If you can only have 1 lens

[Jamie Pillers]

There are a number of threads recently that get close to answering my conundrum. Like RayPA's recent interesting thread about the focal length members prefer. But I'm interested in a slightly different slant. What if you could own only one lens, what would it be? And to get even closer to my conundrum, assume it could only be a lens in the price range of the CVs... not those wonderful, but out-of-reach Leicas.

I'm asking this questions for two reasons. First, I can't really afford to own more than one lens at this point in my unemployed life. Second, I have a feeling that I'd be more creative and quicker to react to the passing scene if my small brain wasn't burdened with the extra thoughts of that other lens and "shouldn't I be using it instead".

:bang::bang::bang:

[photobizzz]

In your situation, I guess the choice would be the CV 50/1.5 Nokton.

I only paid about $100 more for the Gen III 50/2 Summicron I have though.

[Lord Fluff]

Do you want people to post their favourites or what they think YOU should buy? For example I think a few here would pick the Noctilux - which I can't see being in your budget somehow.....

[wlewisiii]

For me it is really simple - if you like a normal FOV, then get a Canon 50/1.8. if you like a wider FOV get a Canon 35/1.8; do long lenses the same way.

There is no better "bang/buck" than Canon glass.

None.

William

[payasam]

The CV 40 mm seems like a good compromise.

[mfogiel]

If you cannot afford the 35 Nokton (most versatile lens ever made) or the 35 Biogon, the lens of choice might be the upcoming 35/1.4 from CV, or, as stated above , the 40/1.4 CV.

[Uwe_Nds]

If I had to have only one lens in the price range of the CV lenses, it would be the M-Hexanon 50/2.0.

If I was on a really tight budget, then the Industar-61 or Jupiter-8 (or both).

Best regards,
Uwe

[sienarot]

Oh, that's easy. The CV 40/1.4. It's small and fast, and fits nicely between 35mm (my preferred focal length with DSLRs) and 50mm. It's the lens I use about 80% of the time anyways. I've got two bodies and I'm always alternating that lens between the two. Methinks it's time to consider getting another 40/1.4 to alleviate this issue :D

[mfunnell]

If I had to have only one lens in the price range of the CV lenses, it would be the M-Hexanon 50/2.0I'll second that choice (picking from lenses I have and use).

...Mike

[gb hill]

Only one lens? Then I guess it would be a Canon 50/1:4. That way I would have a good lens and also a fast lens.

[santino]

I'll second the Industar 61LD, I got mine for 7$ and it's really crisp. only downside is the slow speed of f2.8

[santino]

though the best, cheapest 50 I've ever had is the f1.4 50mm Yashinon, a beast but in SLR C/Y mount :(

[Tair-11A]

I'll second the Industar 61LD, I got mine for 7$ and it's really crisp. only downside is the slow speed of f2.8И-50 дешевше, но мягше

[Roberto]

There are a number of threads recently that get close to answering my conundrum. Like RayPA's recent interesting thread about the focal length members prefer. But I'm interested in a slightly different slant. What if you could own only one lens, what would it be? And to get even closer to my conundrum, assume it could only be a lens in the price range of the CVs... not those wonderful, but out-of-reach Leicas.

I'm asking this questions for two reasons. First, I can't really afford to own more than one lens at this point in my unemployed life. Second, I have a feeling that I'd be more creative and quicker to react to the passing scene if my small brain wasn't burdened with the extra thoughts of that other lens and "shouldn't I be using it instead".

:bang::bang::bang:

Well, if only one lens I'd choose CV 50/2,5 Skopar or better 50/3,5 Heliar..
Lowering the price range, anyway, I think I could live also with a black Jupiter 8 the ones for export...

My 2 cents,
Rob.

[noimmunity]

With RF lenses, there is no magic bullet and you have several parameters to choose among:

size
speed
handling
signature/image quality
focal length
price (you want below US$500)

did i miss anything? you might specify the mount if it's M-only, since that would rule out LTM lenses.

since you haven't mentioned a body and you're on a budget, why not consider a fixed lens job?

You need to decide what is your priority, after price. Then there are people here who can really help YOU.

for one all around lens in your budget that you can keep for the rest of your life no matter how you upgrade, i say go for a used version of the current Zeiss ZM Planar 50/2.

[Jamie Pillers]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I currently have a Voigtlander R4A and the CV 40/1.4 and 25/4P. The reason I posted the original question was that I'm looking for my personal "magic bullet" lens. It would be a lens that I could put on the R4A and leave it there and not have to think about "which lens". I understand that to some of you this is a silly endeavor... for all the reasons I read about here on RFF (different situation.. different lens; different "look".. different lens; pleasure of ownership; GAS; etc.). For me its different. I like the feeling of being limited to a simple bit of equipment... I like the challenge of working with simple gear in a complex visual world.

For the moment, I think I'll keep the CV 40, sell the 25 and then see how things go... out on the streets of the SF Bay Area where I like to walk and look. Thanks again for your advice. :rolleyes:

[Brian Sweeney]

With an R4, the 50/2 would be a good choice. If your budget is tight, get a J-8 or in I-61. The latter is very sharp. I modified one for my Nikon RF's. The J-8 "might" need to be shimmed for use wide-open. I've used J-8's that were every bit as sharp as a Nikkor 5cm F2.

[raid]

Based on the lenses that I own:

I compared the Summicron 40-C to the more costly Pentax 43mm/1.9 Limited [ a loaner], and the results were very similar. Both lenses are superb. I may go for the Summicron 40/2-C as my only lens, but I also may go for the Canon 50mm/1.2 as my only lens, or maybe the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/2, or maybe the Summicron 50mm/2 or maybe the Summicron 35mm/2.

It would be an agonizing choice to make.

I may go for the Summicron 50mm/2 in the end. It has so much class and character.

[Doug]

For an only lens on the Bessa R4A (I have one too), I'll suggest either 28mm or 35mm depending on your preferences. The forthcoming 35/1.4 Nokton would be a dynamite choice! On that camera 28 is a nice one too because it has its own frameline, not shared with others in the viewfinder. Sorry to see you ditch your 25P, as that is a great wide companion for the 35/40.

[gberger]

I'm an Old Fud. I shot with a Leica 50/3.5 Elmar for years on a IIIc. Now, years later, my grandkids presented me with a 50 Summilux ASPH. That is still (50mm) my preferred lens.

However, with macular degeneration, I now have a 24mm 2.8 ASPH glued to my M7, as the DOF cam compensate for focussing errors.

George (84+)

[jbf]

George, I am quite glad to hear that you are still happily shooting away with your camera. :D


If I could have only one lens, it would be a 50mm. Since I still have had so little time to try out any other lenses really... I'd just have to say for now that I'd want a 50mm. No specific 50mm lens in particular, mind you. :)

[ZivcoPhoto]

my 50mm Elmar F3.5

[Hacker]

A 50 Lux ASPH, a very versatile and good all rounder lens.

[willie_901]

35/2 Biogon ZM

[Krosya]

I'd go for a 50mm lens too. IMO best all-arounder is Hexanon 50/2 - great price/performance too. Another fun lens is - Summitar 50/2. These are my 2 most favorite 50mm lenses. But for some things I like J-3 50/1.5. Canon 50/1.2 can be fun too.

[shadowfox]

On an RF, I think I'd be using a 35mm lens. The type of photography that I'd like to do with a rangefinder is more fun to do with a wide-angle lens. Plus, I'd be using one the advantages of using an RF: easy focusing with wide-angle lenses.

As to which one, I don't think there's a "bad" 35mm lens for RF, is there? :p

[cmogi10]

I would probably go with a 50mm asph summilux :)

[Jamie Pillers]

Shadowfox,
I'm with you... wide angle is definitely the way to go. I'm debating whether the CV 40mm is a bit too long and that maybe I'll instead opt for a 35mm or even a 28mm. I'm going to take the 40 out for a few more outings and see how it "feels". And I agree with you that probably any rangefinder 35mm lens would be fine. I'm the sort that feels that getting out and "capturing the moment" is way more important than whether I've squeezed every last bit of sharpness out of the equipment.

[ferider]

I would probably go with 40 or 35mm, but certainly not with an interchangeable lens camera. There are better single lens alternatives
out there. Like a Hexar AF, or a TLR.

Roland.

[Marc Jutras]

Since I use this lens for about 99% of my photography, I'd say I could live very well with my CV Ultron 35/1.7.

[OurManInTangier]

I only have two lenses and barely use one of them. A 50mm Carl Zeiss Planar f/2 and an old Canon 35mm f/2.8...which is the one I rarely use.

For me its the 50 everytime and frankly I'm a little surprised, when I first looked through a rangefinder and saw those, comparatively, small 50mm framelines I thought I'd never be able to use them. Now it just seems to fit and the 35mm is dauntingly 'open' and hard to fill.

As for specific lenses, well the Planar is a stunner and I'm overjoyed I got it ( It was a bit of a toss up between that and the Hex but I found it at a good price and so that was that!) The first 50mm I had was the Canon 1.8 and thats an excellent starting point for anybody - Canon put together some real quality and my 35 is also fantastic esp. for the price.

[irq506]

35mm Summilux ASPH in Chrome.
Optically insane and that build quality; the lens in average everyday professional use, will probably last 85 years.

[Todd.Hanz]

CV 35/1.2
close to Leica land price-wise though.

Todd

[gudlagoba]

If I had to pick one out of the lenses I own, Helios 103 53mm f1.8. I am a cheap b****d but I believe the Helios 103 is truly an incredible lens for the price.

[thomasw_]

I would probably go with a 50mm asph summilux :)
an extremely wise choice carl. you are wise beyond your years:) i am curious what your top three or four or five would be? as for me:

if 3:> lux asph 50, zm 25, lux asph 35 for the speed

if 4:> same as with 3, just add zm 35 for the signature

if 5:> as for 4, just add a lux 75 for its boootiful oof areas.

edit: reasons for roland's post, remove asph

[ferider]

Why would you need both Biogon and lux asph 35, Thomas ? Also, the 75 Lux comes spherical only. Best,

Roland.

[projectbluebird]

I was in a similar situation when I got into rangefinders. I managed to score an M3 for a steal on the evilbay, and had to wait another seven months before I could afford a lens for it. I eventually scored an early 50mm summilux (version 1) from the same source. It's got speed, it's well built, and it people avoid it like the plague (keeps the prices down). It was my only lens for over a year, and I still use it quite regularly. Personally, I think the poor reputation is undeserved, it's a great lens.

If you prefer new glass, I'd suggest the voigtlander 50/1.5 nokton. It's cheaper, even with an M adapter, and it has speed too. People seem to like it as well. I haven't used one, but almost bought it for my IIIf. The only reason I didn't was I managed to find an old summarit in decent shape for less money.

[NB23]

If only one lens, why not the best and most expensive? Hard choice but the Noctilux would win, in the end.

[Nachkebia]

24/28 biogon f1.4 if existed :) for now Nikon 28mm f/1.4 is the perfect lens, for rangefinder I guess I would choose 25mm biogon f/2.8 :)

[Jamie Pillers]

Ok, you all have tweeked my interest. In my original post I asked what you're one lens would be, assuming "it could only be a lens in the price range of the CVs... not those wonderful, but out-of-reach Leicas". So I was assuming I'd read a lot of advice about old used Canons, Jupiters, CVs, maybe even some old 'primitive' Leicas. But instead, many of you suggest that you'd still recommend that I buy Summiluxes, Summicrons, ZMs... even a Noctilux! If I read the RFF and ebay ads correctly these lenses cost in the range of $1,000 to.... $10,000!!

So I'm interested in what I'm missing by not saving up for the next few years to buy one of these lenses. I've read a lot of technical reviews of the Leicas and comparisons with the CV lenses. I've never read anything that says that if I pay five times the cost of a CV lens I'll get anything like five times the quality. But I know I'm just READING... I'm not SEEING.

So here's another question. Has anyone ever done a test like this and then posted the pictures on the web for us to see? Take one rangefinder camera body, put in on a tripod, point it at some difficult-to-capture scene, or some beautiful scene, or ?, and then mount a Noctilux, a Summilux, a Summicron, a ZM, a Canon, and a CV lens (all the same focal length and all set at some set of f-stops) and shoot the scene with all six lenses... or five, or whatever. Send all the negatives to a printer, get the 16x24 prints and then mount them on a gallery wall and have a look (or scan the negs and put them on the web). Would I see astoundingly different amounts of beauty in the different prints?

If there's such evidence, please point to the website. Thanks.

[thomasw_]

http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/

If you don't "see" any differences, then you can count yourself free from leica or zeiss acquisitions :)

[drewbarb]

One lens forever, in realistic financial terms? There are lots of choices. For me it would be a 50mm. Which one would be based upon my budget. $500? probably an old Summicron. $300? I'd look for a Canon lens, or maybe an old Elmar, Summar or something. $50? Research a good FSU lens. There are loads of choices in LTM lenses; buy M adapters. Speed costs, and the better it performs the more it costs, so keep that in mind budget-wise.

No matter what you get, you might or might not see differences in performance, many of which depend upon your technique. If you perform the same-f-stop-16x20-prints test you describe- and use a tripod, a cable release, and, say, f5.6 for each shot, you will see differences; I doubt how much useful information this would yield.

In real-world (hand-held?) shooting most lenses when used carefully or appropriately will give you pretty good results. Buy the best you can afford, giving yourself a reasonable budget which your conscience can still approve. Don't forget the film.

[MikeL]

If there's such evidence, please point to the website. Thanks.

Jamie, it's kinda like asking is there evidence that a rangefinder will give you a better photo than an SLR? Like with golf clubs, sample variation can be higher on cheaper clubs, but as long as the head doesn't fly off, someone with skill could use it. Some of the modern very expensive drivers look like the tin from an entire canned ham with super gravity force and what not. I can hook that s.o.b out of bounds just like I can take crappy photos with a Noctilux. There are differences between clubs and lenses, but I think the differences only show up under certain circumstances.

Sorry, back to lenses:
One inexpensive rangefinder lens? I'm with L39UK, Summar.

One inexpensive SLR lens? Pentax 50mm Super Takumar f1:1.4.

[Jamie Pillers]

MikeL,
I also can take a brand new Callaway driver and hit the "power fade" into the trees with no effort at all. :-)

I guess my point is that I've never actually SEEN the differences these lenses can produce... I only hear people TALK about it. If someone could tell me that on average my prints made with a Summicron are going to blow my Nokton prints out of the water, then I start thinking hard about making the sacrifices necessary to buy the Summicron.

I'll raise your golf analogy with a watch analogy, because I thinks its closer to the lens question. A Rolex keeps the same time accuracy as my Timex, at least as far as normal humans can perceive, short of a battery of scientific tests. So why buy a Rolex... it LOOKS beautiful, and its heavier, but it does the same job, right?

And getting to your points... I bet Gary Winogrand would have made outstanding photographs with a nice old Nikon/Nikkor kit. And Tiger can beat the pants off us with a set of K-Mart Specials.

So... do we really need Summicrons to make outstanding photographs... I don't think so. Lets take all that extra cash and give to our schools for our kids instead! :-)
Jamie

P.S.: What is that L39 Summar lens you mentioned? And do you know where I can find a good list of descriptions of the different Leica lens models? I think I beginning to see that some, like Summicrons and Summiluxes are defined by there speed. Is that consistent? Thanks.

[Todd.Hanz]

MikeL,
I guess my point is that I've never actually SEEN the differences these lenses can produce... I only hear people TALK about it. If someone could tell me that on average my prints made with a Summicron are going to blow my Nokton prints out of the water, then I start thinking hard about making the sacrifices necessary to buy the Summicron.

I'll raise your golf analogy with a watch analogy, because I thinks its closer to the lens question. A Rolex keeps the same time accuracy as my Timex, at least as far as normal humans can perceive, short of a battery of scientific tests. So why buy a Rolex... it LOOKS beautiful, and its heavier, but it does the same job, right?

So... do we really need Summicrons to make outstanding photographs... I don't think so. Lets take all that extra cash and give to our schools for our kids instead! :-)
Jamie



Keep this attitude and go shoot with what you've got, stay away from this place and you'll do fine. ;)

Todd

[Todd.Hanz]

...and to add to this, why not look for a Canon QL17, Olympus SP, or a similar fixed lens RF? Great cameras and you'll never worry about which lens to take.

Todd

[macmx]

Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux. I am so impressed with this lens. It's beautiful.

[lic4]

If we're talking about a lower price range, I definitely think it would be the Ultron 35/1.7 for me. I've used one on and off (sometimes exclusively) since 2003, and a couple of my best enlarged prints are from that lens. I always found its slip on lens cap convenient as well.

[-kk-]

with that i have - hands down the summicron 40.

if im buying, probably a fast 35, summilux or something (i dare not research the options too deep just yet!)

[shadowfox]

MikeL,
I also can take a brand new Callaway driver and hit the "power fade" into the trees with no effort at all. :-)

I guess my point is that I've never actually SEEN the differences these lenses can produce... I only hear people TALK about it. If someone could tell me that on average my prints made with a Summicron are going to blow my Nokton prints out of the water, then I start thinking hard about making the sacrifices necessary to buy the Summicron.

I'll raise your golf analogy with a watch analogy, because I thinks its closer to the lens question. A Rolex keeps the same time accuracy as my Timex, at least as far as normal humans can perceive, short of a battery of scientific tests. So why buy a Rolex... it LOOKS beautiful, and its heavier, but it does the same job, right?

And getting to your points... I bet Gary Winogrand would have made outstanding photographs with a nice old Nikon/Nikkor kit. And Tiger can beat the pants off us with a set of K-Mart Specials.

So... do we really need Summicrons to make outstanding photographs... I don't think so. Lets take all that extra cash and give to our schools for our kids instead! :-)
Jamie

P.S.: What is that L39 Summar lens you mentioned? And do you know where I can find a good list of descriptions of the different Leica lens models? I think I beginning to see that some, like Summicrons and Summiluxes are defined by there speed. Is that consistent? Thanks.


Jamie,

It's never that easy. On one spectrum are people who maintained that *any* modern lens is just as good for them, On the other end, those who swear that they like Summilux or Biogon and won't touch anything else.

You have to find your place in that spectrum. Thanks to sites like this and others, you just have to do an online search to "taste" the lenses. Just like real food tasting, subjectivity is your number one enemy if you're looking for objectivity...

... and taste changes :)

[Lichtmaler]

I have only one, the Skopar 2,5/35 for my M6.

But if I have the choise, I would take the Leica 1,4/35 asph!

regards

Karsten

[MikeL]

Jamie, for a more modern look, the 50 Nokton is great. If you are looking for less contrast and more flare, the Summar runs in the $50-$100 range. It sounds like you are in the bay area, and if you want to borrow a Summar (my everyday lens) and Summicron Rigid, let me know and you can see if you notice any difference.

[amin_sabet]

A 50 Lux ASPH, a very versatile and good all rounder lens.

With unlimited budget, I'd have that same lens on an M7. With my budget, I picked up a very nice used R3A and a "like new" M-Hexanon 50/2.

[Palaeoboy]

Over or under $500

It would still be the 40mm Summicron.

[Ken Ford]

What if you could own only one lens, what would it be?

A 35mm Summicron ASPH. I love mine, and it's used for at least 75% of my shooting.


And to get even closer to my conundrum, assume it could only be a lens in the price range of the CVs... not those wonderful, but out-of-reach Leicas.

A 40mm Summicron, no question.

[Aziz]

Leica 28mm f/2.0 summicron asph. well for me anyway.