what I have is bought used and will sell for more now than I paid for it.

Both sides of my Leica passion provide an equal amount of pleasure to me.

[dpitt]

If you want to know what is the difference between a collector and a user... Ask yourself how many 50mm lenses you have... If you do not know how many then you are sure 😎

[evikne]

11 minutes ago, JoshuaRothman said:

But I'm no longer sure that it makes sense for me, personally, to own multiple lenses with different renderings. It might just be above my pay grade as a photographer. Even owning modern and vintage alternatives, as @evikne suggests, has begun to feel superfluous to me.

A few years ago I had one set of modern lenses and one set of classic lenses, just as I wrote. Then I was forced for financial reasons to make severe cuts and kept only two of my classic lenses. I sometimes miss the lenses I sold, but I quickly realize that I don't really need them.

[Jeff S]

7 minutes ago, JoshuaRothman said:

I might be reaching a stage where I'm happy saying, My 28mm looks like this, and my 35mm looks like that, and my 50mm looks this way, and that's what I own—and then the curtain falls on this whole lens adventure.

 

I’d be bored to death if all my pics and prints using a particular lens looked alike.  They don’t, especially not the prints, despite using the same lens.  There are of course myriad variables in the whole workflow from shot to edit to print to display that can make significant, or subtle, differences based on user decisions and techniques. Thankfully. 
 

Jeff

[250swb]

I’ve got more M compatible 35mm focal length lenses than any other length, but it’s the least used focal length I use, how does that work? My guess is because 35mm was my first main lens fifty years ago and I’m trying to recreate that while at the same time having moved on. Subliminal yearning can get us all, and eBay beckons.

[ianforber]

Try as I might, I just can’t see the difference between the way most lenses render, unless they have a particularly extreme bokeh or are so low contrast as to look like it’s been covered in Vaseline. I bought my M11 with the intention of having around two lenses, one of which will be the 90mm Elmar and one a wider focal length, as yet to be determined. I still intend to get the 90mm when funds allow but still haven’t decided on whether it should be partnered with a 28, 35 or 50. I have a CV 35mm f1.5 Nokton and a 50mm Summicron. So I’m still planning on keeping it to around 3-4 lenses but there’s loads of fun yet to be had in choosing which ones. I’d never have more than one of each focal length.  

[pippy]

8 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

...Do I really need...

...Do I actually benefit...

...I can tell the differences between the images made with these lenses...but I'm probably fooling myself if I think my menagerie is improving my photography.

...I've been investigating...options (and) the 28mm is a good example. I started with the 28mm Ultron II, then moved to the Elmarit...Then I decided to challenge it against the Summaron and Summicron...in the end I think I'm going to settle for the Elmarit. It's just a good overall compromise.

If I were to do this, I'd sell off a bunch of lenses and end up with five: the 21 SEM, 28 Elmarit ASPH v2, 35 Steel Rim Reissue, 50 Lux ASPH, and 90 Summarit...Not that these are the "best" lenses. Just that they'd be the ones I've settled on, given my particular values...

All of the above are perfectly rational questions to have considered and, subsequently, decisions to have been made. Congratulations. Your reasoning makes perfect sense.

Best of luck, Joshua, in seeing it through!

😺

Philip.

[Becf]

I hope by the end of this thread someone can explain why I own three 50mm F2 lenses. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Danner]

10 minutes ago, Becf said:

I hope by the end of this thread someone can explain why I own three 50mm F2 lenses. 

Been there done that.  For a while I had three 50 Summicrons (V3, V4, and V5).  Kept just the V4.  Full disclosure, I still have a 50 Summilux (V2).