• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

GAS pains - musings on lenses

logan2z

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
4,021
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
Spending so much time at home and in front of the computer has really had an effect on my GAS, which I can usually keep at bay pretty successfully. But lately I'm on a lens kick and can't decide which way to go in order to get this out of my system.

I've been thinking about trying a 28mm lens for my Leica film camera for a while (the Elmarit/2.8 ASPH), but I plan to use that for 'street' photography and don't really know when I'll be out there again, so the lens might sit in a box unused for a while. I'm also a bit reluctant to go this route because I normally shoot a 35mm lens and I'm not sure how different the 28mm will really be. In addition, the Leica lens is the most expensive of the options I'm considering.

Another option is to pick up a 50mm Distagon for my Hasselblad 500 C/M to use for landscape work. I currently only have the 80mm and would like to try something a bit wider and with better DOF. Also, I might actually have half a chance of shooting a landscape photo in the near future.

Lastly, and the least expensive option, is a longer lens for my Nikon F - something like the 135mm/2.8 (I currently only have a 50mm for the Nikon). That might come in handy for doing some photography while social distancing restrictions are in place.

If you're bored at home like I am and have any thoughts on any of this, then feel free to share them.
 
If you're doing the "try it to see if I like it mode" I'd try something a bit less expensive, maybe a Canon ltm + ltm->m adapter like it and you're not going to be out much if any when you sell it on.
 
Hmmm...I don't know which Leica you have but, the newer M bodies make it real easy to see what a 28mm lens will look like. The 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - a compact, lightweight, modern, excellent optic- just what I would want on an M body. Other than the price, what's not to like? I personally, could not justify the cost of entry and so went with the Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 Biogon. It's not as small and light but seems pretty darned good and cost less than 1/3 as much as the modern Elmarit. I'm very pleased with it.

Hasselblad...not my thing. I'm sure others will offer valuable insight and opinions though.

Nikon....My very strong personal preferences is for the 28mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor (definitely hold out for the AIS version for this one) and the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkors (either non-AI, AI or AIS, you cannot go wrong with any of these 105mm Nikkors)
 
Last edited:
I had both the 28mm Elmarit and an older chrome 50 mm Distagon for Hasselblad.

Loved the Elmarit when I was still shooting with the APS-H M8, but then it approximated 35 mm field of view. Was less enthusiastic using it on a full frame M as the 28 mm frame lines on the standard 0.72x finder can be hard to see. Actually wound up using the 40 mm Summicron-C a lot more on the full-frame M9 as I liked the in-between focal length a lot, and the lens is tiny.

IMO, 50mm on Hasselblad is great! While it wouldn't be my first choice for head shots, for pretty much everything else, I liked it lots. For landscapes, I'd sometimes level the camera and just crop the lower part of the image, to get a 6x4.5 image with vertical shift.Today even the newer variant with floating lens element ("FLE") is somewhat reasonably priced, and would be of particular interest to me, but even the old chrome lens was a favorite.

Got to admit I struggle with longer lenses like 90, 100, 135.
 
I have an M-A that has 28mm frame lines so, you're right, I can get some idea of what the lens will see relative to the 35. I've considered the Zeiss as well but keep coming back to the Elmarit because I've heard such great things about it. I'm keeping my eyes open for a good used Elmarit but don't see them often.

I haven't really considered the 105mm Nikon as I wasn't sure it would be long enough. I'll take a closer look at it.

Thanks for your thoughts.
 
Thanks for your reply.

The 50mm Distagon would be for landscapes, so no head shots. I'll probably add a 150mm for that at some point

I really like the 35mm focal length on my Leica but just have a desire to try something different and figured the 28mm was a good option. I also own a 75mm but rarely use it.
 
I'm not a Leica M guy. so I'll leave that one alone. I picked up a Russian Jupiter 35mm for my IIIc, and it's spent most of the pre-quarantine time hanging out on my camera. I also have a 50mm Distagon for my 500C, and other than being a bit bulky for the f stop, it's one of my favorites. I picked up the Nikon 135 since the quarantine began and it's a real beauty. Tack sharp and develops great bokeh shot wide open. I think your choices are going to come down to budget and which outfits will be first out of lockdown.

Andy
 
BradS said:
Nikon....My very strong personal preferences is for the 28mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor (definitely hold out for the AIS version for this one) and the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkors (either non-AI, AI or AIS, you cannot go wrong with any of these 105mm Nikkors)
Click to expand...
I've been eyeing a Nikon 28mm/2.8 AI as well. Very inexpensive even in great condition. Might be a good way to try the 28mm focal length before investing in an Elmarit.
 
The 50mm FLE for the Hasselblad is an excellent lens. Personally speaking I much prefer the wide angle look of formats larger than 35mm, due to the reduced perspective distortion.
 
GLS said:
The 50mm FLE for the Hasselblad is an excellent lens. Personally speaking I much prefer the wide angle look of formats larger than 35mm, due to the reduced perspective distortion.
Click to expand...
Reduced perspective distortion? Care to elaborate?
I personally prefer focusing wide angles with a RF. OTOH the 28mm frame line on your M is supposed to be close to the margins of the finder... but you can try if that works for you without a lens. Really having something around 28 for every format is worthwhile, it's one of my favorites . I'd take a cheaper one for the M and a Hasselblad 50 if I were you and had that amount to spend. And maybe the Nikon too. Oh, and consider that on the Hasselblad, the 60 already gives you a vertical angle of view similar to that of a 28 on 135. It really depends on the way you compose whether a 50 or a 60 is more similar to a 28 on 135 for you.
 
Last edited:
I was waiting for someone to say 'get them all' But I am leaning in the direction of the Distagon and a couple of lenses for the Nikon (28 and 135) and holding off on the Leica lens for now.
 
grain elevator said:
Reduced perspective distortion? Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
+1
Perspective distortion results from a mismatch between subject to camera distance and print viewing distance - it really doesn't have anything to do with format.
That being said, subjectively it does seem to matter if you compare results between formats with a large aspect ratio and formats with a small aspect ratio - say 35mm vs 6x6 square.
 
I have the old 28mm & 21mm lenses for Leica that I bought c. 1970. Don’t use them enough to justify an expensive upgrade. I took advantage of deep depth of field and wide angle with these lenses to inconspicuously photograph in several couple socialist countries while being guided by handlers. Long cable release down sleeve and what looked like a nervous habit to inch along film advance. Leica shutter hardly noticeable.
For regular photography such wide lenses have their place when working in tight quarters, but usually a 35mm will do.
A 135mm is a difficult beast to tame. A more practical choice would be a 90mm. Rather than splurge thousands on a very expensive 28mm for Leica, I would get both 35mm and 90mm. A 35, 50, 90 kit can do a lot (or 35, 50, 85 for Nikon).
 
grain elevator said:
Reduced perspective distortion? Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

In a nutshell, a larger format requires a longer focal length to achieve the same angle of view. If a subject is therefore shot with the same framing on two different formats using "equivalent" focal lengths, the larger format will give rise to less obvious wide angle (extension) perspective distortion, which exaggerates the size of near objects in relation to distant ones, and causes warping/elongation of object space particularly as you move towards the corners of the frame. It is simply a product of lens-to-object distances, and because on the larger format you are forced to be further away to achieve the same subject framing, the effect is reduced.
 
Last edited:
guangong said:
rather than splurge thousands on a very expensive 28mm for Leica, I would get both 35mm and 90mm. A 35, 50, 90 kit can do a lot (or 35, 50, 85 for Nikon).
Click to expand...
I already have a 35mm and 75mm for the Leica. I went with 75mm instead of 90mm because a lot of people seem to complain that the 90mm is hard to focus. But I occasionally second-guess the choice because I subsequently bought an M4 and it does not have 75mm frame lines.
 
Ok, but d consider that
But none of that is the case. Empirically it obviously isn't, and that "on the larger format you are forced to be further away to achieve the same subject framing" also isn't the case (not when measure from the optical center of the lens).
 
+1
 
I have no interest in more gear, really, but this confinement has encouraged me to seek other ways to express myself photographically. So got some close-up gear since that’s an additional way to achieve that goal.

 
I shoot all three of these (or similar) systems regularly, and here's my 2 cents:
- If you already use a 35 on your Leica, a 28mm lens might be too similar. My favorite wide lens is 25mm on Leica M cameras. Voigtlander makes an excellent 25/4 lens which is not expensive.
- I have a 50 mm lens for my Bronica SQ-A which gets used a lot for landscapes and architecture. Pairs well with the normal 80.
- If you're looking for a longer lens for your Nikon, consider the 105/2.5 before a 135. There are many versions of this lens and they're all great. There's good reason this lens has been popular for so long.
- I had the Nikkor 28/2.8 AI for years and it was a good lens, but I replaced it with the 28/2.8 AIS. Different optical design with CRC and a better lens IMHO.
 
Unless you don't mind getting coughed on, I'd stay away from the 28mm. How do you disinfect a lens anyway?
 
For Nikon F, I agree with grabbing a 105mm 2.5. Any version. I have a non AI Gauss version that looks rough but takes fabulous pics. If you want longer, the 200mm f4 AI is a good performer.
 
I have many Hasselblad lenses and the 50mm lens is one of my most used lenses. Not only is it good for landscapes, but also for cityscapes. When I am traveling overseas I take the 50mm and 80mm lenses first, then depending on the area such as Greece I will also take the Hasselbald 903 SWC for the narrow streets and island towns. I have rarely used my longer lenses 150mm, 250mm and 500mm on at trip although they can be useful in National Parks and Red Rock country.
 
grain elevator said:
But none of that is the case. Empirically it obviously isn't
Click to expand...

Possibly I am using the wrong terminology to describe the effect I mean, but to my eyes there is a very obvious difference in how "equivalent" focal lengths render images on different format sizes, because of the different actual focal lengths involved. In the case of wide angles, objects will become stretched in shape towards the edges - and especially the corners - of the frame to a greater extent on the smaller format. A 24mm on 135 will show this much more than a 45mm on 6x7, which again will show it more than a 75mm on 4x5. To me wide angle shots taken on medium and large formats have a much more pleasing, true-to-life quality to them, for this very reason.
 
GLS said:
A 24mm on 135 will show this much more than a 45mm on 6x7, which again will show it more than a 75mm on 4x5. To me wide angle shots taken on medium and large formats have a much more pleasing, true-to-life quality to them, for this very reason.
Click to expand...
In the case of the comparison between 135 and 6x7, the markedly different aspect ratio is the reason for the subjective difference. If you crop the 135 image to match the one from 6x7, it should appear identical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register