What's the nicest lens you've used?

[usayit]

Usayit, Iron and Helen, thank you for the examples. Just out of curiosity, how easy/difficult is it to use this lens wide open? My guess is that it is quite hard to focus accurately, but then again I never had a look through the rangefinder of a Leica.

Much easier than manual focus on an SLR but it does take practice. Long but accurate focusing throw is a blessing dealing with the shallow depth of field @ wide open but both the long focus throw as well as the shallow depth of field are a challenge with moving objects (1 year old running around for example). Also, the magnification of the rangefinder is also a factor... the more magnification the easier it is to examine the rangefinder patch. Leica also has an optional magnifier for this purpose.

 

[notelliot]

nicest lens i own, gotta be the 85/1.4. used.. 200/f2 VR!

 

[RyanLilly]

Well Keith, When I win the Powerball lottery, I'm going to but the used Canon 1200mm thats sitting on a shelf at B&H, not that I would ever have a need for it but I would drive around with it in the back of my Ferrari, just to see what its like to be usayit.

But if you drop by St.Louis I'll let you touch it.

 

[Clutch]

When I was a photographer in the Navy the lens in my issued equipment was a 50mm f/1.2. It wasn't fancy but it was beautiful in its simplicity and there wasn't too many low light situations I couldn't shoot in with that thing. Simple, useful and got the job done. What more can you ask for in a lens?

 

[iflynething]

I really liked a Nikon 80-200 2.8 I used for a dance competition shoot. It's an old film lens but was sharp as hell.

Now the biggest was a Sigma 50-500. That thing was monsterous and I felt like the $H!T going to the Thunderbirds airshow.

It was funny to look at the guy next to me with a lens with a teleconverter and I was probably still getting closer. Man that was a great lens but I just used it for that airshow.

~Michale~

 

[keith204]

so that 50mm f/1.0...............................

There's the $6k one you mentioned, and Canon makes a 50 1.0 for $2k. Why don't you just get the Canon? I mean...is the advantage being able to hook it up to the Leica?? or what?

It's an intense lens...just wondering the difference.

 

[usayit]

The Canon EF 50mm f1 (old one) was not a good one from the Canon line. Slow focusing and known to be a bit soft all around... most ended up just buying 50mm f1.4 USM for a fraction of the price. They are mostly collectors items now... photovillage has one in mint condition for $5400.

A long time ago, Canon made a 50mm f0.95 for their rangefinder line. Nice lens and the mount can be modified to an M-mount. It renders differently than the Noctilux.

There is a newer Canon 50mm f1.2 but I've never shot with it.

In regard to Leica versus Canon (or any other brand), I won't start because it almost always degrades to a discussion with little content. Other than saying the obvious (Noctilux mounts to a Leica) I will just say two things..

* You have to shoot with a Leica to properly understand the "why?"
* There is a lot more to choosing glass than just looking at a focal length and max aperture number on the box...

 

[usayit]

btw...

Even among the Leica shooter's realm the Noctilux is a controversial lens that polarizes opinions. Many dismiss it as a lens of special/limited use. I don't necessarily agree but with so many 50mm lenses to choose from in Leica mount everyone can find one to fall in love with. Many will choose the 50mm f1.4 Summilux (I believe Iron Flatline has one), 50mm f2 Summicron, 50mm f2.8 collapsable Elmar, 50mm f2.5 Summarit (like me), the odd 28-50-35 f4 Tri-Elmar (I like mine) and/or one of many from Zeiss or Voigtlander. Its a matter of tastes in how the lens feels, operates, and renders.


Oh yeh... I didn't pay anywhere near to $6k for mine. Combination of the US dollar and lack of supply for special materials/parts in the noctilux has driven prices to skyrocket.

 

[epatsellis]

The Canon EF 50mm f1 (old one) was not a good one from the Canon line. Slow focusing and known to be a bit soft all around... most ended up just buying 50mm f1.4 USM for a fraction of the price. They are mostly collectors items now... photovillage has one in mint condition for $5400.

A long time ago, Canon made a 50mm f0.95 for their rangefinder line. Nice lens and the mount can be modified to an M-mount. It renders differently than the Noctilux.

There is a newer Canon 50mm f1.2 but I've never shot with it.

In regard to Leica versus Canon (or any other brand), I won't start because it almost always degrades to a discussion with little content. Other than saying the obvious (Noctilux mounts to a Leica) I will just say two things..

* You have to shoot with a Leica to properly understand the "why?"
* There is a lot more to choosing glass than just looking at a focal length and max aperture number on the box...

I had one of the .95 lenses, years ago, used it with an adapter to mount on a FTb body, from what I remember, it was ok, nothing terribly exciting (other than the aperture, of course), ended up trading it for a F2 Body some years later, I do remember that my Nikkor 55 1.2 S-C outperformed it in every way, and was a hell of a lot lighter, too...


erie

 

[usayit]

I had one of the .95 lenses, years ago, used it with an adapter to mount on a FTb body, from what I remember, it was ok, nothing terribly exciting (other than the aperture, of cour

Are you sure?

The 50mm 0.95 lens which was designed for the Canon 7 rangefinder (special mount). The Canon 7 rangefinder has the same registration distance as the Leica M-mount cameras. IIRC, that distance is about 2/3rds the length of the FD cameras (SLRs need room for mirror box). I've been told over and over again that it is practically impossible to adapt that lens to an SLR body....

I wouldn't mind getting a that Canon 50mm f0.95 added to my collection. They are frequently modified to an M-mount for about $200.

 

[Early]

usayit, it's the same lens for me - I know amongst some it's considered an over-hyped toy (LensBaby for rich people is the worst I've heard it called so far) but I love it.

Steph, here's some samples at wide open:

Now, that what I call a lens in the 'nicest category'. I would have like to see the first shot taken stopped down a few notches.

 

[usayit]

btw... I think it is official... Leica has discontinued the Noctilux. My guess is this expensive lens will get even more expensive.. assuming Leica doesn't announce another noctilux in the near future.

Just like my starter house, I am so happy I purchased one before the boom in price.

 

[epatsellis]

Are you sure?

The 50mm 0.95 lens which was designed for the Canon 7 rangefinder (special mount). The Canon 7 rangefinder has the same registration distance as the Leica M-mount cameras. IIRC, that distance is about 2/3rds the length of the FD cameras (SLRs need room for mirror box). I've been told over and over again that it is practically impossible to adapt that lens to an SLR body....

I wouldn't mind getting a that Canon 50mm f0.95 added to my collection. They are frequently modified to an M-mount for about $200.

Quite certain, after searching for a 7 for a while, a friend found a Canon .95 to breechlock adapter. And yes, it focused to infinity, that much I remember.


erie

 

[usayit]

I'd like to see that adapter as it would be a vary sought after product. Basically means that someone determined a solution that can be applied to M-lenses being adapted to any other SLR (which I have yet to see).

 

[epatsellis]

You may be overlooking something, the Canon 7 has two bayonets, the standard M seriea and a much larger one outside of that, specifically for the .95 lens. Tha 50 .95 adapter was made by canon and attached to the larger bayonet, which if I recall was quite a bit further away from the back of the lens. I do remember that only certain SLRs could be used, as alot of them had mirror intereference issues.


erie