How to stop overthinking this whole lens thing

[Becf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

34 minutes ago, Danner said:

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).

V4, V5, and Zeiss Planar for me.

 

Bought the V4 and Zeiss ON THE SAME DAY... Told myself I'd keep the one I liked most, instead I bought the V5 a year and a half later. 

[hepcat]

6 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

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.

I think you missed the point of my post.  Of course, the lenses render differently.  The point, however, is that the "rendering" neither makes nor breaks the image.  How the lens(es) perform is significantly less important than how YOU perform.  When it comes to the final product, "lens rendering" is mostly "much ado about nothing."

[Advertisement]

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

[LeicaR10]

JoshuaRothman,  There are most excellent words of sage advice and wisdom offered in these posts.  Early on in my photography career, I too had GAS.  I went to GAS rehab three times, then finally realized there is no easy cure.  I finally found GAS sobriety through discipline and simply resolved myself to the difference between;  Needing and Wanting.  The many systems owned over the years cost me a bundle, luckily I could write most of it down with my business.  But the one lasting brand throughout 40+ years is Leica.  I found myself having to sit down, and do a list of pros and cons for each camera and lens.  I found resolution that I did NEED certain cameras and lenses for my genre of landscape photography and ease of portability.  It got down to using the S system for hiking in easy to moderate remote areas with assistants.  The really difficult terrain and hostile environment became the M system as primary. I retired and sold my business plus S system to my assistants.  At the same time, I also reduced my Leica M lens choices to a minimum of lenses that I needed.  The numerous rest all found new homes via private sales.  Ultimately, I found my "cure" for GAS that worked for me.  I have friends who are mired down and simply fall off the GAS recovery wagon...lack of discipline for the most part. You sound determined and I am certain there is a pathway that works for you too.  r/ Mark

PS...One last piece of advice; At the end of the day, its always about the content of the photograph, not the brand, make, model of the camera or lens.  Keep this in mind when deciding which piece of gear will help you create the best masterpiece photograph with meaninful content.

Edited February 24 by LeicaR10

[Al Brown]

5 hours ago, hepcat said:

I think you missed the point of my post.  Of course, the lenses render differently.  The point, however, is that the "rendering" neither makes nor breaks the image.  How the lens(es) perform is significantly less important than how YOU perform.  When it comes to the final product, "lens rendering" is mostly "much ado about nothing."

Surely, for noobs it does not matter. But for a seasoned photographer or cinematographer the rendering MAKES OR BREAKS the image and how the lenses perform is ABSOLUTELY the most important for them, because they are milking the most of it. Some even have lenses CUSTOM BUILT for the purpose:

Greig Fraser, ASC, ACS, who took home the Oscar for best cinematography for Dune and worked on Star Wars universe for the Disney Plus series The Mandalorian, is well known for his eclectic taste in lenses, particularly glass that has more character to it. To achieve the special comic book referenced ‘70s cinema analog neo-noir look for the movie The Batman (2022), he had a batch of anamorphic lenses called "Alfa" CUSTOM BUILT by ARRI just to achieve this effect - those are highly aberrant lenses, especially prone to more veiling flare. Wide open at T2.2, they flare a lot and have very low contrast, but stopping down half a stop to a stop could clean it up and give Grieg as a seasoned DoP an entirely different look. This is something that skilled photographers and cinematographers look for in different lenses, to give them a lot more control over the image on a shot-by-shot basis.
And I am sure you are familiar with the master Stanley Kubrick's selection of the Zeiss f/0.7 lens he borrowed from NASA for his Oscar for best cinematography (1976) Barry Lyndon. You see the pattern here?

So yes, the lenses MAKE OR BREAK the image and their performance is of SIGNIFICANT importance, but only if you really know what you are doing. Saying that lens rendering is "much ado about nothing" is like saying all cars are the same because their sole purpose is to get you from A to B.

[MarkP]

15 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

And I am sure you are familiar with the master Stanley Kubrick's selection of the Zeiss f/0.7 lens he borrowed from NASA for his Oscar for best cinematography (1976) Barry Lyndon. You see the pattern here?

Thats right... NASA loaned him that lens as he promised not to admit to filming the moon landing for NASA on Earth 🤣.

 

Oh, that's not the pattern your alluding to......😆

Edited February 24 by MarkP

[Al Brown]

5 minutes ago, MarkP said:

Thats right... NASA loaned him that lens as he promised not to admit to filming the moon landing for NASA on Earth 🤣.

Yes, there is a veritable combat zone between heated conspiracy believers and exasperated NASA officials. In 1976, a guy named Bill Kaysing self-published a pamphlet called We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, which sought evidence for his conviction by means of grainy photocopies and ludicrous theories. Yet somehow he established a few perennials that are kept alive to this day in Hollywood movies and Fox News documentaries, Reddit forums and YouTube channels. And LUF forum...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/10/one-giant-lie-why-so-many-people-still-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked

Edited February 24 by Al Brown

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, Al Brown said:

Yes, there is a veritable combat zone between heated conspiracy believers and exasperated NASA officials.

Others would say heated NASA officials and exasperated conspiracy believers 😁

[otto.f]

17 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

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.

You think too much. There are times to clean up and times to add a lens you miss or like to have because your view of the world needs it. And this bullshit talk of: will I be a better photographer with it is just a compulsion. Get rid of it and try to allow yourself to enjoy.

Edited February 24 by otto.f

[Aryel]

I am definitely not a professional but I am happy to have lot of choices. I just pick the one that look ´beautiful’ for the day and go out shooting… When I want to declutter, I can get rid of the ones that never look ´beautiful’. 

I like having choice but once I am out shooting, everything is already fixed: film, focal length, lens, camera and it is matching my subject and my mood.

I think you are overthinking it. Just pick the one that looks beautiful and go out shooting. Sell the ones you never use. 

[patrickcolpron]

20 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

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....

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!

Not all my lenses and not all my cameras, to address a few points - they all do something different for me.

This is a photo I had made for Red Dot Forum's show us your kit (shown in part two of this series) I've added two lenses since. The New Steel Rim and an old and perfect Summarit 50 f/1.5 which is great on a Monochrom with it's original yellow filter. I had always regretted selling it an my M3 back in the days, when I saw a mint one I couldn't resist... 

I have 15 Leica M lenses, the only only I very seldom use is the APO 90 which is not a focal length I enjoy. 

To address upgrading from the M10 to the M10-R, I prefer the color rendition of the M10 and only use the M10-R a lot because it is the black paint model, the buffer of the M10-R is the same as the M10 so not that great for 40 megapixels files. I recently started using my M10-P cameras leaving the M10-R on the shelf. 

I have four 35mm and four 50 mil lenses plus two 28, I enjoy some lenses more than others. The Steel Rim is my favourite modern-ish lens for it's form factor and how well it handles and renders when used against the light. I seldom shoot wide open, at f/4 and f/5.6 on a digital M it is terrific.

Of all these lenses my desert island lens is the 35/APO it isn't anything special but is technically perfect with great color rendition. In the 50 mil lenses I am starting to prefer how the new classic reissue of the 50/1.2 handles in my hands and it also feels terrific in my hands. This said the APO 50 is tiny and light, a pleasure to carry all day.

As much as I say the APO 35 is my desert Island lens I do find the 24 Summilux to be way more practical as a one lens one camera only combo.

Even then I'd be hard press to minimise my kit as I like variety, the new Steel Rim with a Leica MP with either Trip-X or Portra 400 is great. When it comes to lenses it really depends what one shoots, analog or digital and what one is after in terms of rendering.

I find it is easier to get good at photography using only one focal length for a long period of time, pick a 28 and only use a 28 for 6 months daily, you'll get really really good with it.

Some lenses are really great on black and white sensor and film stock - some are better with color film stock or don't perform optimally with black and white film stock or for black and white photography. 

Some are really good with either, the 35 APO, the Steel Rim and the 24 Lux are great with either, so is the 35 Cron V4, but the Cron V4 35 is terrible against the light. 

My best advice to you is stick to one lens for one year and at the end of that year you will for sure require less than 5 lenses. I could live with just a 35 mil lens or a 24 mil lens. Plus a 35 and a 50 are a perfect complement and if you can add a 21 mil or a 75, you'd be set for pretty much anything thrown at you with only 3 lenses. 

I prefer the form factor of the M system and also have two other extensive camera kits from other brands with multiple camera bodies and lenses - but for photography give me an M and any lens, except a 90 mil, I really don't like that focal length and I am not warm to the 28 mil focal length either... but can use both in pinch. 

I am privileged to be in a position to have all of these and it is at times too much. 

At the end of the day, it is not what you use but how you use it. It is the final resulting image which matter the most, the photos you make, not the camera or lens used to make them with. When you focus on the end result, the images you make as opposed to the lenses or cameras you use to make them, everything falls into place and that's when you can grow as a photographer. 

GAS is GAS and I love the gear plus geeking out about the gear but nothing beats a conversation over dinner with friends telling stories about the photos we made, showing each other the doozies we captured these pass 46 years or so. 

The only cure to overthinking camera gear is to stop browsing camera forums, review sites and watching the latest camera rumours and YouTube reviews, it is to concentrate on making photos with what you have now in your hands, and sharing these photos with friends and family. 

Hope this makes some sort of sense. 

[costa43]

Being relatively new to the Leica system (around 4yrs). I fell down the proverbial rabbit hole and I’ve bought and now sold maybe 25 different lenses in the last couple of years. I had to see what the differences were between them all for myself I guess. I’m relatively ok for the time being with my kit. I quite like what @Al Brown has done with lenses on either extreme giving him a clearer vision of what he wants to achieve. For now. The kit is trimmed down to just the following. 

24mm Elmar 

35mm Summilux v2 pre asph 

50mm Summilux pre asph v3 & 50mm vm apo

90mm Minolta f4 for the odd occasion I use this focal length

[Winedemonium]

22 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

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

Often enough now that I just accept it. I keep a record. Some lenses I've owned, sold rebought multiple times. And now I simply accept that there are two parts to my hobby - taking photographs with gear I like; and 'collecting' in some form or other. The purging of gear can feel liberating, and acquiring something you really like can feel exhilarating and inspiring. Part of this is that it is interesting to experience different things. We all have some sort of budget to adhere to, so buying and selling helps us gain experience without only acquiring. One in, one out, is another way to provide some self-discipline. Others have been suggested in this thread.

I've now tried pretty much everything I've ever wanted to try in the world of Leica, and my current are a little further off-piste - a pair of Skyllaney M-mount-converted lenses, a Zeiss-Opton 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar T*, and a W-Nikkor 35mm f/1.8. Aside from that, I'm now more or less in @Al Brown's school of thought:

22 hours ago, Al Brown said:

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.

The two Skyllaney pieces are new to me, so they have me occupied with the 'character crew' for now. I'm curious to re-buy the 35mm Summilux AA, the 50mm Noctilux f/1 E58, or v2, and I have some an itch for the Leitz 7.3cm f/1.9 Hektor that I have yet to ever scratch... I also miss my Letiz 90mm f/4 Elmar 3-element. 

Current pieces in the character crew - 2.8cm f/5.6 Summaron-LTM, 35mm Summicron 8-element, 50mm Summicron rigid.

Current pieces in the asph gang - 21mm SEM, 24mm ET, 28mm lux, 35mm APO, 50mm APO, and I'll add the 90mm Macro Elmar-M here as an honorary member. 

So, I'm hardly qualified to say "find some way to limit yourself", but be it a total of cash laid down on gear, or a one-in one-out rule, it's good to have a way at least to interrogate weather you really want the next piece.

Also, as much as I have loved this forum for many years, I know from experience that I read and participate in it more when I am in GAS-mode. Switching off entirely from any kind of forum, reviews, Youtube stuff, Leica Rumors, etc, etc, and just taking pictures, is a good way to lose any buying angst. 

Best of luck.

[hansvons]

20 hours 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’m there, I kind of always was. Even when I worked as a DOP, I shot mostly with the same lenses (Zeiss Super Speeds, which I owned at some point and used for 12 years). I find it comforting to know what to expect. 
Today I own three 35mm M lenses for three cameras, two of them film. I also own a 50mm for occasional portraits. I was thinking of getting a 28mm but rejected the idea after half a year contemplating buying the 28mm Elmarit ASPH. Too much too see and learn with 35mm, and 28mm is too expressive for my projects. 
Two of my 35mm are modern-rendering Leicas. I’d prefer the term classic-rendering though. For my eyes they do 85% of what I need. The third is a Streel Rim knockoff from Voigtländer which creates a 60ies look that has absolutely its place in my world. 

Off-topic but noteworthy: I’m on the fence of getting a proper large-format printer. I find that consequential in a photography journey, surely more helpful than the next Noctilux (and cheaper).
 

 

[Jeff S]

41 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Off-topic but noteworthy: I’m on the fence of getting a proper large-format printer. I find that consequential in a photography journey, surely more helpful than the next Noctilux (and cheaper).
 

 

Agree (except 17 inch fine for my needs); so what’s stopping you? [You might want to take this discussion to the DPP section of the forum.]

Jeff

[hepcat]

6 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Surely, for noobs it does not matter. But for a seasoned photographer or cinematographer the rendering MAKES OR BREAKS the image and how the lenses perform is ABSOLUTELY the most important for them, because they are milking the most of it. Some even have lenses CUSTOM BUILT for the purpose:
...
You see the pattern here?

So yes, the lenses MAKE OR BREAK the image and their performance is of SIGNIFICANT importance, but only if you really know what you are doing. Saying that lens rendering is "much ado about nothing" is like saying all cars are the same because their sole purpose is to get you from A to B.

Yes, Al, I see a pattern there.  And for a cinematographer dropping a few million dollars on making a period movie, using period glass for a consistent "look" throughout is important.  I get that.   And earlier I said that I agree that lenses render differently.   However, for every movie you can name where such care is taken, there is also a story as in the filming of Mad Max:  "The original Mad Max was shot entirely on a 35mm anamorphic lens because George Miller found a set of discarded glass left behind from the production of The Getaway, and the 35 was the only one that wasn’t too broken to use."

I'm not sure what you consider a "noob," but I've made some or all of my living from photography (the definition of a "pro" used by most folks) since 1974.  Every dollar I spend on equipment is a dollar that's not income.  I am circumspect in my acquisitions for that reason.   Focal length, aperture, and coatings are important in selecting competent lenses to do what I need them to do, but at a price that I can still be competitive and make a living. Practicality is King.  I can't recall in my fifty years of "pro" work, that the "rendering" of a lens has ever been a "make or break" affair on any specific job or session.  I've never had a client comment on it.  I don't recall any discussions about the issue from any of those photographers considered "greats" from the 1930s through the 1990s.   They generally used what they had, or could get easily.  And they produced amazing work.  

This obsession with "rendering" has only been a "thing" for about the past twenty years.  Basically since internet forums began.  The term "bokeh," now part of the lexicon,  was first used for photography in an article in 1997.  Not to be argumentative, but your comments reflect a reality that most of us can't subscribe to.   I've used Leica since 1974, and I used Phase One studio cameras and digital backs for about ten years, so I'm not averse to spending money when I need to.    In fact,  I was using Leica products back when Leica was nearly bankrupt and not even a major player.   It's now, however,  really only among the monied elite who have the disposable income to play in this market that these discussions about the specific "rendering" of Leitz lenses even happen.  You have to admit that comparative discussions among and about $5,000 lenses on $9,000 camera bodies rule out most "pro photographers," at least those that I know. 

Interestingly, during the past twenty or so years, the only places I've really found this kind of hair-splitting in discussions are in Leica discussions and Phase One discussions; and most frequently the primary contributors to those discussions aren't pros, but amateur photographers with a LOT of discretionary income.  These discussions seem to be almost a rite of passage into elitism.   As I said in an earlier thread, I've never seen so much technically perfect, totally uninspiring work as I've seen in Phase One IQ150 discussions where the Blue Ring lenses offer beautifully rendered, absolutely technically perfect mundane flowers and landscapes on a 150mp sensor for a mere $50,000.

I'll reiterate that when someone can tell what lens/camera/sensor/film combination I used to make a particular image just by looking at the image, THEN I'll agree that "rendering" can make or break an image.  Until then, I remain skeptical. 

[pgk]

34 minutes ago, hepcat said:

And for a cinematographer dropping a few million dollars on making a period movie, using period glass for a consistent "look" throughout is important.

I can't recall in my fifty years of "pro" work, that the "rendering" of a lens has ever been a "make or break" affair on any specific job or session.  I've never had a client comment on it.

I'll reiterate that when someone can tell what lens/camera/sensor/film combination I used to make a particular image just by looking at the image, THEN I'll agree that "rendering" can make or break an image.  Until then, I remain skeptical. 

Interestingly, despite consistency being important in movies, which it certainly can be, in the past soft focus was often used for close up female portraits and its use is often pretty obvious and undermines consistency! I would say that consistency is actually of far lesser importance in still photograhy and much can be ironed out in PP anyway.

I too have never had a problem with a client complaining about any image I've supplied because of the lens used (or any other reason actually😃). 

I can think of a few lenses which have obvious 'characteristics' but I'm not sure that even these would be so specific as to enable someone to positively identify the specific lens with 100% certainty.

All that said, photography is a broad church and some will enjoy understanding the nuances of the characterisics of different lenses and I have no problem with this aspect of photography, other than to say that it is a technical genre which has less impact on the end result of most imagery (never say ALL) than might often be imagined from the chatter about it.

But to get back to the problem of GAS and its consequences. Like many others I probably own too much gear and far too many lenses. This is only a problem if it worries you though, and like others I sometimes have 'purges'. There is though a core of equipment which I find resonates with me and which I retain and use more than the rest. I could work withe just this core but enjoy using other stuff too, so why not? 

 

[RexGig0]

I am glad that my lenses eat and drink very little. 😉 Whether I have few, or many, the maintenance budget is low.

I bought all but one of my Leica M and R lens pre-owned, and while I do not consider them to be financial investments, I, or the executor of my estate, could realize decent selling prices, if/when either scenario arrives. I also bought all but one of my Zeiss ZM lenses pre-owned, so, only that one, bought new, has significantly dropped in value.

In my future, as a retiree, with more-limited finances, I have a Cosina Voigtlander budget, so, am in little danger of accumulating more Leica M lenses…

Edited February 24 by RexGig0

[hepcat]

25 minutes ago, pgk said:

...

I can think of a few lenses which have obvious 'characteristics' but I'm not sure that even these would be so specific as to enable someone to positively identify the specific lens with 100% certainty.

...

But to get back to the problem of GAS and its consequences. Like many others I probably own too much gear and far too many lenses. This is only a problem if it worries you though, and like others I sometimes have 'purges'. There is though a core of equipment which I find resonates with me and which I retain and use more than the rest. I could work withe just this core but enjoy using other stuff too, so why not? 

 

So as not to appear to be a total hypocrite, I do in fact have one lens I bought specifically for it's "rendering," and that being a Denys Ivanichek Petzvar 120mm f/3.8 Petzval lens in Pentacon Six mount.  The Petzval lenses are anathema to today's pursuit of a "perfect image without aberration."   In fact I really like the way the Ivanichek Petzvar performs in portraiture specifically because of its many aberrations.

As far as GAS goes, I never considered myself a "collector" until about mid-way through Covid.  I was buying and selling film equipment and making a better living at that than making images.  All of a sudden, I ended up with a really nice set of Leitz R glass and a couple of Leicaflex bodies, and R6.2 and R5;  eight or ten really nice pieces of Hexanon glass and a few T3N bodies;  some early '70s Yashica TL variants and eight or ten Yashinon DX lenses; a couple of black paint Pentax SL bodies, a couple of Rolleis, and a phalanx of Canon Barnack bodies and glass.   So, I sold the Phase One gear and bought a Lumix S1 and S5 to use the Leica R glass on, and then found an M5, M3, and an M10-P.   So I guess I'm a "collector" now, albeit with some pretty specific tastes.  Oh and a couple of ARAX CM bodies and eight or ten P6 mount CZJ lenses, a couple of Hartbeli, and the Ivanichek.  For the Lumix bodies, I have a S24-105 AF/OIS, an 85mm f/1.8AF and a Canon-mount Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro AF/OS that I mount using the Sigma MC-21 adapter.

As I said early on, I'm relatively brand-agnostic, as long as the equipment is competent to do what I want it to.  The Lumix S5 has a mode that I've found particularly useful called "Live View Composite" that is only otherwise found on Olympus bodies.  So, my "core" equipment is the Leica R glass which I can use on either the film or digital Lumix bodies.  I use the Canon Serenars on my M10-P quite happily, and the Hexanons occasionally "just because."  They're really superb glass, right up there with the Leica R lenses.  And the rest I have just because it makes me happy in my dotage.   And I have no need to liquidate any of it.

 

[ianforber]

17 hours ago, LeicaR10 said:

JoshuaRothman,  There are most excellent words of sage advice and wisdom offered in these posts.  Early on in my photography career, I too had GAS.  I went to GAS rehab three times, then finally realized there is no easy cure.  I finally found GAS sobriety through discipline and simply resolved myself to the difference between;  Needing and Wanting.  The many systems owned over the years cost me a bundle, luckily I could write most of it down with my business.  But the one lasting brand throughout 40+ years is Leica.  I found myself having to sit down, and do a list of pros and cons for each camera and lens.  I found resolution that I did NEED certain cameras and lenses for my genre of landscape photography and ease of portability.  It got down to using the S system for hiking in easy to moderate remote areas with assistants.  The really difficult terrain and hostile environment became the M system as primary. I retired and sold my business plus S system to my assistants.  At the same time, I also reduced my Leica M lens choices to a minimum of lenses that I needed.  The numerous rest all found new homes via private sales.  Ultimately, I found my "cure" for GAS that worked for me.  I have friends who are mired down and simply fall off the GAS recovery wagon...lack of discipline for the most part. You sound determined and I am certain there is a pathway that works for you too.  r/ Mark

PS...One last piece of advice; At the end of the day, its always about the content of the photograph, not the brand, make, model of the camera or lens.  Keep this in mind when deciding which piece of gear will help you create the best masterpiece photograph with meaninful content.

I try to maintain photography GAS under control by spending money on other expensive but unrelated activities. For me, that’s watches but for others it might be cars, motorbikes etc. Works a treat!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

10 hours ago, patrickcolpron said:

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!

 

Why do you have so many batteries?

Philip.