The Online Photographer

Competition from Used

In the nineteen-teens, Henry Ford sat atop the automotive world, but a formidable new competitor gradually emerged over those years: himself.

In 1908, each Model T took twelve and a half hours to assemble and cost $825 (about $18,000 today). It became so popular that Ford eventually didn't even have to advertise. By 1920, three out of every four cars on American roads was a Model T. Ford kept driving the cost down and improving the efficiency of manufacture. By 1925, each new Model T took 93 minutes to produce and cost $265 (about $4,000 today).

No matter how far he managed to drive down the cost of the Model T, however, Ford had to compete with used Model T's. They became, for a while, a serious competitor to new ones.

So, consider what I stumbled across yesterday. Go to this page, and at the top of the page under "Navigation," click on "Sample photos on the Nikon D700 (FX)." Take a look at the samples. Even with all the caveats that might apply to online JPEGs, and regardless of what you think of them as pictures, I think you'll agree that they're pretty passable images technically.

Then, consider...those pictures were taken with a $92 Chinese lens on a 13-year-old DSLR.

A Model T with a 1917 New Jersey license plate

It's almost like we're in the exact opposite situation of the one we were in at the turn of the millennium. Along with all their other problems these days, camera manufacturers have to compete with their own older gear on the used market...a lot of which is surprisingly capable, and proving formidable as competition to new gear. 

Mike

Will you help sustain "The Online Photographer"?

Also sponsored by...

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

ASW: Well then, I feel pretty fancy today since I bought a lightly used D700 in 2018 and it remains my main camera. I thought the D700 was a great camera when it was introduced in 2008(?) and, to be honest, my photography goals (pictures for myself and family; limited printing to 8x10-ish) haven't changed all that much since then so what more do I need? Sure, I enjoy reading about the new technology and would love to have a D850 or Z7II, but then I would convince myself that I had to have upgraded lenses and would require an upgraded computer. I don't think I could make the return on investment work out, especially since I would have to sell my car and at least one kidney in the transaction, so I'll stick with what I have."

Ian Goodrick: I was using a D700 from the day it was released until I moved to a Z7II about 6 weeks ago. The D700 was and still will produce results that exceed the demands of a vast majority of clients. Never had an image rejected because the quality was not good enough, but you did have to know it’s limitations regarding High ISO noise and dynamic range. I also submit to picture libraries and have never had an image rejected due to lack of resolution, sharpness or any technical reason associated with the camera. Missed dust spots is another issue.

"Still finding the limits of the Nikon Z7II but could not be happier with what it produces. So far I really love the lightness compared to the D700."

Tam: "I do almost all my work with dozen-year-old DSLRs. The magazine editors just want the photos, they don’t care what camera was used to shoot them.

"Some older stuff is even getting a little cult-y. D700 prices have actually gone up since I bought mine a couple years ago."

Mike replies: When I polled readers five or six years ago, the D700 was most-named as the favorite digital camera new or old.

Dan: "This is absolutely true, and the proliferation of full-frame cameras will drive that reality even more. The psychological advantage of 'full frame' means that a very old ff camera like a D700 will sell for more than a technically more capable, newer, small sensor camera. We have reached a point where 'below average' is way better than we really need."

Jim Simmons: "My favourite Henry Ford story: He used to go to junkyards to inspect the parts of Model T's at the end of their lives. People thought he was inspecting parts that had failed, but he was inspecting parts that hadn't failed, because he figured he could make those parts cheaper. His ideal car would be one in which all the parts would reach end of life at the same time."

Moose: "I take your point. In fact, I have photos taken with an early '60s Canon 58mm ƒ/1.2 on the original Sony A7 that I think are first rate.

"The metaphor isn't bad, especially for photographers like you, whose photographic interests largely lie in the 35—135mm equivalency zone and whose preferred subjects are people, dogs, houses, yards, landscapes, and so on.

"It appears that there was little technological change in the automobile market over those years, at least at the bottom.

"On the other hand, for a photographer like me, there has been tremendous tech/capability change over the 13 years you reference. The D700 came out in 2008. The Oly E-M5 in 2013.

"That camera, and the other Micro 4/3 mirrorless ILCs that followed, completely transformed photography for me. I own too many camera bodies now—and not one is a DSLR. Yes, I also have FF bodies, but mirrorless.

"Then let's look at what they can do:

"Freesia is a plant that flowers sequentially along the side of a long stem—super 3D. This photo uses the depth compreession of 800mm equivalent to make the blossoms of much the same size, rather than diminishing with distance. Then, in-camera focus bracketing gives the DoF for them all to be in focus.

"Leaving aside the fact that Nikon didn't even have an 800mm lens until 2013, it weighs four times what the lens I used for this shot does, and is commensurately longer and heavier. I could not have casually carried it out into the yard and taken this perspective and framing. And, of course, focus bracketing wouldn't be an option.

"So, this shot couldn't be made with any 13 year old camera. I know, you aren't into flower photography, or model trains, or any of the others sorts where this stuff makes possible what wasn't possible before. But a lot of us are.

"Another example, from this week:

"Olympus 100–400mm lens, with 1.4x teleconverter = 1120mm equivalent. ProCaptureL on the E-M1 II body gave me a series of shots to choose from.

"Yes, there were roughly equivalent photos taken even back in film days, with huge, exotic gear, heavy tripods, endless preparation and endless patience. Now, I can do it along the way on a day trip, when I happen to see a Great White Egret, grab camera on the back seat, point it handheld, wait a few minutes until it does something photographically interesting and track it as it flies.

"These at only some of the tech changes in capabilities that have shown up in cameras and lenses in the last 13 years that vastly increase the range of photos that can be made.

"My first SLR was a Nikon FTn, but it, a used Model T or a D700 doesn't do it for me today.  \;~)>  "

Mike replies: You make good points. But you reminded me...remember this guy? He drives Model T's. I hear he has a number of them—three, maybe? I was gassing up the car two summers ago and he pulled in opposite me at the filling station in one of them.

Rob L.: "Having just purchased a used Z6 instead of a Z6II, and shooting F-mount glass instead of Z lenses, I might resemble this remark."

The Least Attractive Lens (Or, the Happy Dude)

One of the fun things about this hobby is having an interest in equipment we might get.  And when I come across things in which I have utterly no interest, I always tell myself, well, there's someone out there who's into this.

I'm carefully watching the prices of the Olympus E-M1 Mark II*, since I still have a complete complement of Micro 4/3 lenses.

But one new lens crossed my virtual desktop recently in which my interest is about as close to zero as it gets (EMMV**). It's the new-but-not-exactly Canon RF 600mm ƒ/4L IS. Canon attached a permanent RF adapter to the end of the existing 600mm ƒ/4L, and will take your thirteen thousand dollars in exchange for the result, thank you very much. This goes well beyond triggering my price-sensitivity sensors—it puts them into overload till the alarm lights flash madly and there's smoke coming out. Even though I know in my head everybody's price sensitivity is different. (There are people on the lake here with two boats—for their second house—who are still looking around for things to spend their money on.)

There are verified buyers on B&H for the SLR lens, so my truism holds true—some people are into this. But is it really that important to use full-frame that you'd cart around a lens that's a foot and a half long without the hood and weighs seven pounds? But then, one of the verified buyers called this "unbelievably light."

A different horse for that course
For less than $3,200, you could buy an Olympus E-M1 Mark III and Panasonic-Leica 100–400mm ƒ/4–6.3. That whole shebang, body and lens, new, would cost very close to $10,000 less ($3,200 vs. $13,000), weigh less than half as much (3.45 lbs. for the camera and lens vs. 6.8 lbs. for the Canon lens alone), and—again, camera body included—be less than half as long (8.75 inches, approximately, vs. 18.6" for the Canon lens alone). And I don't know, but I'll bet the Micro 4/3 rig would be considerably more hand-holdable. Is the "quality difference" of FF really going to be worth all that?

It even reaches further. I'd carry the Olympus in preference to the 600mm even if the rest of my gear was Canon RF.

Yet, different strokes for different folks. And I don't even shoot supertele, so I'm not just on the other side of the street, I'm on a different street altogether. I'm not the guy to say. But I have a little interest in the new Leica 35mm APO-Summicron-M, even though it's blatantly priced for multimillionaires. (A tiny bit of interest. A detached and remote arm's-length curiosity.) The Canon...not so much. It probably takes the palm as the lens on the market now that I could not be less interested in—sort of a perfect storm of turn-offs.

Big tent
Of course, I could be missing out. I could be as happy as this guy:

Customer Photo courtesy B&H Photo

...And that's one happy dude. (The only way he could be happier would be if that garish white lens were camouflaged.) Gearheadism—it's a big tent!

Mike

*You know what's gone up? The price of used Panasonic GX8's. And they're getting scarce on the used market, too. I've been watching.

**Everybody's mileage may vary.

Books o' the Week

Nikon fan are ya? Nikon: A Celebration by British automotive writer and Nikon collector Brian Long covers the history of the company from its beginnings to the end of the film era. A U.S. parallel with more concentration on opinions about the equipment is B. Moose Peterson's Nikon System Handbook. The 6th Edition covered film equipment up to 2000. <—These are portals to Amazon.com thru TOP; you can also search for Nikon books from The Book Depository, which offers free shipping worldwide.

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Pedro J. Aphalo: "I have been using for several months an Olympus E-M1 II and M.Zuiko 300mm ƒ/4. At the moment they cost US$999 and US$2,899 at B&H, so for less than US$4,000 this is a closer match to the Canon. It can be easily handheld, even with the MC-14 teleconverter and with a bit more care, also with the MC-20 teleconverter. I love that the minimum focusing distance of this lens is 1.4 m."

Bobby Salmon: "Well he's loaded for bear! (Or for bird anyway.)"

Speed: "It would be interesting to know the ratio of owners to renters for this lens. Or how many LensRentals keeps in stock vs. something like a 70–200mm."

John: "It’s the ƒ/4 that’s key. There are other reasons, but only in FF and with ƒ/4 can you shoot in low light conditions and get great results if you shoot what those lenses are made for. You may be on a different street, but that lens makes perfect sense for people who are not in your street."

Rusty: "I jumped at the $700 discount on the Oly Mk II a month ago and am a happy camper; maybe not as happy as the guy in the photo, but happy.  :-)  "

Ken Bennett: "Most of the 600mm ƒ/4 users are going to be sports pros, who need the ƒ/4 aperture both for faster shutter speeds and to blur out the fans in the background. (Well, back when we allowed fans in the stadiums.) Me, if I were a Canon-shooting sports pro, I'd get the 400mm ƒ/2.8 and the 1.4X converter. Similar cost and weight, but more versatile for many situations."

Geoff Wittig: "There is a legitimate place for these giant lenses if you're a bird photography fanatic. You really can't have too many mm's of focal length when shooting small birds. I have Canon's 600mm ƒ/4 II, which is a bit longer and heavier than the newer iteration but fractionally sharper. Yes, it's huge and ungainly. Yes, it needs a solid tripod with a gimbal mount. But the results are great. And it doubles as weightlifting exercise."

David Dyer-Bennet: "A friend locally has the Nikon 400mm ƒ/2.8, similar price and weight to that Canon. Uses it on a Nikon D850 these days mostly. Animals in the wild, and some in zoos too. Gorillas in the wild, even; do you know how dark it is where gorillas mostly hang out? Infrared photos of sea turtles laying their eggs (for a turtle charity in Costa Rica or somewhere; the IR prevents the light from confusing the turtles while making photos possible). The FF body supports high ISOs better than the Micro 4/3. If you need the fast aperture then you probably need FF backing it as well. The super-teles are complete game-changers if you do the things they're really for, mostly sports and wildlife."

Even Leica Makes istakes

Reader Nico Maijer came across this photo on Marktplaats, which he described as "Holland's favorite second-hand-stuff website." Nico writes, "if you know how to handle a 3-D printer, it should be possible to manufacture such a 'funny' front ring yourself, in the hope to yank up the price. (Can’t help being slightly suspicious.)"

That seems like a lot of trouble to go through for a questionable return, though—although skepticism is always a good stance in matters like this. As for the photo, although it would be easy to fake in Photoshop, why would you? I'm guessing both are real—the lens and the picture of it. I could be wrong.

Leica used to make a big deal about how many inspections its products went through, but maybe this is the equivalent of a typo in the masthead. It used to be well known among old-time newspaper guys that if you wanted to play a practical joke on a newspaper staff, mess with the masthead, because nobody ever proofread the masthead. In the same vein, most editors have a sore spot regarding typos in headlines, which seem to find it easy to sneak through despite being writ big and bold. Maybe none of Leica's inspectors proofread the front engravings because they were never wrong and didn't need to be checked?

A curiosity, though, for sure.

Mike
(Thanks to Nico)

Book o' this Week:
Black in White America 1963–1965 by Leonard Freed, a new reprint of this classic from the Civil Rights era. I got to meet Leonard Freed once. <—This is a portal to Amazon; also available at the Book Depository for global delivery with free shipping.

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Albert Smith: "Ha! 'Summicron' is printed upside down. Can't believe quality control didn't catch that. 😀 "

Mike replies: Plus, the "CA" in "LEICA" is rendered with a "TZ." Must be Cyrillic!

Kjell: "For us Leica ignorants: What's the typo? Looks fine to me. I wouldn't buy it anyway."

Mike replies: Apart from a sojourn in Solms, Leitz, and later Leica, were located in the city of Wetzlar, where Leitz was founded in 1869.

Rick in CO: "Obviously, ot he eal hing."

Dave Elden: "I have a guidebook to a large Californian city known for its bridge and fisherman's wharf; the cover reads: Guide to San Framcisco. I didn't notice it myself for a while."

Mike replies: Ouch. Somebody had egg on their face for that one.

My cousin worked for a while for David E. Davis at Automobile magazine, which David founded. One time someone misidentified a car on the cover, which led to some embarrassment for the then-new publication. A high-tension staff meeting was called, and David read the group the riot act. He ended by saying he would let it go that one time, but the next time it happened the responsible party would be fired without discussion. I don't know, but I'll bet it never happened again.

 

Skimpy Day (and, Pentax Lenses)

Today's that day I warned you about...cardiologist this morning and eye doctor this afternoon! In different cities (towns?). So TOP will be a little skimpy today. I'm already a little late.

But, in the meantime, does anyone even know of a comprehensive list of the lenses Pentax makes and sells new now, and the cameras they fit and work with? I tried to disentangle a list from various sources and I think I've failed so far. I'm not talking about the vast sprawling mess of all the historical lenses, which would require a Pentaxian version of the indefatigable Erwin Puts to catalogue. Just the ones you can buy new for new cameras. I think it's at least a challenge to make sense of it all. Assuming it can be done.

Gotta get going,

Mike

UPDATE noon: Got a clean bill o' health from the cardiologist. Blood pressure 112/62, EKG is fine, no changes since two years ago, no issues. "Keep doing what you're doing" was doctor's advice. One small annoyance: BMI is 26 and it should be 25 or below. To quote Snidely Whiplash (always loved that name), "Curses, foiled again!"

So take a look at Tex's long comment about Pentax lens information below. Looking over Pentax's offerings it seems like they tend to have small sets of lenses for every sort of camera, which each make internal sense, and then, when they have more it quickly becomes somewhat chaotic—almost like a new guy is put in charge of the lens lineup plans every two or three years, makes a bunch of changes and introduces a few lenses, and then he vacates and a new guy takes over and starts all over again. I guess that's what happens when you make lenses for almost every conceivable film and digital format from 110 to 6x7 over many decades. If you want the K3 III, for instance, you almost have to like the 21mm Limited or the 35mm Macro as your normal prime, or am I missing something?

Now I've got 14 minutes before I have to leave for the eye doctor's. That's an hour and a half in the car with an appointment sandwiched in the middle. Living in a rural area does have its consolations though: there was a headline in the free local newsletter this morning saying COVID cases are up...from one or two new cases daily to "three, four, or even five." Yesterday there were four new cases. I'm not saying that's good or anything like that; zero would be the best number, obviously. All I'm saying is, could be worse.

UPDATE late afternoon: Got a big pass and pat on the back from the eye doctor too. My partial cornea replacement is doing well and my vision has improved—"easily correctable to 20/20" quoth the newly-married Dr. Zoschg  (pronounced "zosk"). I got new driving glasses and plan to get new computer glasses too. Although the old ones still serve, the prescription has changed. I don't wear glasses most of the day unless I'm reading.

Only one more appointment tomorrow and I'm done with my busy week. The whole week has been good—best of all was Tuesday, with the tax lady, and the news is: TOP survived another year! I was tremendously relieved, as I'd been worried and stressed about it. As all you professional photographers well know, those self-employment taxes can be murder. My income was down sharply through the COVID year, but that meant the taxes were lower too. TOP marches on!  :-)

Book o' this Week:
Accidentally Wes Anderson, the group-sourced book of the Instagram trend, endorsed by the director. Go read about it! <—This is a portal to Amazon; also available at the Book Depository for global delivery with free shipping.

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Tex Andrews: "Here's the list at Ricoh: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/index_list.html

"Here's the Feb 2021 roadmap: https://pentaxrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Pentax-K-mount-lens-roadmap.jpg

"And: https://pentaxrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Pentax-K-mount-lens-roadmap-2.jpg

"In the first one there's color coding down on the lower right. DFA and FA lenses are fully compatible with FF, while DA lenses are designed for crop. The second chart I think is showing how some DA lenses can work with FF.

"DFA lenses are weather resistant or weather proof. Lenses with a star are special high end lenses, and then there is the Limited series, both in DFA and DA which are a quirky Pentax thing, and only primes.

"There have been some lens announcements this year: a 21mm Limited lens for FF coming in the fall we thing, and there is a new DA zoom lens (16–50mm I think) to coordinate with the new K3 III camera about to hit the streets now, and there's word that this lens may be part of a kit with that camera. Also, some of the Limited series lenses will be updated with new coatings.

"Here's the list for medium format: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/index645_list.html

"FA and DFA cover FF medium format, and DA supposedly only covering crop frame digital medium format (although there's a bit of argument about that—the 21st century 25mm lens that was produced for a few years may only have been a hood issue—fixed metal hood)

"Here's the last 645 roadmap: https://pentaxrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Pentax-645-mount-lens-roadmap-2016.png

"This is the best I could find in a hurry. On PentaxForums.com there is a complete listing of all lenses, including legacy lenses: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

"Here's the most complete list of third party lenses (I think...): https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/

"This last might be missing several lenses—the third party Chinese manufacturers still are coming out with new stuff that may not be in there yet.

"I'm now a forums mod over there. FYI, we keep a close eye on your website, as you've always seemed a 'friend,' which in our world means 'not openly or snarkily hostile.'"

Mike replies: Thanks, Tex. And, jeez, I'd better behave!

Zeiss Batis Group Review

Ed. note: As promised recently, I've collated all our readers' comments about the Zeiss Batis 40mm (and other lenses in the Batis line). Many readers mentioned or speculated about the new Sony lenses that were then just about to be introduced, and generally I have edited out those comments.

The Zeiss Batis 40mm ƒ/2 full-frame lens for Sony E-mount

-

The Zeiss Batis lens lineup at Amazon;
the Batis 40mm ƒ/2 at B&H Photo

-

Kenneth Tanaka: "The Zeiss Batis 40mm ƒ/2 is a lovely lens, perfect for carrying only one lens during a long walk. Personally, I like the 'tweener' focal length of 40mm. It's sharp wall-to-wall, with excellent contrast, and it has that slightly-cool Zeiss lens look. It's also a pretty fast focuser in all AF modes I’ve used on the Sony A7R IV.

"No, it's not an inexpensive lens, but it's a good value all-'round companion lens that I've owned for some time and would buy again if it was lost.

"At just under 14 oz. it’s easy on the neck! The lightness is, no doubt, due in no small part to having a polycarbonate, rather than metal, body.

"It features a sometimes-handy focus limiter switch, good for the macro moments.

"When the lens is switched to manual focus an LED display comes alive indicating the current focal length and focal bracket. Also note that the focus ring is by-wire and there is no aperture ring (which is fine with me).

"These little JPEGs aren't going to tell anyone anything about the lens. But they’re perfectly fine, especially considering they're just shot out my home windows just now!"

David Stock: "The Batis 40mm is currently my favorite lens, and has been for some time. I love this focal length, and this is a killer 40mm, at least for my kind of street and landscape photography. The lens is kind of fat, but pretty light and easy to hold. It has fast, accurate autofocus. And close-focus capability, which I love. The digital distance/depth of field scale is a bit gimmicky, but I've actually used it to zone focus. It can be turned on or off. Manual focus is okay, but nothing special.

"As for image quality: this is classic Zeiss blended with the best of modern lens design. The rendering reminds me of my Zeiss Contax lenses, except that the Batis is better corrected and better behaved in every way optically. Besides, it's sharp across the frame wide open, incredibly sharp across the frame stopped down a bit. Still very sharp at ƒ/11 plus. Flat field, minimal focus shift. This may not be the perfect lens for somebody who always shoots wide open in order to blow away the background. It's 'only' an ƒ/2 lens. Bokeh is very good, but not as creamy or controlled as, say, the new Voigtländer 50mm. What the Batis does do very well is make detail look convincing in areas that are slightly or moderately out of focus (for instance, in front of and behind the plane of exact focus).

"For any kind of landscape, a superb lens. I have the Batis 25mm and 85mm also. Excellent lenses. But this is a cut above."

Herb Cunningham: "Have owned a couple of Batis lenses; not a fan. Prefer the manual focus lenses. Auto focus is needed for fast moving subjects, but not the rest, in my humble opinion."

Peter Jehle: "I own the Zeiss Batis 40mm and use it with a Sony A7R III. The handling is lovely, well balanced and lightweight. Autofocus is quick and accurate. The rendering is beautiful and it is super sharp wide open. Close focusing with the additional benefit of a focus limiter switch with three settings. I own or have owned 35mm and 50mm lenses and always felt they were either slightly too wide or too long so 40mm suits the way I see, obviously this may differ for you. I have read that this lens suffers from some focus inaccuracy at close distances but I have not noticed any issues on my copy. I often use this lens in conjunction with my Batis 135mm ƒ/2.8 and find it makes a great two-lens kit. The lens has quite a large circumference especially when the hood is fitted, therefore if I want to be more discrete I will use my Loxia 35mm instead."

Grant Kench: "I have and use the Batis 85mm ƒ/1.8 lens. It is touted as a portrait lens. I use it for landscape. It is a beautiful lens but not perfect on account of its manual focus issues. That would be the same for the 40mm. Focus 'on the wire' just does not work for me being much too difficult to finesse."

Piotr Edelman: "I have a 18mm Batis. Big sky, architecture, city, outdoors. Feels to me as good as all the reviews said. Perfect AF, very good manual mode. If I have to pick something negative, then maybe the fact is doesn't have a dedicated auto/manual button. You have to control it from the camera."

Christer: "After a lens clean-out I am left with four lenses, three of them Batises. I have, listed here by acquisition date, the 85mm, the 40mm, and the 135mm. (I also have the Sony 20mm ƒ/1.8G.) I like all of them, otherwise I would not have kept them. A Batis may look large, especially with the sunshade mounted. But they are the right size for my medium-sized hands...and they feel good when you hold them. And I only use the sunshade when it is really needed. The lenses may look large, but they are by no means heavy. Indeed, they are lightweight compared to some Leica lenses I used to own like the 90mm ƒ/2 ASPH. I sometimes use a tripod and then the low weight is a true blessing. I can use a lighter tripod and smaller head. They all focus fast enough for me, but I am not a sports photographer, I am rather a people and things photographer. Eye focus works really well. (I use a Sony A7R III.) Both the 85mm and the 135mm have in-lens stabilization. I am pretty convinced that this is a valuable feature. Many reviewers make negative remarks about the rubberized surface of the manual focusing ring. Man, do they have problems. Problems to fill their 15+ minutes review videos. Well, I had a problem too. The blue dot for lining up the lenses correctly is difficult to see. Mine is now white. I have many images on my web site, mainly made with the 85mm. Here are some direct links: SV-JA, Portraits, Eyes 'n' Lips."

San Warzoné: "I came across a deal on a brand new Zeiss Batis 85mm ƒ/1.8 with stabilization for my Sony A7 III. It's a perfect size, handles great and produces amazing clarity and color. My style of street hunting may not lend itself to an 85mm but the results can't be denied. It has taken me awhile to keep reminding myself to keep stepping back, but when I do there's a true 'Wow' moment."

Phil Service: "About the Batis lenses: I've owned all but the 40mm. The main attraction is that they are light, although strangely bulky. The 85mm has rather more distortion than you might expect for a lens in this class. Despite the fact that they have relatively modest maximum apertures, they need to be stopped down two stops for maximum center sharpness. I just sold my 18mm and 25mm on eBay and replaced them with the Sony FE 20mm ƒ/1.8 G, which is more compact, slightly heavier and optically superior."

CWM: "The Batis lenses from Zeiss are the single largest reason for my use of Sony bodies. Forty millimeters is a favorite focal length and this version is the epitome of Zeiss 'pop' or whatever adjective you like to use for amazing micro-contrast, etc. Images just look 'right' and I feel that my intent for the photograph is rendered perfectly.

"In 2019, I did the 'Grand Tour' of Europe with the A7R IV and Zeiss Batis 40mm and 135mm. Also brought the Voigtländer 21mm ƒ/1.4 and 65mm ƒ/2 (manual focus), also manufactured by Cosina in Japan. No zooms were needed on this trip. Everything fit in a reasonable size Manfrotto bag. At 65, I just can't, or won't, haul those huge bodies and zooms anymore. Great sensor and four fantastic primes...photo heaven for me. If you are OK with manual focus, then I also highly recommend the 21mm ƒ/1.4 for travel. Best museum lens ever! I was very skeptical of using the 135mm ƒ/2.8 but I needed to keep overall weight down and still have some 'reach.' The Batis 135mm is simply the best I've ever used at that focal length and I've shot with at least a dozen or so over the last 40+ years. With this level of lens quality, I kept to ƒ/5 or wider to avoid diffraction issues on the high resolution 61mp sensor. Lesser lenses are less finicky, but these Zeiss and Voigtländer models can truly take advantage of these incredible high resolution sensors. Wall art metal prints at 24x36" are astounding; 8K sized files for playback on 4K monitors were also a joy to view."

Glenn Allenspach: "I do own and use a Batis 40mm. I also have the Batis 25mm and 135mm, plus four of the Zeiss Loxia lenses and two of the Sony/Zeiss lenses. You’re right, I’m a lens junkie. I’ve gotten very satisfactory results from all my Batis lenses, although I find myself using the 25mm more often. I discovered long ago when I owned a 25mm Distagon in Contax/Yashica mount, that, for myself, the 25mm was a nearly perfect fit for my vision. As you often say, 'your mileage may vary.'

"I think you’ve touched on another issue with lenses in general, which is the size. Batis lenses are big and impressive, and as such, tend to draw attention to themselves when I’m on the street. I sometimes get comments like, 'That’s quite a lens you have there,' or some such. This never happens when I’m working with the more modestly sized Loxias. So even though they are manual focus, and a little slower to use, they can actually be more discreet. As you know, Zeiss was never shy about physically big lenses. Remember the C/Y mount 35mm and 85mm ƒ/1.4's? Quite huge (and heavy) for their day. And in today's AF/VR/zoom world, big heavy lenses are common. Just check out anyone's 24–70mm ƒ/2.8, or 24–105mm ƒ/4. I don’t own any mid-range zooms any more, by the way, so maybe there’s hope for me after all."

Henry Rinne: "My primary full-frame kit is a Sony a7R II and three Batis lenses: 25mm, 40mm, and 85mm. I also have the Sony 55mm ƒ/1.8 and the 16–35mm ƒ/4. The 40mm Batis is on the camera far more than any other lens. I find comfort in the slight wide angle field of view. All of the Batis lenses are extremely sharp and have excellent contrast and microcontrast touted by Zeiss. The ƒ/2 is fast enough and I love the close-focusing ability of the 40mm. It had some bad press because of the slight closing of the aperture when focused in close. I do not see it as a problem. The other issue was the use of eye AF causing a small amount of front focus. Both of these issues were dealt with in a firmware update but neither were eliminated completely. In my experience, I see the eye AF issue in one out of ten shots. Still not a bad hit rate. I love the the lens and have maintained my Sony kit because I just like the rendering of these lenses."

Eric Brody: "I've had the Batis 40mm since it became available. I've read all the reviews, including the negative one by Phillip Reeve, whose reviews I highly respect. When the firmware upgrade was released I did it and have not looked back. New lenses have and will arrive. It's not as if the older equipment stops working when the new version arrives, though manufacturers might like that. The Batis 40mm is not petite but it's light, sharp, focuses fast, and focuses close. It's my go-to when I want to go out and carry just one lens.

"I'm as much of a lens lover as anyone and probably have too many but I have two 'Batii,' the 40mm detailed above and the Batis 135mm ƒ/2.8. That is a lens I shall never sell. It's pretty light, especially compared to the Sony and Sigma ƒ/1.8 versions. It's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, and I've used a lot of lenses in my 60-odd years of photography.

"Zeiss has gone from the dream brand to I'm not sure what and everyone seems to enjoy bashing the 'Batii,' or as someone once said the bad-ass lenses. The business is understandably infatuated with the newest and latest. There's always been some of that but the digital era has greatly accelerated the desire to toss something a few years old in favor of the newest even if the differences are hard to see. Dire Straits said it well in their song 'Money for Nothing,' 'We got to move those refrigerators, got to move these color TVs.'"

Alan Sue: "I have several Batis lenses, the 25mm, 40mm and 85mm, along with a couple of Loxia lenses. I guess I like Zeiss. The size and shape of the Batis make it a nice winter lens as I shoot through the winter with gloves on in pretty cold weather. The optical quality suits me as well. The Sony A7R bodies aren't that much fun to shoot with gloves but that's another story. The new Sony 40mm will likely be a nice fair-weather lens."

Tom Hassler: "I have the Batis 25mm ƒ/2 and Batis 85mm ƒ/1.8 for Sony, have used them on an A7R II and A7R IV. They are great! Integration with both Sony cameras is excellent (i.e.: fast autofocus and tracking.) Optically they have all the Zeiss-y goodness that one expects from the brand, especially that wonderful 3D quality that is hard to quantify but always present in Zeiss optics. They are a bit bulky, but feel light and well-balanced on the camera. They might be a little pricey compared to some, but they do not disappoint."

Rodolfo Canet Castelló: "I had two Batis for my long-ago sold Sony 7RII: 25mm and 85mm. Both were well-built lenses and competent performers but a little...I don't know how to say it...boring or characterless, and quite contrasty without joy. I've had several Zeiss lenses during my long career of buying expensive new gear for other people to get it cheaper from me later, and this pair weren't my favourites."

Mein Batis 40mm
Finally Christer Almqvist pointed out an eBay sale page for a near-new Sigma 35mm ƒ/2 in Germany. The seller's explanation of the reason for the sale was, "fast nicht genutzt da ich mein Batis 40mm doch weiterhin benutze deshalb der auch der Verkauf," which Google translates as: "almost not used because I still use my Batis 40mm, which is why the sale."

Mike

Products o' the Week:

The Zeiss Batis lens lineup at Amazon;
the 40mm ƒ/2 at B&H Photo

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Josh Hawkins: "Not Batis related at all, but related to one of the comments. 'Images just look "right" and I feel that my intent for the photograph is rendered perfectly.' This is very particular to each photographer, of course. I’ve been using a 50mm Summicron DR for about a year and I’m finding I just love the look. Not too contrasty, holds shadow details well, and has a nice look for backlit images. The problem I’m having is finding any other lenses that match up with that look; wide angles, let’s say 24mm or wider, from the early '60s aren’t super common. Is there anything made currently without the supercontrasty feel? The only other lenses I’ve gotten a similar vibe from is an 80mm Hassy lens that may not even be a T*. It has a great vibe to it.

"And just what I need, more stuff. I should learn how to sell my old gear."

Mike relies: I had one of those for a while. I'd be surprised if you didn't sell it to me! But I don't remember.

Sony's Three Superlights

Here are the pre-order links to those Sony "superlights," for those who are interested—Sony's new trio of smaller, lighter, more compact full-frame primes.

Sony FE 24mm ƒ/2.8 G

Sony FE 40mm ƒ/2.5 G

Sony FE 50mm ƒ/2.5 G

(And please, Internet, please stop shooting every lens wide open all the time no matter what, will you please? Let's see at least a few tests of these lenses at ƒ5.6 and ƒ/8.... —Jaded but hip old-guy Photo Dawg)

Mike

Product o' the Week:

A fantastically comfortable ergonomic mouse for PC users. Should be considered incompatible with Mac unless you want to use only default settings. Available in regular and small sizes, right and left hand, and wired and wireless. WARNING to Mac users: Do NOT download USBOverdrive! It broke my computer. But really, for you PC users, you won't believe how easy on your hand this mouse is.

The link above is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Phil Martin: "Agreed—for landscape, both suburban and urban, I rarely shoot at apertures wider than ƒ/5.6, and it's the quality in the ƒ/5.6–ƒ/11 range that concerns me most."

Sony's Tiny Tot Trio

It seems like just a short time ago that we were regularly complaining about Sony's deficient lens support for its full-frame cameras...

...Because it was just a short time ago. But Sony has released 60 (that's sixty) lenses for its E-mount in the past five years, according to B&H.

That's actually a few more than most people need. (<—Rhetorical device called "understatement.")

The latest three, which arrived this morning at 10 o'clock, are a trio of smaller, lighter, more compact full-frame primes. There is, or rather there will be, the Sony FE 24mm ƒ/2.8 G, the Sony FE 40mm ƒ/2.5 G, and the Sony FE 50mm ƒ/2.5 G.

The new Sony FE 40mm ƒ/2.5 G. The 24mm
and 50mm look almost identical.

While not exactly compact by classical standards (compare the new 40mm to the Leica 40mm Summicron-C that Mani mentioned yesterday, for example), all three buck the distinct trend toward humongous superfast lenses with sky-high pricetags that has been a feature of lens releases in general, and Sony lenses in particular, in recent years. If perhaps only medium-compact, though, all three of the new lenses (it would be handy if they had a "genus" or line name, such as Batis) are truly very light: 5.7 oz. / 162 g for the 24mm, and 6.1 oz. for both the 40mm and the 50mm (which are actually one gram apart in weight at 173 and 174 grams). That's despite having at least a metal "skin" (I don't know anything about the construction yet). All three are weather sealed. They all also focus particularly close, so they can function as "near macros" for general shooting. This is handy in general, and especially if you want to use the 50mm as a 75mm-e for portraits on an A6600. (I was always irritated—or let's say distracted— to run up against close-focusing limits during a portrait shoot.)

Finally, all three are relatively inexpensive at $598 each. Compare that to the slightly faster Zeiss Batis 40mm ƒ/2 at $1,299, the Voigtländer 40mm ƒ/1.4 manual focus lens at $899, or the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens at $1,399. The latter probably would win the performance war, but with so many lenses clustered so closely right at the top of the performance chart it hardly matters nowadays, especially if you make prints. A closer comp might be the Sigma 45mm ƒ/2.8 DG DN Contemporary, which is about the same size and speed but $50 less expensive.

The Sigma 40mm ƒ/1.4 Art for Sony E-mount is also almost three times longer and almost seven times heavier than the new Sony FE 40mm ƒ/2.5! Wow. That's a big difference even when you're only carrying one lens. Of course the Sigma is more than a stop faster, and really does have stellar, push-the-envelope specs...which is sometimes worth having just to have.

Kudos
In general: Bravo, Sony!

Specifically, my reaction might be a tad more...complicated. For one thing, what will it do to wound sales of the Zeiss? And as always, the burning question, "what about the bokeh?" Things like that. But there will be plenty of time in the future to get into that stuff.

Right now, I'm looking forward to your thoughts and reactions.

I'll put up B&H links tomorrow morning, when preordering opens.

Mike

Product o' the Week:

A fantastically comfortable ergonomic mouse for PC users. Should be considered incompatible with Mac unless you want to use only default settings. Available in regular and small sizes, right and left hand, and wired and wireless. WARNING to Mac users: Do NOT download USBOverdrive! It broke my computer. But really, for you PC users, you won't believe how easy on your hand this mouse is.

The link above is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

JOHN B GILLOOLY: "Is there any objective comparison between these Sony offerings and the Sigma line that they have clearly borrowed liberally from!? I am very happy to see this trend of smaller lens offerings for these smaller bodies and plan to purchase some of these—either Sigma or Sony."

Andrew Lamb: "Is the Sony compact and cheap compared to the EOS 40mm ƒ/2.8? The latter is a pretty nifty performer despite being medieval in terms of optical design compared to the Sony."

John M: "I'm one step closer to getting rid of my Z gear. Why can't Nikon see that a set of lenses like these would go really well with the Z bodies and be preferred over the bigger-than-huge Z lenses by many users?"

Dan: "It will be interesting to see if these very 'unsexy' lenses actually drive sales numbers. The camera is as much jewelry as tool to much of the advanced amateur market, and that tiny front glass doesn’t scream 'BUY ME' the way the big fast lenses do."

Let's Do a 'Crowd-Sourced Review' of the Batis

This is my dream lens. (It's large, but it's light.) And no, I'm not saying my current lenses aren't great in every way. But someday....

Does anybody own or use the Zeiss Batis 40mm ƒ/2? It's an autofocus lens for Sony. Or how about any other Batis?

When I reviewed the Sony A7 Mark II, I purposely didn't request this lens because I didn't want to be tempted!

If I get enough responses, I'll make this into one of our "crowd-sourced reviews."

Mike

Product o' the Week:

A fantastically comfortable ergonomic mouse for PC users. Should be considered incompatible with Mac unless you want to use only default settings. Available in regular and small sizes, right and left hand, and wired and wireless. WARNING to Mac users: Do NOT download USBOverdrive! It broke my computer. But really, for you PC users, you won't believe how easy on your hand this mouse is.

The link above is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

And here is a portal to...

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

No Cold Water

I'll just point out, following yesterday's discussion, that it has been my observation, over many years, that any time you start talking about aperture, in any context, the discussion eventually devolves into squabbling about the science and the math. It virtually never fails. But one thing I will toss out there is not to forget about the degree of precision in the device, which is a wild card we don't know. Yes, ƒ/1.2 might not be exactly one-third or exactly one-half of a stop different than ƒ/1.4, which itself might not be exactly ƒ/1.4. But your particular camera might not be setting ƒ/1.2 as the maker intended when it's set to ƒ/1.2, either.

It doesn't really matter—the general points still stand.

Here is the accepted f-stop scale for camera lenses, in third stops, with whole stops in bold red:

0.7, 0.8., 0.9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 3.2, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.6, 6.3, 7.1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 29, 32, 36, 40, 45, 51, 57, 64, 72, 80, 90

You'll notice it's only an approximate geometric sequence. And f-number is a dimensionless number that already takes into account the size of the entrance pupil. Each whole stop represents an approximate doubling or a halving of the amount of light.

Anyway, photography is just not that precise such that the picayune differences are worth arguing about. First of all, exposure is a judgement call—ask ten people to adjust overall exposure in any picture with sliders and you'll get seven different renderings, perhaps with two or three quite far off from each other. Secondly, the differences we're talking about represent relatively minor corrections in software. They also represented relatively minor corrections in the darkroom. Whether you are in the Third-Stop camp or on Team Half-Stop with regard to ƒ/1.2 lenses, the differences are slight and easy to compensate for.

Michael Fewster wrote: "Once upon a time in film days, superfast lenses had a point. High ISO speeds meant ISO 800. Even more relevant was the need for fast lenses to nail accurate manual focus. As cameras with internal light meters closed down apertures, manual focus became difficult. I think it was Minolta that first came up with focus at full aperture and then auto stop down to the required aperture when exposing. The brighter the viewfinder, the easier it was to manually fast focus. There was real street cred in having a fast lens on the front of your SLR. I don't see the point of such lenses on DSLRs."

An utterly unnecessary lens might be useful to calibrate your sense of optical perfection

I would defend fast-lens fans more than that—if people like their fast lenses, far be it from me to splash any cold water on their happiness. (I have plenty of my own enthusiasms and tastes.) I sympathized with what Zed said, that he bought his ƒ/1.2 lens "in part for the prestige of owning just one such utterly unnecessary lens." You go, bro—I get that. And of course maximum aperture is only one feature of any lens. It's the whole lens one has to look at. I'd say, if you like fast lenses, go for it, and if you don't, don't worry about it. All I'll add is that personally, just for my own self, I'd prefer it if the Fuji 56mm had the specs of the Viltrox 56mm, and the Viltrox had the specs of the Fuji. Moderation in all things.

Back at the ranch, ever the empiricist, I got out the Fuji 56mm ƒ/1.2 yesterday, and set the camera to square, and went out photographing. I even discovered that my X-H1 has eye-recognition focus, just like a Sony! I did not know that.

(I also did not know that I could set my Mac to Dvorak with the simple click of a toolbar button. But that's a different subject. Off to typing practice now. Enjoy your Saturday! All best from the beautiful Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where it will be 55°F today and I will be walking on the hill come evening).

Mike

Book o' the Week:

ArtCurious: Stories of the Unexpected, Slightly Odd, and Strangely Wonderful in Art History by Jennifer Dasal (Penguin, 2020. Adapted from the popular podcast.)

The link above is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

James Bullard: "The f-numbers are a ratio of the diameter of the opening relative to the focal length of the lens. An ƒ/2 opening is ½ the focal length, ƒ/4 is ¼ the focal length, etc. The actual amount of light varies because the focal length is measured from the optical center of the lens, the point where the light crosses and inverts the image landing on the focal plane, and that point moves outward as the lens is focused on anything closer than infinity. So yes, it is approximate.

"FWIW, the optical part of photography is entirely based on math. It is not something to squabble about; math is math. You understand it or you don't. Since the advent of TTL metering it is less necessary to understand that math of optics/light but IMO still helpful.

"The perspective of an old guy who learned on all-manual cameras when you had to understand how it worked.  :-)  "

Steve Renwick: "Re 'But one thing I will toss out there is not to forget about the degree of precision in the device, which is a wild card we don't know.' Well sure. I have here two identical camera bodies with two identical lenses which when set to the same identical apertures and shutter speeds yield exposures that differ by about 2/3 of a stop. Or maybe it's 5/6 of a stop. So, y'know, stuff happens."

Andrew J.: "Anybody interested in a thorough explanation of relative apertures should read the excellent article 'f-number' by Wikipedia. Is ƒ/1.2 half a stop or a third of a stop faster than ƒ/1.4 is purely academic for me as I don't own such a lens and thus can't comment on the true subject of this post."

Bruce Alan Greene: "Motion picture lenses are marked in T stops, for the light actually transmitted rather than the mathematical stop. Even then...they are generally only accurate to ± 1/3 stop, except...at the widest aperture."

[Bruce is a cinematographer. —Ed.]

Do You Own an f/1.2 Lens?

Sony just released a new G-Master 50mm ƒ/1.2. Are such super lenses really just ordinary faster primes with marketing lipstick liberally applied?

I'd like to ask your opinion of a lens you own.

I happened across a particularly bad YouTube video yesterday, by a foetus of a presenter who didn't seem to know that a 50mm lens isn't a normal lens on an APS-C camera. Gave me that old familiar "Someone is wrong on the Internet" feeling. (One of the two most famous cartoons of the online era, created by Randall Munroe. The other is "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" by Peter Steiner.) He was reviewing an ƒ/1.2 lens, and in passing had to explain what an aperture number meant. He struggled, but escaped without falling flat on his face. Close one! Okay, so I was wet behind the ears once myself. Be charitable, boomer. (I try to be friendly when I suggest corrections to people I happen across in my virtual wanderings*.)

But I found myself musing...why do people buy ƒ/1.2 lenses these days? If it's marketing, why does it work?

Does anyone really need the speed? The difference between the more standard "whole" stop of ƒ/1.4 and ƒ/1.2 is only a third of a stop, which is barely detectable in either exposure value or "amount of bokeh," the latter being a pretty soft concept itself. Basically, ƒ/1.2 is ƒ/1.4 wearing makeup. Seems like it's mainly a prestige thing to me, like sporting the badge of a more established company on your otherwise anonymous SUV.

A signifier, which says to buyers, "this is mo' special."

There's nothing wrong with ƒ/1.2 lenses, of course, and I'm not suggesting there is. Many times, a lensmaker will put more care and quality into its ƒ/1.2 offerings...sometimes, signifiers really signify! There's nothing wrong with pride of ownership in fine lenses. But that third of a stop alone might not be where the most significant difference resides. Back in the days of all or mostly mechanical cameras, Norman Goldberg**, who was an expert on the subject, told us that a third of a stop was basically the margin of error in mechanical camera systems—the degree of precision. That is, every setting on your camera should have been accompanied by an asterisk that said "give or take a third of a stop." Which was okay, because a third of a stop was right at the threshold of the JND anyway—the "just noticeable difference," where our eyes couldn't reliably detect a difference in either a negative, a slide, or a print. I don't know if that old rule-of-thumb still holds with electronic, computer-controlled devices, but I suspect not.

Do you own an ƒ/1.2 lens? I own one***. Anyway, if you would, pick one ƒ/1.2 lens you own and tell us how you like it. I'd love to hear...my experience is limited.

Mike

*I usually just shut up. My usual filter for online comments out on the wilds of the internets is, is my comment going to make the OP and other readers feel better, or worse? If the latter, my silence would be preferable, and I follow that course.

**Norman Goldberg worked for Popular Photography magazine from 1972 to 1987. He devised the magazine's lens testing procedures and ran its camera testing lab. Which I always sorta suspected was mainly Norman himself sitting at a very well-equipped workbench. His book Camera Technology: On the Dark Side of the Lens [Academic Press, 1992], which is rare now, is still prized by aficionados of older mechanical cameras. His son Don is a well-known Leica repairperson.

***It was a gift—it's the Fuji XF 56mm ƒ/1.2, and I haven't used it much yet. Fifty-six millimeters on APS-C is, of course, an 85mm angle-of-view-equivalent, the classic short telephoto or "short long lens."

By the way, if you happen to want an 85mm-e for your Fuji, there is a no-signifyin' alternative, the Viltrox AF 56mm ƒ/1.4 XF, which offers smaller size, lighter weight, a smaller filter diameter and lens hood, and good-enough performance all around...and it costs almost exactly one-third of what the Fuji lens does.

Book o' the Week:

ArtCurious: Stories of the Unexpected, Slightly Odd, and Strangely Wonderful in Art History by Jennifer Dasal (Penguin, 2020. Adapted from the popular podcast.)

The link above is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

David Rayburn Haynes: "I own the Canon EF 85mm ƒ/1.2L USM and love it. I can shoot in low light situations where a flash would not be welcome—like at public aquariums where flash is prohibited or at gatherings such as a (pre-Covid) party or concert, where a flash would be un-cool. A plus is that the lens results in really lovely images. Some examples can be viewed here."

Zed (partial comment): "I have one—the M.ZUIKO 25mm ƒ/1.2 PRO for Micro 4/3. I like it, but, I don't actually use it as much as my 17mm and 45m ƒ/1.8's, in part because the 50mm perspective just isn't my favorite. I bought it in part for the prestige of owning just one such utterly unnecessary lens—even among the current super-lens trends this one stands out for throwing an absurd amount of lens elements at the solution."

[Ed. note: The full text of partial Featured Comments can be read in the full Comments section, accessible by clicking on "Comments" in the footer.]

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "For a number of years I owned a Leica Noctilux 50mm ƒ/1. It was a beast. I rarely used it and finally sent it along to another guy who'll rarely use it."

Tex Andrews (partial comment): "ƒ/2 is plenty fast enough for me—really, ƒ/2.8 is."

Mark Crean: "I own two ƒ/1.2 lenses: Olympus 17mm and 25mm, or about 35mm and 50mm in full-fat [sic] terms. Given that they are for a smaller format perhaps this is a bit of a cheat. I bought them because their build quality and weather sealing is an order of magnitude better than the older standard prime lenses in the Olympus range. I also bought them because at the time I was doing a lot of low-light and night photography in rough weather and quality images at wider apertures was important given the limitations of the Micro 4/3 sensor. But by ƒ/8 or even by ƒ/5.6? It's probably a wash with slower lenses costing a great deal less. However, that isn't why I bought them....

"The 17mm ƒ/1.2, in particular, is now my standard go-to lens and I have no plans to part with it."

Mike replies: I've always quietly coveted that lens....

Roger: "My favorite lens is my M-mount 40mm ƒ/1.2 voightlander Nokton. I was '40mm curious' and ran across this lens for auction on eBay. It only had one bid at the time. For grins I bid $399 and somehow managed to win it for about $360—a pretty steep discount for a lens described as purchased new and offered for sale after only a few weeks of ownership. So yeah, marginally faster than an ƒ/1.4 but many stops cheaper than I expected to have paid. I doesn't hurt that I love the output from this lens. It's the one most often mounted to my M4-P. This is the lens I would choose to keep if I was allowed only one."

Richard Alton: "I have a Nikkor 55mm ƒ/1.2 (pre-AI)—given to me by a friend who had been clearing out her brother-in-law's flat in Tehran. It came with a late Nikon F body, but now sits on my Fuji X Pro2 (shooting and developing film is not practical here in Zambia). I rarely shoot wider than ƒ/2, but I won't be trading in my well-travelled ƒ/1.2 lens. It has too many stories to tell."

B Grace: "I too have a 50mm ƒ/1.2 Nikkor, a 2012 vintage AiS version. Like others here have stated, I find it to be wonderful when stopped down, and interesting in a good way when used wide open.

"Some of the Nikon guides imply that Nikon's lens coatings used on the AiS Nikkors continued to evolve over the years without much notice from the company. It's rumored that some of the AiS lenses adopted their SIC coating system around 2006, but there has been no confirmation from Nikon, as far as I've seen. It might explain why some of the newer AiS lenses stand up very well with modern digital gear.

"Many sources on the web point to Nikon's early 50mm ƒ/2 as their best 50mm prime formula of all time. I have a 1964 version which does sing nicely on digital, but I'm not sure it's better than the late 50mm ƒ/1.2.

"I'm tempted to buy a Z7 Mark II to pair up with the old Nikkors, to see just what they're capable of producing. I guess that would be if I can reliably focus them on the Z-camera."

The Newmmicron

In the post about the new 35mm Summicron-M, Bernard wrote, "I think Leica should be applauded for the engineering feat of developing a lens so small with such high optical performance."

Absolutely, and I'm sorry I didn't make a bigger deal of that. (I tend to get distracted by Leica's dismaying prices.) To have a diffraction-limited lens that is tiny and light is indeed a wonderful accomplishment, and maybe even a landmark in the history of camera lenses. So kudos to Leica for that!

Sorry for "missing the forest for the trees."

Mike

UPDATE: A friend-o'-TOP tells me that there's a somewhat bulkier but radically cheaper alternative coming on March 17th in the form of the new Voigtländer Apo-Lanthar 35mm ƒ/2 Aspherical. It's still what I'd consider an expensive lens, but you could buy seven of them for the price of just one Leica Newmmicron. He notes that "The MTF's show that they are aiming for the same performance league as the Leica lens, if not higher. We'll see how it pans out, but FWIW the recent C/V 50/2 Apo-Lanthar in M mount has been getting spectacular reviews, not only re value for money but also absolutely relative to all other M-mount 50's on the market, including the Leica Apo 'Cron." 

Meanwhile, it's a bit ironic that the M-mount 35mm I would choose is the still-expensive but not-so-much-so 35mm Summarit ƒ/2.4, and Jeff tells us that Leica has just discontinued that lens. It reminds me of something the chairman of Porsche once said about the then-current 944: something to the effect that a car selling for under $40,000 "dilutes the prestige of Porsche." Maybe the Summarits diluted the prestige of Leica, I don't know.

Gear o' The Week:

If I could shoot with any 50mm focal-length-equivalent lens, it would not be unobtanium: it would be the relatively modest, relatively older Pentax 35mm ƒ/2.8 DA Macro Limited on APS-C. I don't know how it measures and couldn't care less. If you care first and foremost about pictures, especially prints, it is one beautiful lens. Luverly. As a normal too. This link is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

B&H Photo also has the Magic Macro, naturally.

Original contents copyright 2021 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.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

David Goldenberg: "I agree that the new 35mm Summicron is an impressive technical achievement, and I find myself much more interested in it than I do most other things that I would never consider buying for myself. But, it may be useful to put the claim of diffraction-limited resolution in context, at the cost of introducing a bit of math.

"The diffraction limit can be defined in a few different ways, leading to slightly different numbers, but a simple version is given by the equation: d = lambda/(2sin(theta)) where d is the smallest distance between two resolvable points, lambda is the wavelength of light used and theta is described as the numerical aperture. The numerical aperture is one half of the angle of the cone formed between the aperture and the point in the center of the image plane. This angle is related to the more familiar (to photographers) f number according to: theta = arctangent(1/(2f)). With a wavelength of 500 nm, a light blue or cyan, all of the math translates into resolution at the image plane of 1 micron for a diffraction-limited ƒ/2 lens. For comparison, the elements on a 24-MP 24x36mm sensor are about 6 microns across. For a 48 Mp sensor, the element size is about 4 microns. In other words, seeing the difference in resolution between a diffraction-limited ƒ/2 lens and one with more humble specifications using a digital camera is going to be somewhere between very difficult and impossible. To measure resolution at this level requires magnifying an arial image. This is realm of optical benches not cameras. Resolution is, of course, only one measure of a lens and its value to any individual. For me, the Fujinon XF 23mm ƒ/2, at 1/20 the cost of the new Summicron, is much closer to the sweet spot!"

Tom Burke: "I had a 35mm Summarit—and a 50mm Summarit. In fact it was owning both of these that told me that they were too close in focal length for me. I used them, together with a secondhand 90mm Elmarit, on an M6TTL which I had for a couple of years. I still look back fondly to that experience, but I would hate to go back to film now. Sorry....

"Still, I took one of my favourite travel images with the 35mm Summarit. I've got an enlargement hanging on my bedroom wall. As far as focal lengths go, I'm pretty happy with the 24mm + 54mm on my iPhone 12 Pro. (I don't use the super-wide very much.) I'd like something longer to complement those two—in fact, something like 90mm would be fine."

Olympus Madness!

This is pretty amazing. Recently eBay listed a completed sale for an old Olympus OM Zuiko 40mm ƒ/2 film-camera lens that sold for...

It's a 1980s film camera lens for the OM series cameras. The cameras were designed by Yosahisu Maitani; I've forgotten who designed the lenses, but it was an optical designer, obviously, not Maitani as is often claimed on various websites. (Maitani wasn't a lens designer.)

This is the lens I used for a number of years. It's not one of Olympus's "sharp" lenses from that era, but it has a pleasing enough look. I have a great many prints made with it. It was known as a "pancake" lens, meaning very short in physical length, a type that had been made popular at the time by Pentax and by Zeiss in the Contax/Yashica mount. Compared to those others, though, Olympus's offering didn't seem very pancake-flat, and it took a little heat for that.

There were 3,000 made, and 1,000 came to the U.S. It wasn't popular. I don't have the resources at hand to look up the numbers, but I believe the original selling price was less than $200; $189 or something like that sounds about right. (All this is from memory, and my memory isn't particularly good, so please keep that in mind.) In the ads at the back of Modern Photography and Popular Photography magazines for Olden Camera and other New York City discounters, new ones were on closeout for a long time. Years rather than months. Again, I don't have a good memory for numbers, but I believe you could buy "leftover" new ones for $69. In other words, they were giving them away.

And still didn't have many takers.

After the new ones were finally gone, used copies sold for $69 or less, again for quite a while. When I used OM cameras I bought two for around $50 each, both used.

Then, in the era before the Web had much penetration into our pastime, I wrote a short but highlighted review of the lens, fulsome with praise, in Camera & Darkroom. Immediately, prices shot up. In the months and years after that, the price went up by six, eight, and finally ten times over those $50 used copies. It got so expensive I realized I couldn't afford one myself any more!

During that time period, I was at Oak Park Camera around the corner from where I lived, watching my friend Josh, the manager, unload a box of used equipment that had just come in. He was evaluating each piece of equipment and attaching price tags to the things the store wanted. Out of the box came an Olympus 40mm ƒ/2. Josh tied a price tag on it and wrote "$55."

I should have just bought it on the spot. Being congenitally unable to keep my big trap shut, however, I boasted about my review and explained to him that "you wouldn't believe it, but..." the price of those lenses had lately been going up; they were now seldom selling for less than $350; and recently I had seen a couple in Shutterbug with asking prices as high as $495. Without saying a word, he leaned over and neatly added a zero to the pricetag.

I had gotten rid of mine by that time (I'd bought my Leica), but after I let that one go at OPC I started wishing I still had one. (You know, the way you want what you haven't got.) But I had wised Josh up, so now I was never going to find a bargain-priced one at Oak Park Camera.

With that as the state of affairs, I started dropping in at any camera store I passed to see whether I might luck into one. Eventually I found one in the used case at a very out-of-the-way camera store in the far reaches of Chicagoland. It didn't have a price on it. When I asked the owner, feigning great casualness, what it cost, he said he had to go check, and he disappeared into the back of the store. Presently he came out and said, "would you go fifty-five dollars? I'm sorry, but I need to make a little profit here." Score! My cheapskate gene was pleased. I guess his was too.

I always assumed the price would go down again. But no. In recent years, these have been selling for anywhere from $500 to $1,000, and prices in the $700 range have been typical. Much as I had liked the lens, the question in my mind was—why? It's a nice lens, but it's not remarkable optically. It's a six-element spherical lens that wasn't premium when it was new. It's small, yes, but not that much smaller than the OM Zuiko 50mm ƒ/1.8, a lens that had the same cross-section (but not as good coatings) as the Leica Summicron of its era. That 50mm sold for very little used—I bought a perfectly good one once for $13. I just checked, and you can get that Zuiko 50mm now for between $28 and $80.

Plus, the little 40mm has a strange physical design—the aperture ring is at the very end of the barrel, and you screw filters right into the aperture ring! (Tip: if the filter threads are too deep, the aperture ring will bind. Use Hoyas, not B+Ws.) If you use its matching rubber hood, you change apertures by turning the hood. None of the samples I had ever broke, but the arrangement seemed less than ideal.

Zero
So I might have had a little to do with the initial price rise. How much, no one knows. Obviously, however, I had nothing to do with the price of the lens going from the $400 range to the $700 or $1,000 range, which, I will admit, seemed crazy to me. But this latest development is more wondrous and puzzling by far. I am bemused. What's happening here? Why would anyone pay $3,800 for an ordinary lens nobody used to want? Beats me. It's true that it's a nice match on the OM cameras, and photographs taken with it do have a distinctive look, at least in black-and-white. In a world where you can get the nifty-fifty for the same cameras for up to $80, I might pay $350 for what the 40mm has to offer.

Have one to sell? You might want to add that extra zero.

Mike
(Thanks to Steve Rosenblum)

Book o' This Week:

Eyes Over the World: The Most Spectacular Drone Photography, by Dirk Dallas. The above link will take you to Amazon.

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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Rob Griffin: "Mike, I think this one is on you. Your praise of this lens and you writing about Sally Mann and her use of the lens is all it took to get folks thinking and lusting. I think you underestimate your ability to affect the photo equipment market. My friend, you are what some now call an influencer. I didn't hunt down the Olympus 40mm myself but I did buy a 40mm EOS lens and then a 20mm Panasonic for Micro 4/3. I think you are correct in saying that it is an ideal angle of view for general photography."

Albert Smith (partial comment): "Not specific to the Olympus brand, but the 40mm focal length is very interesting, especially when the lens cuts such a small profile. I bought the Voightländer 40mm ƒ/2 pancake lens for my Nikons, and it is optically and functionally terrific. It really solves that 35mm or 50mm decision that causes such a quandary."

Zyni Moë: "You have answered your question: there were only 3,000 of these, only 1,000 in the US, ever, probably much less now. Collectors value rarity above all. There were 643 sunburst Les Paul Standards made in 1959, and then none at all until 1968. Are the 1959 guitars good? Yes, most of them are. Are they worth the huge money they now cost? Certainly they are not. How many exist today? I do not know, but, strangely, more than 643.

"Same with other things. Friend of mine has a close relative with an Aston Martin. No, not some rubbish latter-day thing made by people who bought the name or their descendants: a car made by Bamford and Martin in a mews in London. There were 61 of these cars: there are perhaps 25 now. Are they good cars? yes, very much. Are they, really, worth what they might now cost? Well, they are very rare, certainly. Did all of the cars that now exist exist in 1925? Perhaps."

Mark Sampson: "That lens at that price...just shows that there's a lot of money in the world, desperately searching for meaning."

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "Why would anyone pay $3,800 for an ordinary lens nobody used to want? Because someone else bid $3,750."

Lawrence Plummer: "Speaking as a certified Zuikoholic, I have a 1984 copy of Modern Photography showing the 40mm ƒ/2 listed new for $84.

"The 40mm ƒ/2 is not alone in stratospheric pricing. The OM 21mm ƒ/2 is now being sold sometimes as high as $4K. I think I'll still be keeping mine!"

The Actual Best 35mm f/1.4 on the Market

Tamron SP 35mm ƒ/1.4 Di USD
for Canon and Nikon DSLRs

We heard from Roger Cicala of Lensrentals, who I mentioned in the "Having It All" post:

"I have not tested the Sony 35mm GM and it does seem superb; I look forward to doing so. In the meantime, however, I've gone on record: the highest resolving 35mm lens is neither the Canon or Nikon flagship, nor is it the Leica. The humble Tamron 35mm ƒ/1.4 SP is the highest resolving, just a hair better than the Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.2 Art. That's what the Sony will have to compete against."

Woo-hoo. Fight! Bring it on.

My ego is still smarting just a bit from not acknowledging that the new Sony is in fact lighter than all its current competitors (including the Tamron, which costs a mere $899). Bad blogger. So maybe I'm just being defensive, but I'll still stand by what I wrote, while acknowledging that I might be being cantankerous.

"Light, compact" 35mm ƒ/1.4 full-frame
mirrorless lens: 524g

"Big, heavy" 35mm ƒ/1.4 full-frame
mirrorless lens: 307g

The funny thing about the lens in this second picture is that the original Aspherical, when it first came out, was considered big and heavy because it was so much more so than the Leica 35mm Summiluxes that had preceded it!

The latest Leica 35mm Summilux is larger still. But, as you see at that second link, quite a bit smaller and more compact than the Sony. (If there's something a little wonky with that link, it's not my fault.)

Of course you might cry out that this is not a fair comparison because the Sony is an AF lens! The Sony is an AF lens! Well, I don't have a lot of lenses here to compare so beggars can't be choosers. I'll counter by pointing out that the Leica lens is not made of polycarbonate; the only plastic bit on it is the focusing tab.

Am I being argumentative about this? Well then I am. In any event, trust me: if lensmakers were really competing to see who could make the smallest and lightest lenses, the new Sony, nice as it is, wouldn't be in the hunt.

And what's wrong with large, heavy lenses? Nothing, if you prefer them; nothing, if you don't mind them; nothing, if you need to put up with them to get the results you want.

For me I guess the consideration comes down to this: If I'm going to carry a prime that's as bulky and weighty as a zoom, then I might as well carry the zoom. 

Know it and love it
Roger's "highest resolving" is not how I'd pick a lens, no offense to the Tamron King o' the Hill. Don't care much for that. Christer Almqvist wrote in the Comments:

"Well OK, size and weight are important fact-sheet figures. And most modern pro and semi-pro lenses are so sharp you need a tripod to reap the full benefits. So for me the decisive question is: How does the lens balance with the camera and how does it fit my hands?"

That's a good criterion to use. I can get behind that.

Overall image quality is a good criterion too. But of course you're still left with the formidable task of determining what that means for you. There are lots of aspects of image quality; resolution is only one.

Being an avowed lens nut (something that is definitely not required in order to be a photographer), my criterion would go something like this: how well do you know it, and, do you love it?

Because all lenses yield their gifts. No matter how "good" or "bad" the lens, the pictures can be found that are tailor-made to the lens's properties. Photograph with any lens you love for long enough, and those gifts will be along. It's the way it seems to be.

Mike

Book o' This Week:

Peter Lindbergh On Fashion Photography, with text in English, French, and German. Original coffee table version or small 40th Anniversary version, take your pick. Both are hardcovers. The links above will spirit you away to Amazon.

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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kirk Tuck: "I bought the hardback version of the Peter Lindbergh book and I'm really enjoying it. Seven pounds of photography for only $50 delivered. What a deal. The printing in the hardback is on very nice, especially thick paper and it's a delight. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

"35mm focal length? Meh."

Roger Cicala: "You know the best thing about TOP? It's possible to come here, stir the pot a bit, and not hear what a horrid photographer I am.  :-)  (Full disclosure, even I say I'm a mediocre photographer, so it doesn't hurt my feelings.) I totally agree with everything said above, but I did want to toss those third-party lenses into the discussion because I find them shockingly good for the price. I don't think they're actually better lenses than the new Sony or Leicas, but they're worth consideration. To be clear, I haven't tested the Sony or Leicas yet (not enough copies). Plus, because I have the attention span of a squirrel I've been all into field curvature the last couple of months and not doing MTF testing at all. But I will probably bake myself a crow pie when I get around to it. Sony's done some amazing lenses lately and Leica, they always do amazing lenses."

Jack: "Regarding size of lenses. I still recall my reaction when I moved from an Olympus Zuiko manual focus lens to the Canon EOS autofocus lenses. Geez they were huge in comparison and still are. Now, an APS-C lens solution is the compromise allowing smaller lenses that still have AF. The size tax on full frame lenses is significant. Sure the body can be compact, but not the lenses. And the latest sensors have allowed APS-C to achieve professional quality. You mentioned wanting lens-body balance. I want a great viewfinder. The real key now is high quality EVF in mirrorless APS-C versus crappy optical finders in DSLR APS-C cameras. Your friends at Fuji have figured it out."

John Camp: "The bottom line for us non-avowed lens nuts is that you're better off with an ƒ/1.8, almost whatever your brand. (I equivocate there because I'm not going to do the research to prove it, but I believe it to be true.) The ƒ/1.8s will be shorter, lighter and cheaper, and the differences between lenses of equivalent quality will be so subtle that you could only see it in test shots. If you're walking around with a camera, the differences would be on how well you can handle a camera, not on how fast the lens is. This is particularly true in this age of high-ISO sensors combined with auto-ISO programming. I didn't bother to research the other brands on prices, either, but would note that the excellent Nikkor Z 35mm ƒ/1.8S can be had new from B&H for $850. It is 3.4 inches long and weighs 13 ounces. The ƒ/1.4 Sony you're writing about is .8 inches longer and weighs five and a half ounces more, and—the big number—costs $550 more. For what? For undetectable differences in bokeh? For 2/3 of a stop in speed?

"I do understand the attraction of highest precision, most-capable machinery, but do think that it really has to be understood as part of a system. Heavier, more awkward machinery of ultimate quality is not necessarily better than lighter, more easily handleable machinery of almost undetectably lesser quality."

Michael: "My top criterion in selecting a lens is do I like the resultant prints. Come to think of it, that’s my second and third criteria as well."

Having It All

If I was a little cranky yesterday I apologize. I'm not slagging the new Sony 35mm in any way, and it's important to mention that I didn't review it either! I haven't touched one.

IOW, I'm not judging.

As far as comparative size is concerned, most 35mm ƒ/1.4's are SLR lenses, aren't they? Some of them, like the Sigma, have been adapted to mirrorless by adding a permanently attached adapter...which is to say, starting with a retrofocus design to enable clearance for an SLR mirror, then adding spacing between the lens and the sensor. No wonder they're big. 

The G Master 35mm seems to me to be a premium lens (highly corrected, no constraint placed on the number of elements) that has been designed from the get-go for mirrorless, that's all. It's reasonably sized for a lens of that description. But if it were designed with size and weight given real precedence in the balance of tradeoffs...let's just say those things could have been given more, um, weight. (Sorry, I can't help myself.) That's all I was saying.

Big lenses are popular these days; so are highly corrected lenses. Because that how Internet understand goodness*.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'll say again how the new GM 35mm really does make sense: as a sweet match for the 61-MP sensor in the A7R IV. If you like analytical sharpness and detail.

The video by Crissibeth Cooper is actually one of the better ones I've seen, despite being a promo (her website says her specialty is "social media content and influencer marketing"). Her measured words put the hype in reasonable perspective.

The one exception might be at 1:34 when she says "as of right now, this is the best 35mm lens on the market." Strong words! Better than the Canon EF 35mm ƒ/1.4L II USM? Better than the Leica APO-Summicron 35mm ƒ/2 SL? Hmm? We'd need Roger Cicala to run a multiple-sample test and teardown before making such an absolute statement.

Meanwhile, over here in my corner of the world, what little old me would say is that when lenses are bunched so closely at the top of the bar-chart, it doesn't really matter which one you pick; they're all good.

Question: Should I buy the Sony GM 35mm ƒ/1.4 or a different 35mm?
Answer: Yes.

My favorite 35mm might not even be a 35mm...it's a 23mm Fujicron.

Although the geek in me really likes the thought of that new Sony lens on an A7R IV. If you had that, you'd have it all, wouldn't you? You'd be the bee's knees**.

Mike

*Sic.

**Bee's knees: the best. "It’s sometimes explained as being from an Italian-American way of saying business or that it’s properly Bs and Es, an abbreviation for be-alls and end-alls. Both are without doubt wrong. Bee’s knees is actually one of a set of nonsense catchphrases from 1920s America, the period of the flappers, speakeasies, feather boas and the Charleston." (World Wide Words)

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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Book of interest this week:

Picture This: How Pictures Work, By Molly Bang
(clicking on the link above takes you to Amazon from TOP)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Illka: "Be careful what you wish for. Your favourite 35mm might be the 45mm ƒ/2.8 Fuji you are about to try...."

Christopher May: "Having it all is spawning a curious phenomenon in prime lens design. Prime lenses, which were once praised for being smaller options to big, fast and heavy zooms, are now experiencing some Brobdingnagian growth spurts. Witness Nikon's trio of 50mm (-ish) lenses for the Z system. The 50mm ƒ/1.8S, 50mm ƒ/1.2S and 58mm ƒ/0.95 Noct range from big to huge to 'would you like the accessory golf cart to carry it?' The reviews online seem to heap praise in commensurate (if not proportionate) order, too.

"Still, gone are the days when putting a 'normal' lens on a camera was the way to turn it into a nimble little carry-everywhere job. Perhaps the upcoming 40mm 'compact' lens for the Z system will change that. It's also interesting to see that zoom design doesn't seem to be following the same path. Canon's 70–200mm duo are surprisingly small. Nikon's Z 14–24mm ƒ/2.8 seems to be better than its F-mount predecessor while shedding both size and weight. Excluding exotics like the Canon 28–70mm ƒ/2, smaller and lighter seems to be a common theme in the realm of zooms these days."

New Sony G Master 35mm f/1.4. Wait, What?

Photo courtesy B&H

This is rather odd. Sony has released a second large, fast, expensive 35mm ƒ/1.4 for its full-frame mirrorless system. The new Sony FE 35mm ƒ/1.4 GM lens (hereinafter referred to as the "GM"), which went into pre-order status a few hours ago, is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the somewhat older Zeiss-labelled Distagon T* FE 35mm ƒ/1.4 ZA (which I'll call the "ZA"). But that's not hard to achieve: the older FE lens (introduced in the Spring of 2015) is huge and extremely expensive. The new lens is merely big and expensive! And of course has the same basic specs.

So what's the aim here?

It's not a replacement. The older ZA lens will remain in the lineup. As it ought, since it still qualifies as new in my book—a six-year-old camera might be showing some age, but not a six-year-old lens design.

There are two things I can think of. One is that perhaps Zeiss is actually making the ZA lens, and Sony can't get enough of them from Zeiss—historically a common situation. The second reason might be that the new lens is more video-friendly—it has defeatable aperture clicks, for one thing, which is something no still photographer ever cared about in the entire history of the medium. But wait, that's also a feature of the Sony/Zeiss ZA lens. Are the new AF motors more silent then? That would make sense.

Maybe Sony's lens designers just thought they could do better now. Which is only odd when you think of how over-the-top the ZA lens seemed to us in 2015. Anyway, here's a rundown:

List price: GM: $1,399.99, ZA: $1,599.99

Weight: GM: 18.5 oz., ZA: 22.3 oz.

Length: GM: 3.88", ZA: 4.5"

Number of elements/groups: GM: 14/11 (including two ED and one "XA" ["extreme aspherical"] elements), ZA: 12/8 (including one "AA" ["advanced aspherical"] and two...well, other aspherical elements])

Closest focusing distance: GM: 10.68" (in AF), 9.84" (in manual focus), ZA: 11.76"

Filter: GM: 67mm, ZA: 72mm

Number of aperture blades: GM: 11, ZA: 9

Features: GM: defeatable aperture clicks, AF/MF switch, focus hold button, ZA: defeatable aperture clicks

One thing I've noticed recently is that marketers are increasingly telling me what I'm supposed to think, which is generally a bad way to get me to think something. In this case the marketers are telling us that the lens is "remarkably compact," "lightweight and compact for excellent mobility," and "weighs only 18.5 oz (524 g)" (emphasis mine). Only? Sorry, no sale on that. Historically this is a large lens for the spec and the format and none too light. Nothing wrong with that, but please don't go all Trump on me and try to make me believe that square is round and up is down just by insisting on it over and over again.

Similarly, Sony makes claims for the lens's bokeh, using terms like "gorgeous," "smooth, beautiful," and "striking." Thanks, but I'll be the judge of that. Looks to me like the bokeh is very nice at ƒ/1.4 but has some of the tizziness typical of asphericals at smaller apertures, fairly inoffensive but hardly deserving of gushing praise. I'd use this like I use my dearly beloved Fuji 35mm ƒ/1.4 (which is a different angle of view on APS-C, mind you)—either wide open or stopped down to ƒ/5.6 and smaller for pan focus, skipping the apertures from ƒ2 through ƒ/4. The existing ZA lens has superior bokeh, to my tastes anyway.

However, the MTF of the GM lens is simply stunning. It's extremely good wide open—I mean, better than many traditional lenses of this spec were at their optimum aperture—and at ƒ/8 it's just a touch off perfect. If this lens isn't sharp enough for you, it's likely you'll need either better technique, a better camera, or a psychiatrist.

The values here are 10 (pink) and 30 lp/mm (green) and ƒ/1.4 (left graph) and ƒ/8 (right).

There's no direct comparison with the older lens because the charts provided were at different frequencies (10, 20, and 40 vs. 10 and 30), but it's still apparent that the MTF of the GM lens is considerably better.

So perhaps the raison d'etre we're seeking for the catalogue duplication is that the new lens better brings out the capabilities of the A7R Mark IV's 61-megapixel sensor? Just a guess. Or maybe it really is an update but they still have older ones to sell? Watch the price of the ZA; see if it goes down.

There's one thing for Sony shooters to be thankful for, and that's that they have one more choice for their main lens if a 35mm is their main lens. Although under these circumstances it sounds a little strange to say.

Take a look for yourself at the new GM lens at B&H Photo.

—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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Book of interest this week:

Picture This: How Pictures Work, By Molly Bang
(clicking on the link above takes you to Amazon from TOP)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Can't Be Afraid to Be Flexible

Okay, okay, I'll admit it: For the kind of shooting that's most natural here in Finger Lakes country—driving around, and looking around, and finding all kinds of scenic tidbits, distant framings, slices o' life, cloud formations, lakescapes, critters, houses and buildings, deer, doggies, graveyards, vehicles (of various sorts!)—and even, occasionally, humans—a mid-range zoom is really the most appropriate lens to have on the camera.

Okay I said it. Please don't tease me, please.

(Although I recently learned, when trying out the Panasonic GX9 and the the slower 12–60mm lens not long ago, that a lens with the long end longer than 70mm is best. Hereabouts anyhow.)

You never know what you're going to
stumble upon up here.

I like primes best, and 35/40mm-e is my favorite focal length, but results are what count and one mustn't be afraid to be flexible. Even when it comes to settled habits of mind.  :-)

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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Book of interest this week:

PhotoWork: Forty Photographers on Process and Practice, Edited by Sasha Wolf
(clicking on the link above takes you to Amazon)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Grant: "Cool! An Amish F150."

Eolake Stobblehouse: "When I can't go above 100mm, I really miss it. I see so many compositions in the distance."

Those Z Lenses

I could have titled this "ThoZe Lenses." That's the value of restraint. And maturity. You're welcome.

Anyway, I feel like I've been unfair to Nikon. Have you seen the lineup of Z lenses lately?

The Nikkor-Z 70–200mm

In the past it's been fairly dismaying to survey Nikon's lens offerings, because age and the variety of its cameras meant that the system had become a formidable hodgepodge. It was (well, still is) all over the place. Chaotic. No coherence.

After 1987, when Canon abandoned its problematic old FD lensmount (after several previous changes—raise your hand if you remember FL- and R-mount Canon SLR lenses), it got to start over with a clean sheet. It was a big, bold change, and Canon took a lot of heat for it at the time from people who were invested in its older lenses...which meant virtually all of its existing customers. But the EOS System and the new EF lenses arguably began the process by which Canon climbed past the once-indomitable Nikon and became World Number One.

At the time (1990 maybe?), I researched and wrote an extensive article called "The EOS Revolution" for Camera & Darkroom magazine. Canon reprinted the article and distributed it widely for the next 18 months or two years. I got to meet a lot of Canon bigwigs in the U.S. and had access to virtually all the new equipment.

Well, with the Z lensmount, Nikon effectively gets to do the same thing. Clean sheet. New dawn. Starting over. Without, of course, abandoning its other lensmounts or its SLR line, it gets to start fresh and build a more coherent system of lenses—a lineup that makes internal sense. Like it had way back in the AI-S days.

This would have your wide-angle needs covered like a blanket. Unless maybe you shoot indoor sports professionally, or you're a high-end pro architectural shooter who does interiors. Even then I like your chances.

It begins with an aptly judged set of basic but optically very high-quality primes, 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. (In Mikey-land, all that any generalist photographer really needs. Er, well, since there's a 40mm coming.) For these lenses it chose a sensible maximum aperture of ƒ/1.8, which is ideal—fast enough, especially in the digital age, without being too heavy or too expensive. (They're professional Nikkors. They're not going to be cheap.) And actually you have a choice of three 50mms, including the statement ƒ/0.95 Noct. (With a fourth coming—a Micro*.) So take your pick. Now it's beginning to fill out the zoom range with fast and slow 24–70mms, the fast 70–200mm and 14–24mm that pros need, plus a few of the good-selling slow-speed consumer focal lengths. All intelligently chosen and dressed in consistent matching livery. The pro teles are all on the roadmap.

Know how we'll know if the Z System has really arrived? If there's an official corporate book. For the last 50 years, whenever a camera company is really and rightfully proud of what it has accomplished, there's a book. For example, Eyes of Nikon in the days of AI-S lenses. And if a camera company knows it's just limping along, or being me-too, or just scrabbling for its piece of the pie, there's never a book. But I digress.

It's a pleasure to watch this lens line unfold. But where's the sense of occasion? The hullabaloo and hubbub? The blaring of horns and blasting of fireworks?

Well, times have changed. It doesn't take a genius to chart the profound differences in the photography world between 1987 and now.

But still, I of all people should give Nikon a little credit here. The Z lens line is an exciting development. And it does look like Nikon's doing a very good job so far. And the lineup is growing very quickly.

Are the Nikkor** Z lenses worth getting into the Nikon Z System for? Comments on the performance of the Z lenses will have to wait till another day.

Mike
(Thanks to Albert W Erickson)

*"Micro" is Nikon's word for macro. "Macro" means the image of the subject is life-size on the sensor, although it's often used when the image is half life-size as well.

**For those who are new, "Nikkor" is Nikon's longtime brand-name for its lenses. This goes way back.

Book of interest this week:

PhotoWork: Forty Photographers on Process and Practice, Edited by Sasha Wolf
(clicking on the link above takes you to Amazon)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Christopher J May: "I recently decided that it was time to get a new digital camera, since my D800 was getting really long in the tooth. I debated about getting a D850 but really liked where Nikon was going with the Z mount and the lenses they've brought out thus far. I opted for the original Z7 since the changes on the Mark II version weren't worth the price premium for me.

"There's a lot of negativity around the Z cameras around the web. After using my new Z7 for a couple of weeks, I can tell you that it's completely unfounded. These are really nice cameras! Any longtime Nikon user will feel right at home. Additionally, I feel like Nikon's user interface is the most approachable for any would-be new photographers looking to upgrade from a cell phone.

"Much of the bad press on the Z's has surrounded Nikon's autofocus system. The problem is that Nikon's AF is a little more hands-on than, say, Sony's. If one takes the time to understand it (buying a ByThom User Guide is the way to go!), it actually gives very good performance with more user control. I always enjoy feeling a little more in control of my camera rather than trusting the algorithms that an engineer half a world away designed to discern what I'm focusing on, so this is a plus for me.

"In addition to the wonderful new Z lenses, the new mount geometry also allows the adaptation of almost anything to the Z mount. In addition to the basic Z7 kit I bought myself, I threw in an FTZ adapter to use most of my old F mount stuff until I can add the appropriate Z lenses. I also added something fun, an M39 adapter, and have added a classic Nikkor H C 5cm ƒ/2 to my Z kit. The Sonnar design lens gives a unique rendering with a decent close focus ability. It's a blast to throw this lens on the camera and go wandering. The sensor-based VR system and focus aids make shooting the classic Nikkor even more capable today than when it was brand new. I look forward to trying other classic lenses on adapters as time goes by.

"There's a lot of doom and gloom surrounding Nikon lately. I think it's only a matter of time before the Z mount really gets on track and photographers discover what a nice system it is and how wonderful the new lenses are. Nikon will be back before long."

Simon Miles: "Those of us who have already bought into the Z system know its secret. The glass is amazing. If you ask me, this has been Nikon's plan all along. They've always been an optical company first and foremost, but with the Z system they've gone all-out and are making the best lenses they've ever made. Not only that, they're making some of the best lenses anyone has ever made. If there is any justice in this world (and admittedly that's a big 'if') they'll reap the benefit of this in 2021. I hope so. It's a wonderful system and it deserves to do well."

Phil: "The EOS/EF series began in 1987 with the EOS 650 and 620. I was Canon tech at the time (the oldest model I had worked on was a III) so if you think it was a big step for the public...."

Dr_Nick: "I have a feeling that most of the non-legacy owners buying ILC cameras at this point are people who care about video primarily."

Those Three New Sigma Lenses

You've probably heard that Sigma just introduced three new L-Mount Alliance lenses that match the styling of the existing 45mm ƒ/2.8. I presume they will mainly be for Panasonic S-series full-frame cameras, although they fit Leica L and will also be made available for Sony mirrorless. The three are a 24mm ƒ/3.5 DG DN Contemporary, 35mm ƒ/2 DG DN Contemporary, and 65mm ƒ/2 DG DN Contemporary.

Just a few comments: first, I'm happy in principle to see moderate maximum apertures; the superspeed lens fad is fun but it's getting a little out of hand. On the flip side of that, I'm disappointed to see these largish lenses touted as "compact"—the 24mm might be, I guess, but the others, while reasonably sized, are not compact except by comparison to lenses that are gargantuan. Check out this comparison of Sigma's two 24mms for Sony.

I like the dedicated MF–AF slider. Unambiguous. But on the other hand, I'm not a fan of the gratuitously styley grooves in the lens hoods—those look like they'll just collect dirt and age the appearance of the equipment prematurely. Why?

Finally, I wonder about the choice of a 65mm focal length. Maybe Sigma had an existing design that could readily be adapted? Of all focal lengths in the moderate range, 60mm to 75mm or thereabouts is probably my least favorite. When I did my large format projects in the mid to late '80s, there was a charismatic bespoke photo supply catalogue that touted 210mm as the "best" lens for 4x5, and unfortunately I fell for it. (A 210mm on 4x5 is about the same angle of view as this new 65mm.) I never did get used to the focal length for anything but portraits. But there's a counterbalancing consideration here too, which is that the samples from this Sigma lens I've seen so far look wonderful—the lens seems to have a particularly nice rendering. So, okay. Maybe for the photographer who will fall in love with the lens's results, the focal length will be something they'll adapt to. Relaxed environmental portraits, perhaps?

It's nice to see this versatile line expanding.

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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Simon Miles: "The reason the 210mm lens is so popular among large format photographers is because most 4x5-inch field cameras don't have enough bellows extension to take anything longer. This long-standard lens partners perfectly with the equally popular wide-standard 135mm lens. No need for a 150mm standard lens with these two lenses in your bag, as either one is flexible enough to do double-duty. Throw in a wide angle, like 75mm, and you've got all the bases covered, or at least as far as you can with what passes for a small and light large format outfit. But I see no good reason to replicate such a setup on a 35mm camera, since the same issue does not arise and most photographers, given the choice, would rather go to at least 85mm."

Kenneth Tanaka: "I've been using one of the earlier focal lengths of this series, the 45mm lens, on an L-mount camera for a while. It's frankly wonderful, the perfect focal length, compactness, and optical performance for me to justify buying a prime. But to your point of the ribbed hood, which the 45mm also has, I like it. It's metal with the same semi-matte finish as the lens barrel. It gives a particularly secure grip for dis/mounting. And no, I don't see it getting especially dirty because of the ribs. This is lining up to be an excellent value series from Sigma."

Sal Santamaura (partial comment): "I have Sigma Art 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses in Nikon F mount for use with my D810. Some time ago I wrote to the company imploring it to release one around 65mm too. Those of us shooting landscapes in the West are frequently constrained to certain camera positions. I use this system like a view camera, namely, on a tripod, prime lenses for maximum performance, live view and magnifying for precise manual focus."

John Camp (partial comment): "I think some people simply see a little long; and some, a little short. I wouldn't want to have to prove it, but I wouldn't be surprised that if you looked at people who got their experience shooting for news media, most see long, and of people who shoot 'art,' most see wide."

New Old Lens for the Wista (Continued)

For those following along, here's my 4x5 with the new-old lens on it. (The camera is a rosewood Wista 45DXII, the lens a Calumet Caltar II-N 135mm ƒ/5.6.) I got the lensboard off eBay. You have to get one with the right sized hole—this lens has a Copal 0 (zero or zed) shutter, so (naturally) I got one with a Copal 0 hole.

For those who might know little to nothing about view cameras, to mount a lens on a lensboard is simple. The rear cell of the lens unscrews from the back of the shutter. Then you remove the retaining ring.

Clockwise from front: rear optical cell; plastic lenscap; retaining
ring; and the rest of the lens, here set
down with its front cell facing down

Simply seat the lens on the board, fix in place with the retaining ring, tighten with a lens spanner wrench (here's one of those on Amazon). Actually what I do is just hold it in place and rotate the shutter itself a little until tight, taking care that the retaining ring isn't riding up on one edge of the hole in the board. Then replace the back cell.

Rear cell of lens on board, showing retaining ring

By the way the lens board is a "board" even if it's made of metal. And the hole is said to be "drilled" even if it wasn't, as in, "a Technika metal lensboard drilled for a Copal 1 shutter."

There's a lens in there. Chien ancien in background.

The camera folds up with the lens on it! Which is not necessary and not something you can do with most lenses because they're too large. Normally you'd remove the lens on its lensboard and put it in your bag. But setting up and knocking down the camera in the field is a process you might go through many times in a day or half-day of shooting, so eliminating steps saves time. So it's nice.

Keiichiro Nagaoka
You might recall our posts on Nagaoka cameras, handmade in Japan, here and here. The first was called "Last Man Standing." Alas, the last man is perhaps no longer standing. I have not been able to confirm the news through journalistic channels, but we have heard multiple rumors now that Keiichiro Nagaoka recently passed away. We heard from a friend of a friend of a friend that he entered the hospital, where he was unable to receive visits from his family due to the cursed COVID-19, and never came out again. Deep respect to Nagaoka-san and his family. His work lives on. He lived his life doing what he wanted to do!

Old view cameras never die, but they do migrate
While I'm still on the topic of old view cameras, our friend Ned (the retired President of Pentax USA) recently gifted his old Kodak to our friend Christopher (whose print I critiqued here—I'm going to do more print crits soon, by the way)—and Christopher decided to use his old Kodak lens with it and shoot Kodak transparency film, for a spiffy all-Kodak outfit. Without pictures it didn't happen, so here's the picture:

Photo by Christopher J. May

Sweet!

Mike
(Thanks to Ned, Chris, and the many readers who send news)

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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Thanks to all our Patreon contributors!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

David Dyer-Bennet: "I'd never really considered the process of mounting a lens on a view camera lens board before. Now that you've laid it out so clearly, I'm startled that the positioning of the rear cell is sufficiently precise! I would have expected the distance of the rear cell from the front cell to be critical to the usual sorts of optical tolerances, and I wouldn't have thought screwing down a nut, even metal-on-metal, would be sufficiently precise. Learn something new every day! (On consideration, probably the precision needed in large-format lenses is somewhat less than miniature formats, for one thing.)"

William Schneider replies to David: "The front and rear lens cells are precisely spaced, but the shutter retaining ring has nothing to do with it. Here are some illustrations that show how the retaining ring and rear lens cell attach. That should demonstrate how precision is achieved...

Mike adds: Yes, and the cells do have to be precision calibrated to each individual shutter, which is why shutters aren't considered user-interchangeable. Old lenses can be mounted in new shutters, but only by specialists, for instance by S.K. Grimes, "The Photographer's Machinist."  These days you would also have to have a donor shutter, as Copal stopped making new shutters in 2013. I don't know whether Compur shutters are still made or not.

Bill Tyler replies to David: "The positioning of the two cells is quite precise. The retaining ring holds the front cell in place, but neither the retaining ring nor the thickness of the board interfere with the rear cell as you screw it in. There's enough of the front cell's rear that extends past the board so that the two cells mate precisely. And yes, for most lenses, that spacing is critical. Incidentally, lens boards are quite easy to make for most view cameras for anyone with a modest supply of tools. They're just square pieces of wood or metal with a hole in the middle, except for some camera, like the Graphics, for which the lens board actually has a lip around the edge."

Rob de Loe: "I've mentioned previously in these comments that I'm done with film. That's it! Done done done. Never coming back. But...someone introduced me to Portrait Pro and Portrait Body Pro software over the weekend. I knew this kind of thing existed, but I didn't really know if you know what I mean. I thought 'Sky Replacement' was bad. After checking out Portrait Body Pro, I actually felt ill. I hate everything about what this kind of software is doing, and will do, to photography. And so while going for a walk to shake off the queasy feeling, I thought to myself, 'I guess I'll have to go back to film after all.' Nope, not doing it! But really, within a decade, at the outside, film will be the only way to make a remotely authentic photograph. So good for you, Mike, for getting ahead of the curve!"

Mike replies: I advocated in the 'nineties for letting the word "photography" and related words stand for old-fashioned optical-chemical photography as it was understood up until the digital era, saying we should use "digital imaging" and related words for the new technology. Alas, digital had low status in the beginning, which inevitably led to the co-optation of the word "photograph" for its results, the better to claim equal status for it. Now that it has more than equal status, it's too late to go back to terminology that makes the sensible distinction.

Greatest Gifts (Don't Deny Yourself the Best Apertures)

Just a note about the Fuji 35mm ƒ/1.4 R, which is "fast" becoming my main lens (fast, yageddit? Oh, I am funny*), because it and the 18mm are with the X-T1 in the car. The bokeh of this lens is at its best wide open to my eye. So I've progressed to shooting this lens either wide open or stopped down to ƒ/5.6 and smaller, the latter in pictures where blur isn't important. This is not a recommendation necessarily, it's just what I do.

With any lens, you need to learn its foibles. Or should I say, its specific performance as it relates to your own visual tastes. Say for instance you have a lens with blurry corners at the widest apertures. It's just something you become aware of. On the (probably rare) occasions that you need the corners to be sharp, you know to stop down a few stops...because of course you know at exactly which aperture the corners sharpen up. On pictures with central subjects where the corners are "back in the bokeh" anyway, you know it doesn't matter if you're opened up.

Things like that.

One thing I wouldn't recommend is something I see all too many people doing in this new era—shooting a fast lens wide open all the time. Not a good idea! Yes, you paid for all that "bokeh" the maximum aperture can give you, but that doesn't mean you should apply it indiscriminately to every shot. (Many pictures I see are ruined by not enough depth of field—things that should be in focus aren't.) Wide open is only the best aperture for some shots, not all of them.

Even though today's lenses are highly corrected for decent sharpness wide open, many, especially faster lenses, are better still stopped down. With the Fuji 35mm ƒ/1.4R (Amazon.com, B&H), for instance, ƒ/5.6 and ƒ/8 are where it really sings (in my opinion). Don't deny yourself the wonderful performance of a lens like this in the middle apertures, because that's where it will give you some of its greatest gifts.

Mike

*Not

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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Thanks to all our Patreon contributors!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

s.wolters: "Here’s Alex Drummeroff from Kiev who shoots wide open all the time. Not a good idea? Click on the images twice to enlarge."

Mike replies: I think he makes it work very well for most of his work, don't you? Although it's a very specific type of shot that he makes over and over (and nothing wrong with that; as I say it works very well). But there are even a few examples of what I'm talking about, for instance this one. The littler (darker-haired) boy is clearly out of focus wide open—but not enough out of focus to make it look intentional. So that's one example of using too wide an aperture.

Of course I wouldn't pick on him for just one shot on a sharing site—I'm only pointing it out because we're talking about it. I enjoyed looking at this work; thanks for posting it!

Dan Khong: "I actually bought it for the bokeh, and ƒ/1.4 is where it sings. So I actually use it 99.9% of the time wide open. In the past, Leica glass boasted that 'all' their lenses are usable wide open and I tend to agree. So when the Fuji 35mm ƒ/1.4R came to pursue the holy grail, I was initially sceptical but am now a fervent convert. And at $499, the price sings too."

Albert Smith: "Re '...I've progressed to shooting this lens either wide open or stopped down to ƒ/5.6 and smaller...': Me too. I learned this maybe 30 years ago in an article from Roger W. Hicks in Shutterbug when he was explaining his love of the pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux M. His reasoning was that at ƒ/1.4, it was clear that distinct selective focus was what you were going for. If you went to say ƒ/2 or ƒ/2.8, then all you have is slightly more d-o-f, but it could just look like a slightly soft image...things aren't quite blurry or sharp. After ƒ/5.6, lots of things in the frame are sharp.

"I am so glad that I bought the 35mm ƒ/1.4 Fujifilm lens. I fought the urge for three years doing just fine with the excellent ƒ/2 lens. Went I gave in and got it I put the ƒ/1.4 lens on my camera and didn't change lenses for thousands of shots. The hype is well deserved for this lens regarding the rendering. One tip...set your shutter operation in your menu for mixed mechanical/electrical so that you can freely go to full aperture in any light. After 1/8000th, the shutter goes electrical and you can shoot at ƒ/1.4 on the sunniest of sunny-16 days."