My big frustration
One of my biggest and longest-lasting frustrations with camera equipment—hope I'm not being a broken record—was the fact that Zeiss never made the lens I wanted.
I chose my first "real" camera when I was taking a lecture course in optics at the University of Maryland, the better to learn more about lenses. (It was a great course—wish I could remember the prof's name, to give him due credit. He was a great explainer.) Halfway home I would get off the Washington Beltway and pop in at Industrial Photo, a large camera store on Georgia Avenue in Silver Spring, now long gone of course. There, I befriended a counterman named Ray. I was even a guest at Ray's spread once, a rural farm where he raised pot-bellied pigs for pets. Ray had quite a pot belly himself.
There was one big long counter that was divided by brand. Each brand had a section of countertop and a set of shelves behind it loaded with gear. I'd flit around like the gearhead nomad I was to become, pulled between East and West—Nikon and Canon to Leica and Contax. Japanese, or German? I almost bought a Leica—I could have afforded an M4-P and a 50mm Summicron—but I reasoned that it would be much more expensive to buy a second and third lens. I finally decided on Contax—a premium nameplate of Yashica at the time, before Yashica was bought by Kyocera—as being the best of both worlds: Japanese bodies, German lenses. Carl Zeiss made the lenses for the system.
All very rational. Yeah, right.
I couldn't afford the RTS I wanted, so I bought a 159Q that was to become my constant companion for years. At first, I made do with the Carl Zeiss 50mm ƒ/1.4 Planar. That kit took me through my first year in photography school—to get a longer perspective, I'd shoot portraits horizontally and then crop them to verticals. Never did quite "take to" that lens. In my second year at the school (the third year of the program—I transferred in as a "sophomore," although they didn't call it that), I decided to make the big switch to a two-lens kit—to sell the 50mm and buy a 35mm and an 85mm. It was a momentous move for me at the time. Mostly it was because of frustration shooting with the 50mm on D.C.'s city streets.
Zeiss/Contax 35mm ƒ/2.8 Distagon like the one I used in photo school
The Zeiss/Contax 85mm ƒ/2.8 Sonnar became one of my favorite lenses, and I made a lot of portraits with it over the years. But the 35mm frustrated me. Contax and/or Zeiss had made the decision to offer a fast lens and a slow lens and nothing in between. Nikon, which at the time was the leading company, like Canon is now, offered its AIS lenses in three tiers—slow and cheap at one end, fast and high-quality at the other, plus a tier that split the difference. So its lineup of 35mm's consisted of the 35mm ƒ/2.8 which was compact and inexpensive, the 35mm ƒ/1.4 (very fast for the day) which was premium in its build and optical quality but large and heavy (again, just in the context of the times), and expensive. Nikon's AIS 35mm ƒ/2 was in the middle in all the different ways...quality, size, speed, and price.
All Contax had was the high and the low, the fast and the slow, the big and the small, the too-expensive and the too-cheap. The middle tier was missing. No 35mm ƒ/2. Argh.
I did end up switching to Nikon when I graduated and joined a professional studio (after teaching for three years). But not before I'd spent years grinding my teeth over the absent 35mm ƒ/2 in the Contax system. It was really what I needed. Of course I got it in the Nikon system, in the form of the then-new AF lens which is still in the catalog.
Jump forward a bit. I owned a Leica for a few years, an M6, for which I had a 35mm ƒ/2 Summicron, the one now called the "Pre-ASPH." Next I switched to Olympus because I got infatuated with the OM-4T. For that system, I used the 40mm ƒ/2 pancake. I chose that for two reasons: one, because Sally Mann, who I had interviewed for Darkroom Techniques magazine (the review was never published—well, because I never finished it—but that's okay, because it turns out she can speak for herself very well) said she had used it heavily for assignments around Lexington, Virginia, when she was poor, and she thought it was "just about right"; and two, because they were going begging. They were very cheap. The OM Zuiko 40mm ƒ2 spent a lot of time languishing unwanted on closeout, listed in the ads in the back of the photo magazines at just $69 or something very close to that. There were only 3,000 made, and only 1,000 came to North America, but they couldn't give 'em away.
OM Zuiko 40mm ƒ/2 is a nice little lens, but don't believe
everything you read in photography magazines :-)
I took care of that. I wrote several articles and online posts in praise of the lens just as they got scarce (and just as the Internet really got going), and the price immediately leapt five- to tenfold and has never come back down again. A lens I once bought for $45 and $55 used has cost $400 or more for years now. I learned my lesson—if I was on the lookout for something, I waited until after I bought it to sing its praises in print!
It wasn't all that. Decent, like most OM Zuiko lenses, but the filter ring was also the aperture ring, which I never liked, so it always seemed fragile. I never knew why the form-factor of the little OM Zuiko 50mm ƒ/1.8 would not have served just as well. Optically it was nothing terribly special.
But I was home. I loved the focal length and I was pleased at how the little lens rendered; it didn't call attention to itself. Capable, competent, but modest.
Old dreams come true
So fast-forward to now. Wouldn't you know, a reader sent me a very nice gift, a box of old disused film equipment that contained either a.) junk, if you couldn't care less about photography, or b.) treasures, if you're one of us. Treasures to me! Such fun. Thanks again, Fred. Included was a very nice Contax RTS II. And lookee what I just scored for it:
A Voigtländer 40mm ƒ/2 SL in Contax/Yashica mount. What I always wanted, at long (very long) last. Reminds me of a saying I heard a long time ago that has stuck with me over the years: you usually get what you want, it just takes a lot longer than you think it will. As they say in Maryland, true dat.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Steve Rosenblum: "I have the Voigtländer 40mm in OM Mount and it lives on my OM-4t. It's a wonderful lens and nearly impossible to find now outside of Nikon and M Mount. Enjoy!"
John Camp: "If you shuffled through your prints now, photos made with that variety of 35mms and 40mms, could you still pick out which was made with which?"
Mike replies: Well, I can, yes, but that's only because I have a strange ability to remember the lens I was using for almost all the pictures I've ever taken. I don't try; my brain just does it. But it was more a matter of utilty. The Contax was a handy, portable size, but not only was I shooting at ASA/ISO 80, lenses in that era did not perform as well wide open as today's. So ƒ/2.8 was just past the edge of being too slow. The fast lens on the other hand was really huge, and beyond my means anyway. So I was kind of stuck, at least in the Contax system, and at the time.
marcin wuu: "I hope you're gonna use it. I noticed that all the gear I once craved and finally, after many years, acquired is sitting on the shelves. And I use the things that get the job done. All the dream stuff is pretty much just that—the dream stuff. Scratches the itch, but not much use in it. It's kinda sad."
Mike replies: I almost said as much in the post, but then I thought, why be pessimistic? But you're probably right. That darned old expression: you can't go home again.
Dave Stewart: "Bought a secondhand Voigtländer 40mm ƒ/2 SLII for Nikon F-mount over nine years ago. Still a firm favourite. Amongst various reports and tests, this article was influential. Hope that you like and enjoy using yours."
Vijay: "Glad you finally got the lens in Contax mount! Your writings led me to the Aria and the same lens. Enjoy!"
I keep watching for a Nikkor AI-P 45/2.8 which is my current dream lens.
50mm? Not quite but close enough for me.
Tessar formula - rare from Nikon.
Manual Focus.
Chipped so matrix metering works.
But rare and beloved of collectors. Fah. Perhaps I can find one of the good Japanese dealers If/When the $1200 checks get cut... :D I'd get the 2 Nikkor Sonnars (105/2.5 P & 135/3.5 Q) in AI'd format eventually as well.
Posted by: William Lewis | Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 02:12 PM
I've never held a nicer camera than an RTSII.
Posted by: P J Dodds | Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 02:33 PM
Having returned pretty much exclusively to film, developing it myself (C41, E6 and B&W) and scanning it with my Pentax DLSR I picked one of those up for my recently aquired Nikon F3/T. 40mm is probably my favourite focal length too, I enjoyed the Olympus Trip 35 for that reason. See the web-site URL below for some recent examples.
Posted by: Mike Hurd | Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 03:56 PM
Bought a secondhand Voigtländer 40mm ƒ/2 SLII for Nikon F-mount over nine years ago. Still a firm favourite. Amongst various reports and tests, this article was influential. Hope that you like and enjoy using yours.
Posted by: Dave Stewart | Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 04:54 PM
That 40 is a great lens, but it is not a 35. And isn’t the RTS II a bit big for it? Interested to hear how it handles, and if it lives up to memory.
If you are shooting with it next summer, let us know how the mirror fares - they are glued in place and slip in hot weather, and it seems age doesn’t help.
Voltz (still has and uses an Aria and 28/2, 50/1.4 and 85/2.8 because some American guy convinced him it was the ne plus ultra Of compact SLRs some time in the 1990s...)
Posted by: V.I. Voltz | Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 05:30 PM
139Q
I still have and use the 159 and the trio 35/2,8; 85/2,8; 50/1,4.
The 85/2,8 was suggested by Cora W. Kennedy, many years ago.
Posted by: Hélcio J. Tagliolatto | Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 07:01 PM
Ah the days when I had that glorious Pentax 43/1.9 ... not technically great .. but somehow wonderful ... mount that on your LX ... and life is good!
Sadly that and the 77 have gone now ...
Posted by: Tom Bell | Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 07:50 PM
Honey of a lens, one you can use with the confidence that if it can't do it, no other brand can either! And my go to lens for waist up portraits...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/19140817@N02/12423107493/in/album-72157640753371123/
Posted by: Stan B. | Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 10:12 PM
I like my old film era lenses and I use them on my modern Sony A7 but something I've wanted since going mirrorless is native mount lenses of about the same bulk and weight of those old f1.8 film era lenses.
The closest I've come is the Sony mount Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 which may not be to everyones taste but I love it. I'd really like a similarly compact 50mm, something from f1.4 to f2. I have the Sony mount Voigtlander 50mm f2 but it's a bit bigger than I'd ideally like.
The native Sony AF 35mm f2.8 is very nice and compact and light but only f2.8.
I've never even seen an Olympous 40mm f2, I have the 50mm f1.8 plus the equally compact 24, 28 and 35mm f2.8's.
Posted by: alan | Friday, 27 March 2020 at 07:49 AM
I know for the type of photography I like to do -- late night, using long exposures at base ISO -- using lenses with fast apertures will make it easier for me to compose and focus in the dark.
(This is how, for a time, I came to own five Sigma Art lenses, even though I never took even a single photo with any of them with the aperture opened wide!)
But once I've composed and focused, I stop down the aperture to somewhere between f6.3 and f9, depending, then take my photo. Because I absolutely need the additional DoF stopping down the aperture provides to take the photos I want.
Did you really need an f2 lens because you were going to use it at f2 or because, as was true of most lenses back in the day (and still today, for that matter), it would perform better stopped down to, say, f2.8 and f4 than an f2.8 lens would?
I ask because you don't seem like a "shoot everything wide open" kind of photographer to me. (Although, back then, perhaps you were?)
On the other hand, I do get your preference for the 40 mm focal length, even though my personal preference is 28-30 mm.
Posted by: JG | Friday, 27 March 2020 at 07:55 AM
Oh, and one more thing: Zeiss never made the lens I want, either. Which is a 24-50/f2.8 that performs as well as its now legendary 35-70/f3.4 does.
Not that I would have bought one back in the day, mind you, but I would happily buy a used one today and likely for a small fraction of its original MSRP, too!
Posted by: JG | Friday, 27 March 2020 at 08:18 AM
Since early on in my passion for photography I discovered and developed a complete passion for the 40mm FOV. Never liked the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths and for me the 40mm always felt "just right" as Sally Mann said.
I think this is one of the two things that I discovered in photography in terms of equipment . The other being, having been used to film medium format photography, my intense dislike for the 35mm and all other 3:2 ratios. I think the 3:2 ratio in vertical orientation is horrendous
This is why for me in the digital age, the choice of my system is much easier than for most other people. I choose m4/3rds because of the ratio and of course my most used lens is the tiny but very capable Panasonic 1.7/20mm
Posted by: Harold Glit | Friday, 27 March 2020 at 10:21 AM
For a long time I owned a Minolta CLE with the 40mm f2 Summicron and and Leitz 90mm F4. The latter was great for portraiture and some street photography, but the 40mm was by far my favourite lens at the time. I sold the outfit to buy a M6 with 50mm f2 Summicron, but missed the 40mm focal length and eventually bought a 35mm S'cron, but that lens never 'clicked' with me the way the 40mm did.
I now have the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 and Olympus 45mm f1.8 with my Olympus Pen F - as near a perfect combination (for me) as that CLE was.
Posted by: David Runyard | Friday, 27 March 2020 at 01:52 PM
I too was a student at U of MD during the late 1970's and took a lecture optics course; if my memory serves correctly it was designed for non-engineering majors.
I always enjoyed a visit to Industrial Photo on Georgia Ave, it was one of those retailers were you could spend chewing the fat with the sales people and handling the equipment without any pressure. Service Photo in Baltimore comes close, but its not as convenient as downtown Silver Spring.
Posted by: Howard | Friday, 27 March 2020 at 02:39 PM
Don't forget another classic lens: the 75mm Planar or Xenotar for the Rolleiflex. Measured on the diagonal and converted to 35mm format, this is about 41 or 42mm. Perfect.
Posted by: Kodachromeguy | Friday, 27 March 2020 at 05:21 PM
Well, the proper Olympus 40 appeared as the 42/1.7 on the 35SP RD, and LC rangefinders, and maybe a couple of others. Beautiful bokeh, IMO, but I defer to the expert.
BTW, my son got his PhD in linguistics at University of Maryland.
Posted by: Earl Dunbar | Friday, 27 March 2020 at 10:26 PM
It is funny that what we used to think of as large, heavy lenses in the 70s are about the size and weight of today's kit 50mm autofocus (or maybe the 28-85 auto).
Posted by: sPh | Saturday, 28 March 2020 at 11:47 AM
Not praising something so it doesn't go up in value until after you get one sounds a little like "insider purchasing" :-)
The lens names Planar, Distagon, & Sonnar were on my 3 Zeiss Hasselblad lenses and, unfortunately, I've come to link those names by the quality of the pictures I got. My 80mm Planar was really sharp and it was easy to see differences when compared to my 50mm Distagon and 150mm Sonnar. Because I was "evolving" into a wide angle guy, I was continually bummed by the less than stellar output of the Distagon (app 28mm in 35mm terms).
To this day, when I see a Zeiss Distagon lens, I think it can't be any good! I do know better but it haunts me!
[The magic of the associations is part of my journey through photography for me. It's all good. --Mike]
Posted by: Dave Van de Mark | Saturday, 28 March 2020 at 12:07 PM