Discussion on fast lenses vs. not so fast lenses

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, Alexander108 said:

 

But that is not the question. The question is: as I learn more and more about old style photography and lenses from the 1950ies & 60ies I realized that back then very fast lenses (even f/1 or f/.95) were built.

 

I don't think so. I started photography in the late 1980's and a f1.4 lens was more unusual than common back then. I have bought some outstanding vintage lenses and they are very often f3.5 maximum aperture. I had a stunning Kern Switar that was f1.8. I own a Summilux 50mm f1.4 and that was one of the more common 'fast' Leica M lenses back then. More common M lenses were either f2or f2.8.

Contemporary hobbyists are obsessed with lenses faster than f1.4 IMO. A portrait with the eye in focus but the nose and ear out of focus is annoying IMO. 

I would also counsel against splurging on multiple lenses with your first M body. When I bought my LeicaM6 in 1990I only had a 35mm f2 lens for about the first year. It allowed me to concentrate on the image taking, my composition. After I bought  M 50mm and 90mm lenses I found myself wasting time deciding which lens to use. Many, many iconic Leica shooters only ever used one lens and became famously associated with that lens. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Vanillasludge]

My regular routine goes as follows:

1. Buy a high speed lens after contracting GAS via YouTube lens reviews 

2. Use said lens for a solid month non-stop, all the while looking for any reason to justify my purchase 

3.  Start occasionally using my smaller, lighter and equally sharp normal speed lens after getting a neck ache carrying my heavy, expensive high speed lens   

4. Eventually realize I hardly ever use the high speed lens because it’s a pain in the ass to lug around.

5.  Sell lens and wait two years to repeat cycle  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris W]

I usually shoot my 50mm Summilux f1.4 no lower than f2, often at f5.6. Likewise my other lenses, usually between f2 and f5.6.

 

[JoshuaR]

The way I look at it is that there are actually three kinds of M lenses:

1. not-so-fast lenses that are pleasingly tiny
2. fast lenses that are perfect-ish at all apertures
3. fast lenses that are weird and have 'vibes' when wide open but are perfect when closed down

During my more expansive phase, in which I owned lots and lots of lenses, I sometimes owned all three kinds in a single focal length. So, for example, I had the 50mm f/2.5 Summarit (tiny but slow), the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH (fast and perfect at all apertures), and the 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux reissue (dreamy and soft wide open, but basically modern-looking after f/2.8).

I think there are good reasons why someone would want to own any type of lens, but personally I've settled on the third type of lens as the kind I most like to own, especially since the size penalty isn't always so bad. So, for me, that means the 35mm New Steel Rim and the 50 Noctilux f/1.2 Reissue are my only 35mm and 50mm lenses. (If I could find a similarly 'bi-modal' 28mm lens, I'd own it, but so far the best I've been able to do is the 28mm Summicron v1.)

I think what happened, in my case, is that the small-but-slow lenses taught me to shoot more and more at f/2.8 and slower. And once I realized that I didn't need f/1.4 all the time, I started to see it more as a creative opportunity. And then I realized that I actually wanted something quite different wide open. And so I gravitated toward the 'bi-modal' lenses.

[BWColor]

On 8/20/2025 at 3:24 PM, Alexander108 said:

Thank you all very much for your insights. I highly appreciate taking your time to contribute! This has been extremely helpful. 

As I am looking into a 24mm lens as well as a 50mm lens and as I have my Q3 w/28mm my next lens will be a 50mm around f/2. For budget reasons I am leaning towards the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 50mm f2,0 asph. Or a preowned Summicron 50mm s/2.  

The APO-Lanthar is an amazing lens.  I generally shoot it wide open and it is sharp corner to corner.  On film, outdoors, I shoot at ISO 100 and a 3D ND filter.

[farnz]

16 hours ago, Chris W said:

I don't think so.

The Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 was built in 1966 and used Stanley Kubrick when filming Barry Lyndon.  It was also intended to shoot the dark side of the moon but never did.

The Canon 50mm f/0.95 "Dream" lens was released in 1961. 

The Zunow 50mm f/1.1 was released in 1953.

The Nikkor (Nikon) 50mm f/1.1 was released in 1956.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/21/2025 at 8:13 AM, TomB_tx said:

I remember talking to the Leica Rep ... He advised Leica lenses were "equivalent" and normal apertures, and the extra money for Summilux only made sense if you needed f1.4 for low light.

That may have been the case in the film era, I don't know; but that advice does not accord with my experience.  Each lens is different in more ways than speed wide open and depth of field.  Some roll-off from the plane of focus to out of focus, some have pretty ordinary sharpness out of the centre, others have curvature of field, moustache and barrel distortion.  Not every M mount lens is created equal from f/2 or f/2.8 out to f/22.

If it were me (and it has been), I would look through the photo threads on this forum for the lenses of the focal lengths you prefer and try to get a sense of how they render, and I would read some of the reviews - Erwin Puts' Compendium is well worth the time, if getting a bit old (he died a few years ago, so the newer lenses aren't listed).  There are plenty of competent reviewers online - Jono Slack, Reid Reviews, Jim Kasson (though nothing recent) and others.  I don't really put much store on DigiLLoyd or Ken Rockwell.

There are tons of online resources you can use before committing your funds.

[hansvons]

On 8/20/2025 at 6:38 PM, Alexander108 said:

I already got the Leica Summicron 35mm f/2 v3, Canada which I honestly bought because it was more budget friendly. Extremely happy with the lens. I am now looking into a 24/25mm lens.

If you were me, I‘d call it a day and be done with shopping. Why? Because 35mm is somewhat the sweet spot of the M system and the lens you own sits well between old vintage (8 Elements, Steel Rim) and modern classic (35mm Summicron ASPH).

Also, 35mm is the best-fitting focal length for storytelling photography. Leica 35s tend to render faces relatively flat making them suitable for portraits as well. Also, landscape photography and 35mm work well together.

That‘s why I‘d explore your setup for at least a year and then, maybe, get a 50 (in my book that would be the v4 Summicron for its tab and size). At some point, you also might find out that a sharper 35mm would be desirable (that would be the ASPH Summicron for me, both generations).

Lastly, if dedicated digital wide-angle photography would be on my table, I‘d go the DSLR route, as the M range finder can‘t represent the wide field of view and lenses like the 24mm APO SL beat any M design by a far shot in quality on all levels bar size. Great 24mm lenses can’t be built small. 

[Alexander108]

Thank you all. As I still have my Q3 (28mm) I decided to buy a 50mm next. Just for the experience. I heard a lot of good things about the Summarit 50/2.5 which is light and small and at the same time is very sharp. It shared the same 39mm filter thread with my 35mm Summicron. Plus, (important to me) it can be bought for around 1000 EUR preowned in good condition. I am travelling to Italy in a few days and cannot buy this lens online before as it won't arrive in time. I am visiting the Leica World on Tuesday and let's see what offerings they have. 

[jgeenen]

To make your life more complicated: Good alternatives are the collapsible Elmar-M 2,8/50mm and the new Voigtländer Skopar 2,2/50mm. Both are very compact and very performant. Both have a very clean rendering, the Voigtländer more vignetting wide open. The Elmar-M has no focus tab and it might take some time to get used to the collapsing tube (but you are not forced to use it…)

[hansvons]

26 minutes ago, Alexander108 said:

heard a lot of good things about the Summarit 50/2.5 which is light and small and at the same time is very sharp. It shared the same 39mm filter thread with my 35mm Summicron. Plus, (important to me) it can be bought for around 1000 EUR preowned in good condition.

Sound decision!

[Chris W]

7 hours ago, farnz said:

The Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 was built in 1966 and used Stanley Kubrick when filming Barry Lyndon. 

Err I specifically didn't say NO fast lenses were ever offered. I said the vast majority of lenses were in the f2 to f3.5 range, with the odd standard lens at f1.4

Kind of pointless to just list the few outliers.

[Chris W]

40 minutes ago, Alexander108 said:

I heard a lot of good things about the Summarit 50/2.5 which is light and small and at the same time is very sharp. It shared the same 39mm filter thread with my 35mm Summicron. Plus, (important to me) it can be bought for around 1000 EUR preowned in good condition.

The Voigtlander 50mm APO is highly rated and cheaper (lightly used0. It's extremely sharp.

[lct]

1 hour ago, Alexander108 said:

[...] I decided to buy a 50mm next. Just for the experience. I heard a lot of good things about the Summarit 50/2.5 which is light and small and at the same time is very sharp. It shared the same 39mm filter thread with my 35mm Summicron. Plus, (important to me) it can be bought for around 1000 EUR preowned in good condition.[...]

Very good little lens. Better use a hood with it as it can produce some nasty flare that can be a problem as it comes when strong light sources like the sun are outside the frame. It is easy to prevent in LV mode though.

Another vote for the Elmar-M 50/2.8 and the tiny Skopar 50/2.2. My copy of the latter does not produce strong vignetting when 6-bit coded. I have not the lens at hand but i will tell you which code i use if you are interested.

[Eoin]

Anyone know the reason why the 50 f2.8 is an Elmar and most other f2.8 are Elmarit?.

Also another vote for the 50 Elmar, lovely on the monochrome and also a E39 filter thread.

[FrozenInTime]

In the current times, the character of a lens is often chosen to provide a degree of abstraction between the subject and environment. In many ways this is kick-back against the perfection of modern APO and aspherical lenses, and also the deep depth of field from small sensor phone images.

Modern fast ( complex aspherical ), and highly corrected medium speed lenses, achieve Gaussian blur and a flat image field. Small aperture classic lenses approach similar correction.

Whereas classic spherical fast lenses tend to exhibit outline blur on one side of the plane of focus and smooth blur on the other; with field curvature, coma and corner sharpness correction being noticeably weak. With a complex scene the classic fast lens can look a right old mess, so a scene may need to be selected to manage structure away from the centre.

A modern corrected lens handles complex/uncontrolled scenes effortlessly.

i.e. Artistic use of diffusion, film, and fast lenses, ( or anamorphic lenses in cinema - where lighting and deliberate flare are heavily exploited)  all set a mood and  raise discussions similar to the Pictorialist vs. realist debate of 'Group f/64' in the Ansel Adams days. 

Pick your style.

 Putting view camera like resolutions of 60+ Mpixels in a small reportage camera blurs the lines further 🙂 

[lct]

12 minutes ago, Eoin said:

Anyone know the reason why the 50 f2.8 is an Elmar and most other f2.8 are Elmarit?.

The name "Elmarit" has never been used for a 50mm lens if memory serves. As for the Elmar-M 50/2.8 it was a sort of reissue of the Elmar 50/2.8 from the sixties. It was dedicated to the M6J in 1994 before becoming a regular model a couple years later.

Edited August 22 by lct

[Pierre68]

If you like the 24mm focal range, you should consider the Zeiss Biogon 25mm f/2.8

 https://www.zeiss.fr/consumer-products/photographie/zm/biogon-2825-zm.html

I have it and it replaced both the 24mm f/3.8 and the Summilux 24mm f/1.4

It is tiny and fast enough. And IQ is excellent.

https://gear.vogelius.se/-reviews/zeiss-zm-25-biogon/index.html

 

Edited August 22 by Pierre68
added info

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Alexander108]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Pierre68:

If you like the 24mm focal range, you should consider the Zeiss Biogon 25mm f/2.8

 https://www.zeiss.fr/consumer-products/photographie/zm/biogon-2825-zm.html

I have it and it replaced both the 24mm f/3.8 and the Summilux 24mm f/1.4

It is tiny and fast enough. And IQ is excellent.

Thank you- Have this on my list. I read somewhere that it has issues with modern sensors. Is there something to it?

[hansvons]

On 8/22/2025 at 4:48 PM, Alexander108 said:

Thank you- Have this on my list. I read somewhere that it has issues with modern sensors. Is there something to it?

Most, if not all M lenses from 35mm downwards show more vignetting and soft corners on non-Leica cameras. This phenomenon is related to the lens’ projection angle and the sensor’s filter stack thickness. The wider the lens, the thicker the sensor, the worse the issues. Leica modified their SL sensors to take M lenses, but M do it better still. The most forgiving is film. No wonder as this is the medium the lenses were designed for.

I haven’t tested personally any camera from Sony, Nikon, Canon, Lumix, you name it, but none of them is designed for M lenses and thus show theses issues. But I know how a 35mm Voigtlander Nokton looks on film and on the SL2-S. Despite sporting an M-lenses-optimised sensor the difference is noticeable for the untrained eye when looking at side-by-side samples. Even the relatively modern 35mm Summicron ASPH works better on film; most notably, the vignetting is much less at f/2.