Do you mix and match your brands of lenses? [Archive]

Captain

01-23-2008, 10:24

I just thought I would start a discussion as to whether you prefer to mix and match different brands of lenses or do you prefer to get all one brand to get a continuity of character between the various focal lengths? It can be further complicated in that lenses of different vintage can have a different character yet again.

I do prefer to stick to same brands to get that continuity. I have mainly Leica lenses as my main user kit except one, I use a Voigtlander 21mm because I prefer its small size but also it doesn't seem to stand out with a much different character to the Leica lenses. However when I have tried a Voigtlander 40mm, a great lens on its own, its character stands out from the Leica ones. Do the wider focal lengths like 21mm have such great depth of field that brand character differences diminish?

I have seen one chap with a Zeiss 21, a Leica 35, a Konica 50 and a Voigtlander 90. Do you find some different lenses of different brands work well together?

Happy discussion.

Nachkebia

01-23-2008, 10:28

I have Zeiss, Leica, Nikon and future thoughts on voigtlander 35 f/1.4 :)
ofcourse I like to mix, simply to forget tones, textures and visual qualitys of lesnes, there is big difference in ergonomics, so yeah, definetly! but zeiss is the best so far :P

RML

01-23-2008, 10:53

Well, I can't afford a Zeiss 15mm, so a CV 15mm will do.
I won a Zeiss 50mm but I also have a J-8.
I have a CV 25mm but also a Minolta 40mm, and a Leica 28 Elmarit on the way.
Add a Jupiter 90mm, and I think I mixed and matched quite well.

For me, criterium 1 is my budget. Secondly, I want a lens that matches what I plan to shoot. If there is a lens that fits both criteria, it's mine. :)

venchka

01-23-2008, 11:00

Like stereo equipment, aren't you supposed to mix & match to get the best of all possibilities? Besides, who would want to always pay Leitz prices for Canon, Nippon Kogaku, Konica or Voigtlander quality, hey?

ferider

01-23-2008, 11:01

The flexibility of the M/LTM mount is it's most important strength to me. Except for M42,
no other mount allows you to mix and match similarly. I wouldn't even use
Rangefinders without it .... Check my kits in the signature, you can see which lenses
I pair up.

Roland

payasam

01-23-2008, 11:07

As for RML, for me the first criterion is my budget. I buy what I can afford in the focal length I need.

elude

01-23-2008, 11:07

Mix it up ! :)

dazedgonebye

01-23-2008, 11:10

I have only CV lenses for my R3A. This isn't motivated by brand loyalty but rather by the fact that CV is the only one currently making quality lenses I can afford.
I have a few FSU lenses for my FSU cameras.

projectbluebird

01-23-2008, 11:34

I have to admit, All of my M-mount lenses are (old) Leica. Not because I'm one of those red-dot fanatics (you know who you are), but when I was buying my kit That's all there was. I didn't know about the Hexar, Cosina had only made SM lenses, and there was no ZM.

My very first RF was a zorki, with four lenses. Three of which were great, and one that wasn't. I've still got all of them. I've got a VC 15mm, and keep looking at their offerings with interest. I've also been perusing the ZM catalog of late, they look like great lenses. (Do I really need another 50? Yes. Can I afford one? Sadly, no.)

I'd happily mix and match, and someday I really will!

BillP

01-23-2008, 11:36

My lens choice is a palette, in terms of focal length and signature. The "brushes" I use each deliver a different "look", based on a number of criteria. I am no more a slavish follower of a particular brand of lens than I am cars, suits, shoes, watches or anything else.

Regards,

Bill

Cron

01-23-2008, 11:46

sure they work together, mix is not only a matter of costs, also of ergonomics and personal taste

dlove5

01-23-2008, 12:22

Definitely mix and match.

Kim Coxon

01-23-2008, 12:48

Mix and Match. For the RF's, I presently use Leica, Zeiss, CV, Canon and Pentax.

Kim

Roger Hicks

01-23-2008, 13:13

What continuity? I use Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer and Canon, and I half-regret selling my 85/2 Jupiter (though only half, because I really didn't use it much). I see more continuity between a 50/2 Planar and a 50/2 Summicron than I do between a 50/2 Planar and a 50/1.5 Sonnar.

Cheers,

R.

santino

01-23-2008, 13:24

mix and batch baby :)
so many good lenses, so little time to shoot :)

L39UK

01-23-2008, 13:35

I mix and match LTM lenses. Just because a certain lens is the best in one focal length it doesn't follow that the other lenses produced in other focal lengths by the same optical house are also the best available.
"How do you know what other fruits taste like if all you ever eat are oranges"

kevin m

01-23-2008, 13:40

Heavens no! I would never mount an inferior Oriental lens on my paragon of German engineering. I assure you I could discern the difference immediately, at any resolution. Leica optics are simply superior to anything else and I only shoot my pets and children with the best! I do as Mr. Putts advises and I NEVER put an "off-brand" lens on my Leica. As he said, it's like putting a BMW engine into one's Mercedes!

:D :D :D

Bob_McBob

01-23-2008, 13:45

I'm happy to mix and match in any way. Right now my main lens is a Konica UC-Hexanon 35/2. I've never bought a Leica lens because they are simply too expensive for me to justify the cost.

Roger Hicks

01-23-2008, 13:46

As he said, it's like putting a BMW engine into one's Mercedes!

Well, taxi engines do wear out.

Cheers,

R.

sepiareverb

01-23-2008, 13:52

Go for it I say. I've had Leica, Zeiss, CV, Rollei, Pentax and Konica lenses on my M's. Currently only shooting Leica & Zeiss.

shadowfox

01-23-2008, 13:55

Mix? never! My Kiev mustz have all Jupiter lenses... !!

just kidding, mix and match lenses are one of the joy of Photogearphy.
M42 is the most fun and hurts just a bit on the wallet :)

ferider

01-23-2008, 13:59

Well, taxi engines do wear out.

Cheers,

R.

Only a Bavarian will understand that joke :D

Dogman

01-23-2008, 14:04

Mix it up. On my Leicas I use older Leitz lenses, newer CV lenses and a few Russian/Ukranian lenses with LTM to M adapters. I'm also considering a Zeiss 50/2 ZM in the future.

My Kievs have Zeiss Sonnars.

Al Kaplan

01-23-2008, 14:04

I guess that I'm lucky in that most of my Leica M bodies and Leitz lenses were picked up cheaply during "the great SLR rvolution" in the 1960's and everybody was dumping their "obsolete" rangefinder stuff for whatever they could get for it. Kind of like folks dumping their film SLR's now as they run helter skelter after the digital "answer to all of their problems".

One thing that encouraged me to stay mostly with Leitz glass over the years was the uniform 39mm filter thread for a lot of common focal lengths. Back in the day when "color" meant Kodachrome or Ektachrome you needed plenty of filters to balance the film for the light. There was no filtering in the darkroom like with color neg films or finessing the color balance with Photoshop from your digital file. What passed through your filter and lens was what you got, exactly what you got. Get it right the first time or the editor would use somebody else next time around.

If you think Leica lenses are expensive then price another set of color balancing (80 and 85)and color correcting (81 and 82) filters in various strengths just for one odd-ball lens!

Still though, I've always had one or more lenses from Canon and Nikon in my kit. In recent years I've fallen in love with the VC 15mm Heliar, and I have an off brand 400/6.3 Tele Astranar adapted to my Visoflex II. It sports a Canon lens cap because it fits on the hood.

Roger Hicks

01-23-2008, 14:05

Only a Bavarian will understand that joke :D
Gruß Gott!

R.

thomasw_

01-23-2008, 14:24

Go for it I say. I've had Leica, Zeiss, CV, Rollei, Pentax and Konica lenses on my M's. Currently only shooting Leica & Zeiss.

I am with Bob; fill your boots, there are so many good lenses to try: the issue for me is one of narrowing down the options to get the signature I most desire. I have tried a lot of different lenses.

Currently my RF kit totals 4 lenses, of which 2 are Leica and 2 are ZM. I am very interested in the reports and findings on the CV 35/1,4. I don't care very much about the brand; the manufactoring quality, the signature and ergonomics of the lens are paramount. If I like it, then I will save for it. But the deal for me is that the lens must be well used, not a bag-sitter. This is partly why I keep my RF kit small.

Hacker

01-23-2008, 14:38

Mix and match is the way to go.

Brian Sweeney

01-23-2008, 14:46

Mix and Match Lenses. Yes...

I built a 50mm F1.5 lens out of the front half of a Canon and back half of a J-3. It is RF coupled. And an RF coupled Tessar out of an I-61 mount and Tessar 50/2.8 from an SLR. And an LTM RF coupled lens out of a Zeiss 5cm F2 Sonnar and a J-8 mount. A LTM RF coupled Luxon 50/2 and a J-3 LTM mount...

Olsen

01-23-2008, 14:46

All the lenses that can be mounted on a Leica M bayonet are, relatively speaking, very good. Regardless of brand. No Nikon or Canon camera can be so easily equipped with such a range of high performance lenses (with exception of long tele lenses, of cause). This is indeed the uniqueness of the Leica M system. Regardless if your camera is a Leica M8 or a Zeiss Ikon.

Of cause you can mix brands. Having a Leica WATE did not prevent me from buying a Voigtländer 15 mm 4,5 Super Wide Heliar. The optical difference is really not that much - the price is, but the camera looks totally different with these two lenses. The WATE on the M8 makes it look 'suspiciously professional'. While it looks like a amateur camera that old ladies use with the 15 mm mounted on. An obvious advantage in many instances.

And so on.

A new brand adds new features and new ways of drawing the scene. Sure, you are going to mix lense brands.

Brian Sweeney

01-23-2008, 14:49

Just wait until I have my Nikon S-Mount Summicron built...

BillBingham2

01-23-2008, 14:50

Mix and match. As I thin down, Nikon and CV seem to be the group. On my S3-2000 it's CV for wides (25/35) and Nikkor for the rest (50/105). On my M4-P kit is pure CV (15/40).

I still have tons of 52mm filters, out side of a few (ND400, Soft1) not sure why.

B2 (;->

raid

01-23-2008, 14:52

I mix and match as lenses become available at good prices. It is part of the enjoyment to try out lenses made by different brands. There is nothing holy about Zeiss or Leica or Nikon or Canon or ........

Brian Sweeney

01-23-2008, 14:55

Voigtlander Prominent Nokton to S-Mount, then S-Mount to M-Mount.

Resistance is Futile. We will Adapt.

sepiareverb

01-23-2008, 15:25

...the signature and ergonomics of the lens are paramount. If I like it, then I will save for it. But the deal for me is that the lens must be well used, not a bag-sitter. This is partly why I keep my RF kit small.

Exactly! Well said Thomas. I have kept the lenses that best fit these criteria, and sold many that I liked but for one reason or another became bag sitters.

I've had two 135 Tele-Elmars, first I tired of that length, then later found a need for it, but after that second bit of shooting it sat, so went.

One of the draws of M mount is the huge variety of signatures available.

nikonhswebmaster

01-23-2008, 15:30

Over the years I have mixed lenses, but for the most part have never been all that happy with "other" brands.

When I owned Leica M cameras there were no other lenses that I really thought were better. Now that Leica lens prices have reached outlandish prices I might well think differently, but I was using them in the 80s and 90s when they were not expensive.

Ditto with Nikon SLRs. There are zillions of lenses for them, Sigma being my first choice. And I have liked some Sigmas (I am considering one now for my Lumix L1) but I usually ended up with Nikkors.

I don't like to mess with my user equipment much, so I just buy what I know is going to work. I am kind of the opposite of Brian Sweeney.

raid

01-23-2008, 16:22

Voigtlander Prominent Nokton to S-Mount, then S-Mount to M-Mount.

Resistance is Futile. We will Adapt.

Brian,

I need an adapter for the Prominent Nokton to M/LTM mount. Is the Prominent-Contax adapter an easier way around?

Brian Sweeney

01-23-2008, 16:59

I've seen a Prominent to Contax adapter- sold by Arsenall...

The two-stage adapter is less expensive, and lets me use it on the Nikon RF's.

I can't help fiddling with these lenses. How else can I justify buying three 50/2 Zeiss Sonnars at one time? I did mark the ones shimmed for the Nikon with an "N". It would not be hard to adjust a 5cm F1.4 Nikkor for a Contax. Increase the EFL a bit. Move the rear element out a little. About 0.5mm or so should do the trick. Then shim it in the mount.

I also write a lot of self-modifying code in FORTRAN. At least One RFF'r will understand that.

Hacker

01-23-2008, 17:28

amin_sabet

01-23-2008, 18:39

One of the reasons I was tempted to get the Zeiss Planar 50/2 is that it is manufactured by the same company that makes my camera (Cosina). I thought they would "match" in that sense. In the end, matching brands doesn't matter much to me, so I went for the M-Hexanon 50/2 because I found it cheaper. So far, that's my only RF lens. I'm eyeing the fast Canon 50s though, but I think it will be a while before I can afford one.

mfunnell

01-23-2008, 22:53

Mix and match! Mostly I'm using Konica and Leica but have a CV Ultron that sees use as well. I haven't been avoiding Zeiss - I just don't have any ... but that may change.

...Mike

Al Kaplan

01-24-2008, 04:42

I've always thought that it would be cool to have a set of Angenieux lenses in Leivca mount. I did get to shoot a few pix one time with the 90/1.8. Another oddball LTM lens that was briefly on the market was the 200mm f/4.5 Komura, who also made a 2X converter in Leica thread/M mount. It came with a screw mount in the rear, bayonet in the front, and was supplied with an M adapter. Put it on the rear and you had an M to M tele-extender. Stick iyt in front and you head thread to thread. Clever!

Captain

01-24-2008, 06:57

Thanks for the interesting answers so far, certainly the mix and match option is the most popular with members. Before its mentioned, no elitism is implied in the question, it was mainly to see if people chose particular brands because of similar character. Its been said by one review that the ZM lenses have a continuity of flare control and colour characteristics. One forum member I know liked the Voigtlander optics but not so much the screw mount versions available at the time he went back to rangefinders he chose Nikon RF because he liked the build quality of the SC lenses more.

I know that everyone probably had one different lens in their kit for that odd focal length that they may not use that much so we could refine the question to be the main few lenses in your kit that you use most?

Spider67

01-24-2008, 09:28

I think of Tuco in "The good the bad & the ugly" he makes one revolver out of 3 (even different models). Used a Nikon FG witha Helios
and now I use Canon, CV 35/2.5, Industar 22 and a J-9 with Bessa/Canon/Zorki

Al Kaplan

01-24-2008, 09:59

Yes, lenses have different "looks" to the pictures they produce. If you're making photographs as a hobby you can often pick the one that suits the subject, but in a fast paced news situation that ain't gonna happen. My main money maker was always the 35 and over the years, just for Leica mount, I've had an f/2.8 Schneider Xenogon, an f/1.8 Canon first version, an f/1.4 Summilux first version, an 8 element f/2 Summicron as well as the newer 7 element Summicron. The 7 element is the only one I have now. Sometimes I miss the signatiure of the 8 element Summicron or the flaring softness of the Summilux.

The best 90 I had, both for sharpness and for signature, was the 3 element Elmar. I still have an f/2.8 Elmarit mostly because it'll take 39mm filters. Otherwise I put on my 85mm f/2 Nikkor. I like the photos better!

Rico

01-24-2008, 23:54

... The best 90 I had, both for sharpness and for signature, was the 3 element Elmar. I still have an f/2.8 Elmarit mostly because it'll take 39mm filters. Otherwise I put on my 85mm f/2 Nikkor. I like the photos better!
Greetings, Al! The 3E Elmar is one of my favorite lenses, period. And speaking of mixing the brands...
http://patternassociates.com/rico/leica/misc/ouago3.jpg

The lens register makes Canon EOS the digital destination of choice for most all SLR optics (Konica excepted), and I often mount my Contax/Yashica primes. The community of users exploring this route (with Olympus OM, Leica R, and Nikon F) is quite large. Señor Gandy was an early exponent of this creative outlet. :)

Still unusual is mounting Leica M to an SLR (as shown above), probably because of the arcane adapters and tubes required. I'm definitely psych'ed about the digital applications of Visoflex, and the price is right. Build quality of this classic system is awe-inspiring.

noimmunity

01-25-2008, 03:48

lots of blue dots, though. i fell in love with Zeiss ZM lenses not long after falling in love with RF photography. find it much easier to use lenses that all have the same feel. love the handling and look of ZM lenses. always wondered though why they are not called Cosina Zeiss?

I have a few from other makers (currently Konica, Nikon, Komura, CV), too.

All manufactured in Japan, come to think of it.

Mostly all modern lenses, svae for one Nikkor.

Only thing I don't have are any Leica lenses.

Nothing from Leica at all for that matter. :p Zero. Nada.

But if I could, I would nab a 75/2 summicron. wa-ha-ha! but instead i'll get another CV 75 one day. the only CV lens i really miss so far.

oops, come to think of it there's a red dot on my konica lens! :eek: better staunch this now!

Palaeoboy

01-25-2008, 04:54

I must be in the minority here because when I go out to shoot I dont like to mix and match lenses if I can avoid it. But in the same respect I own a number of different brands. I just have a few small sets. So when I am using the 40mm Summicron I use the Leica 28 and 90 on my CLE. When I use the Minolta CLE Rokkor I take the 28 and 90mm Rokkors. When I use the Voigtlander 40 I use their compact 28mm with it. I have the Sonnar 40 but haven't built a kit around that one yet. So yes I do like continuity between a few lenses when I shoot. One exception is when I know I will have the need for filters then I mix a bit choosing those lenses with 39mm threads.

Spyderman

01-25-2008, 05:22

For rangefinders I usually buy what I can afford (i.e. FSU lenses in LTM).

But in SLR world I have completely different priorities. I've got an OM-4Ti to shoot mostly slides (or is it 'chromes'?). With slides it's very important to keep the same contrast. Even with Zuikos, the SC vs. MC lenses differ in contrast greatly (in a slideshow it's obvious), and therefore I try to stick only to MC lenses.

pvdhaar

01-25-2008, 05:39

I certainly don't mix and match brands of lenses. Nothing screams 'amateur' more than doing something cheap as that. Come on, be honest, noone will take you seriously!

And what's more, off-brand lenses have inferior metal in their bayonets, which means real nasty scratches on the mount that harm your best lenses again. You can argue all you like, but I've seen that happen cause I compared 100% crops of brick wall shots!

Al Kaplan

09-17-2008, 21:33

Peter, if you're worried about scratches on your lens mount the solution is very simple. Put each lens on its own body and leave it there. I'm more cocerned with getting photos than in preserving the pristine finish of my mostly 1950's through early 1970's vintage Leica bodies, and they were bought second hand already a bit beat up. Scratches and brass showing through the chrome on the edges. They're tools, not toys.

When I got into photography back in the early 60's we WANTED our cameras to look well used. It showed (or at least we thought it did in our youthful enthusiasm) that we were serious photographers, not Sunday Shooters.

As for lenses, back in the days when color meant 'chromes I had a jillion warming and cooling filters plus the FL-D flourescent light filter. It made sense to dump my Canon lenses that used 40mm filters and the Nikkors that used 40.5mm filters for a set of Leitz lenses that all used 39mm filters. I really missed my 85mm f/2 Nikkor and my 19mm Canon was stolen. I still have a 90/2.8 Elmarit but I managed to find another 85/2 Nikkor, heavy but as sharp as all but the latest aspheric 90mm 'cron. Today, shooting color negative instead of 'chromes I rarely need filters. My absolut favorite optic is the 15mm Voitlander Heliar. That is a fantastic and fun lens, and it sits just about glued on one camera body all the time. The front edge is now "polished" aluminum, the black long ago worn away. I carry that camera everyplace, a constant companion. The strangest thing though is that I was cleaning the front element so often that I was afraid I'd scratch it. I stopped cleaning it over a year ago. It's filthy, greasy, dusty, unscratched of course, and I can't see any difference in the photos!

Pretend that noplace on your lenses does it say who made it. Choose them on whether or not you get the results you seek. But I still miss that 3 element Elmar.

pvdhaar

09-17-2008, 22:12

Peter, if you're worried about scratches on your lens mount..
My statement was in jest of course.. ;)

Doug

09-18-2008, 01:07

Of course, Peter, I take your comment with the humor it was offered. :) No one wishes to be seen as a wanker...

I'm just indecisive, with alternating CV, Zeiss, and Leica glass along the focal length trail, sometimes duplicating, maybe with a different max aperture. So I could be consistent in packing only Zeiss for instance on a trip (so the other tourists won't sneer at me.) :D

peter_n

09-18-2008, 07:44

I used to have CV, Nikon, Konica, FSU, and Leica lenses. But five years into RF use I'm now almost completely Leica, that after a lot of experimentation. I break it down by signature rather than brand, so I have a small set of lenses that give me a vintage look, and another small set that are modern ASPH.

Benjamin Marks

09-18-2008, 07:53

Oh yes. Love it. Leica, Zeiss, C/V, Nikon, a converted Contax 45/2 G lens, Canon ltm, Pentax in ltm, Konica, Unkranian odd-ball -- variety is the spice of life!

Ben

CK Dexter Haven

09-18-2008, 08:00

Summiluxes have different character than Summicrons. Which are different than Elmars, which are different from Elmarits. Not to mention the variation from era to era and version to version. Where's the consistency within Leica?

If the Nokton 50/1.5 said Leica on it, one might think it was a modern Summitar. If the CV 35/2.5 said Summaron on it, it would just be an evolutionary step of an old Leica classic.

A Leica Elmar is a Tessar formulation. Zeiss is well known for its Tessars.

People have always opined that the Konica 35/2 was "based on a Summicron formulation" or was a direct copy of a Summicron.

It goes on and on. There's no reason not to use whatever you want. If you require one, single, homogenous 'signature,' you'd have to stick to one lens.