Nifty Fifty wrote:
I completely agree. Although I only wanted one 50mm, I now have four because the best one is big and heavy, the prettiest one has no autofocus but chromatic aberration, and of the two small and light ones, one is somehow a bit flat with chromatic aberration, and the other is kind of boringly perfect. I don't want to sell the prettiest lens because I like it so much, and I don't want to sell the two small, light lenses because I still occasionally decide to use them and would hardly get anything for them anyway. So, I always have to decide which 50mm to take with me before I even leave the house (and the choice almost always falls on the best one, even though it is big and heavy). Even that annoys me a bit.
The idea of having three different systems and tons of lenses is horrifying. If you simply can't manage to decide on just one lens and leave the rest of your gear at home, even though you'd really like to, then perhaps you're a good candidate for the next "I don't want to lug around any more equipment, should I trade it in for a Leica Q3 oder Q3 43?" thread.
But then you might have many different hand grips, thumb grips, soft release buttons, lens hoods, half cases and strapes to choose from.😉
No Leica Q as my only camera. If I’ve learned one thing, it’s that a standard fast zoom is a go-to lens for me when I want to just get the shot. Add a short tele, and I’m golden.
johnvanr wrote:
But while my post was about my doubts mostly, I do sometimes wonder more in general why many alt lenses attract so much interest here.
Couple of thoughts why alt lenses attract attention. I think we have to distinguish between older and newer Alt lenses:
Older Alt lenses:
+ becoming more rare as good copies in the market increasing collector value for some.
+ often have better built style than newer plastic-made ones - better feel to it etc.
+ unique bokeh/circular blur effects
+ softer in nature which some portrait photographers love
+ some glare/flare lens "issue" which can be seen as artistic addition/benefit
+ can be cheaper compared to a modern version depending on brand, lens speed, and FL
Newer Alt lenses:
+ in general more affordable than the main brand lens in comparison
+ good quality and affordable Chinese remakes of original pricey and hard to find vintage lenses
+ manual focus in general preferred over modern branded AF lenses
+ tend to be smaller in size often due to lack of AF
+ alternative travel option in less secure travel environments (burglary/theft)
I have a mix of both older and newer Alt lenses, and I am using both kind of Alt lenses. I don't have collector lens items.
Since you mention other lens gear also - I still have all my Canon EF lens gear, but most of it I haven't used for years now other than my 100-400 EF lens with teleconverter for astronomy based shots. Prices for EF gear dropped so much first by MLC introduction and then when Canon released the R-mount. Not worth selling at this point.
I think that what John is saying is not far removed from my - and I think many others - growing disenchantment with the madcap speed of "NEW" camera and lens announcements and the questions here and elsewhere asking if the last but one version - which was greeted with excitement at the time - is STILL any good when it is only 3 year for so old.
I enjoy using 'alternative' lenses for their feel and quality build and occasionally for their special characteristics - Contax G lenses for example on M or mirrorless - but they are not right for a lot of other images I might want to take on the same outing. The same applies to the biggest and best as opposed to a more modest set up.
My XCD 50 is not as technically good as the XCD 100 and my M9 is less accomplished than my M10r and my 7R2 has less features than my 7R4 but very often the actual image that I value and gives me joy and makes me somewhat proud seems to take little notice of the particular kit I happened to use that day.
Don't get me wrong - nice toys are nice and I enjoy them as much as anyone - but are we not losing sight of the very acceptable image in the hunt for supposed technical perfection ? If viewing an image the first - or even the tenth - question is "Was this the latest, the most expensive, the best manufacturer's kit of it's time " then the essence of 'Photography' may well have been lost.
But then perhaps I am just getting old and a bit jaded.
I have an mono/IR modded A7R5 which turned it into a thin sensor stack, so lenses native to the Sony mount perform poorly, while lenses native to a thin sensor perform wonderfully.
theHUN wrote:
I have an mono/IR modded A7R5 which turned it into a thin sensor stack, so lenses native to the Sony mount perform poorly, while lenses native to a thin sensor perform wonderfully.
This is a very interesting statement: I asked this about performance of E-mount or DSLR based attached lenses on Sony A7-based MLCs with modified thinner sensors in the past, and others here posted that there is no disadvantage of using larger DSLR-based lenses even on such modified sensor with thinner sensor cover glass more optimized for rangefinder lenses. I always wondered about this since the sensor cover thickness should be optimized to the lens system in use.
When you say "poorly", can you further elaborate on this? I would be very interested to hear where the differences become obvious even this is off topic here.
krug wrote:
I think that what John is saying is not far removed from my - and I think many others - growing disenchantment with the madcap speed of "NEW" camera and lens announcements and the questions here and elsewhere asking if the last but one version - which was greeted with excitement at the time - is STILL any good when it is only 3 year for so old.
I enjoy using 'alternative' lenses for their feel and quality build and occasionally for their special characteristics - Contax G lenses for example on M or mirrorless - but they are not right for a lot of other images I might want to take on the same outing. The same applies to the biggest and best as opposed to a more modest set up.
My XCD 50 is not as technically good as the XCD 100 and my M9 is less accomplished than my M10r and my 7R2 has less features than my 7R4 but very often the actual image that I value and gives me joy and makes me somewhat proud seems to take little notice of the particular kit I happened to use that day.
Don't get me wrong - nice toys are nice and I enjoy them as much as anyone - but are we not losing sight of the very acceptable image in the hunt for supposed technical perfection ? If viewing an image the first - or even the tenth - question is "Was this the latest, the most expensive, the best manufacturer's kit of it's time " then the essence of 'Photography' may well have been lost.
But then perhaps I am just getting old and a bit jaded....Show more →
I agree with that, but I think it's also part of a wider phenomenon. I've always changed direction when I moved countries, which I've done quite a few times. Different things attract me in different places. I did a lot of bird photography in the US and quite a bit of street in NYC. Street here is different, I'm less out in the country nowadays since I live in the middle of cities and I can do more model photography here than I did in the US. But that also means I'm trying to find my interests again.
Plus I've picked up stock photography again for Alamy and I'm now a news photography contributor for Alamy as well.
While my camera interests have kind of waned, since I feel a plateau has been reached, I'm still curious about lenses and genres. We're indeed, as you say, bombarded with new lenses and I'm sometimes weak, buying stuff too quickly without thinking hard enough about my use case.
But gear is just part of the environment. I only follow one gear-related channel on YouTube and have my other photography subscriptions also narrowed down quite a bit. Still, the general feed is full of titles that aim to tell me why I suck, why I'm unhappy with my photography, what skill is going to make me the best ever and what style is the one to adopt. Suddenly, we're told we need to shoot cinematic (I don't), at 40mm (I do, having started with a 45mm lens ages ago) etc. etc. There's no rest for the wicked and it's hard to just shoot what you want to shoot if you're pondering about what it is you like.
Now days, only alt lenses bring True enjoyments for me and I used only GFX100ii for my pleasure shooting. I have a AF system for my kids sports, I have Leica M and RX1iii and GFX100R for traveling but what I really love is using GFX system with tilt adapter and a bunch of alt lenses.
It is personal and I feel modern glasses are boring.
May 06, 2026 at 01:54 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
For me I prefer to shoot anything that doesn't move or moves slowly with manual focus lenses (MF). I keep a set of small manual focus lenses for travel and a set of larger manual focus lenses for when I'm not travelling. I use these MF lenses more than the auto focus (AF) lenses in my kit, but I keep a set of AF primes for shooting things that move more quickly and I even keep a set of AF zooms for times I think they would be useful. At the wide and long end I have light AF zooms that I sometimes swap for my small MF primes as I can get more coverage of focal lengths by adding a zoom.
For example, my travel to the beach kit is a 21mm f/3.5 prime, a 40mm f/1.2 prime (these are both small MF primes) and a 100-400 AF zoom that weighs just over 600g. That zoom let's me wander around and shoot wildlife on the beach while my wife lays in the sun and even has very nice close focus abilities for close ups. Any prime (MF or AF) that would come close to providing these abilities would weigh a lot more and wouldn't be nearly as useful for travel.
So, I am sure I will always have an alt lens heavy kit, but I am not afraid to embrace first party lenses when I am shooting AF and/or they provide a capability that I can't get otherwise.
retrofocus wrote:
This is a very interesting statement: I asked this about performance of E-mount or DSLR based attached lenses on Sony A7-based MLCs with modified thinner sensors in the past, and others here posted that there is no disadvantage of using larger DSLR-based lenses even on such modified sensor with thinner sensor cover glass more optimized for rangefinder lenses. I always wondered about this since the sensor cover thickness should be optimized to the lens system in use.
When you say "poorly", can you further elaborate on this? I would be very interested to hear where the differences become obvious even this is off topic here. ...Show more →
I cannot comment on how DSLR lenses perform on a stock thick-stack Sony. But I can comment that native wide angle M-mount lenses perform fine corner-to-corner on a thin-sensor Sony, quite contrary to what others have shown with the same lenses on their stock thick sensor Sony.
I cannot comment on how DSLR lenses perform on a stock thick-stack Sony. But I can comment that native wide angle M-mount lenses perform fine corner-to-corner, quite contrary to what others I have shown with the same lenses on their stock Sony.
It's mostly FC and the problems associated with changed FC. It's really noticeable in lenses like the Nikon AF 20-35/2.8 D or Contax Zeiss 17-35/2.8 and also wider PC lenses like the Canon TSE 24II or 17 when compared side-by-side. Thinner stacks also help the Canon EF ultrawide zooms. And, generally, the older you go, the thinner the stack you'll want. How much you'll notice a difference is often dependent on how familiar you are with the native lens and how much you use it at wide apertures, since stopping down resolves a ton of issues.
johnvanr wrote:
I do sometimes wonder more in general why many alt lenses attract so much interest here.
The original name of the forum was the Alternative Gear forum which was primarily about adapting non-native lenses on various cameras, and lesser known brands of cameras and lenses. There's a whole list of brand specific forums for native lenses on the same manufacturers cameras.
Apparently Leica can't have it's own forum for some reason, while Nikon or Canon or Fuji or Sony can.
AndereObjektiv wrote:
The original name of the forum was the Alternative Gear forum which was primarily about adapting non-native lenses on various cameras, and lesser known brands of cameras and lenses. There's a whole list of brand specific forums for native lenses on the same manufacturers cameras.
Apparently Leica can't have it's own forum for some reason, while Nikon or Canon or Fuji or Sony can.
So here we still is.
The original poster johnvanr made that comment, not me.
And I concur with your comment, given that I was in this Alt group long before it became the Leica-M centric group that it is now (it seems I registered in 2005).
I’m retired now, but have spent my life doing photography professionally since college. In 35mm most of the years have been spent with Nikon bodies and lenses. A few years I began to work in infared. That early work was with my Z6 and Z lenses and a 72mn filter. When I converted a Z50 to IR I found that only my Z50 18-140 and 50-250 did not have hot spots. So I have added a couple Voightlander and a Leica primes that do not have hot spots.
AndereObjektiv wrote:
The original name of the forum was the Alternative Gear forum ...
Actually, the original name was the "Canon Forum". After too many threads about adapted lenses, the Canon purists got all pissy, so we threw them out and threw the "Canon Forum" label after them. The original forum was then renamed "Alternative" and we welcomed all posters and all subjects (even Canon). Denizens of the Alternative Forum are called Alties. Not sure why Leica has no forum of its own, then we can get our true forum name back.
Norm Shapiro wrote:
I’m retired now, but have spent my life doing photography professionally since college. In 35mm most of the years have been spent with Nikon bodies and lenses. A few years I began to work in infared. That early work was with my Z6 and Z lenses and a 72mn filter. When I converted a Z50 to IR I found that only my Z50 18-140 and 50-250 did not have hot spots. So I have added a couple Voightlander and a Leica primes that do not have hot spots.
Minolta made fantastic IR lenses in the SR mount (MC/MD) if you ever have the urge but not the budget to explore. For example, on a lark, I picked up an MD 70-210/4 for $22.50, and it's been a dream up to 800nm. I haven't put the 900 on it yet, but I'm confident it'll do well.
AndereObjektiv wrote:
The original name of the forum was the Alternative Gear forum which was primarily about adapting non-native lenses on various cameras, and lesser known brands of cameras and lenses. There's a whole list of brand specific forums for native lenses on the same manufacturers cameras.
Apparently Leica can't have it's own forum for some reason, while Nikon or Canon or Fuji or Sony can.
So here we still is.
The Alt field has widened quite a bit as well. Unless I’m missing something, the Canon EF 70-200mm was never an Alt lens until mirrorless came about. In my case, it’s the Alt telelens for my GFX camera and can do double duty on my RF cameras. That, btw, is not what I meant as being a distraction.
May 07, 2026 at 12:15 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
retrofocus wrote:
This is a very interesting statement: I asked this about performance of E-mount or DSLR based attached lenses on Sony A7-based MLCs with modified thinner sensors in the past, and others here posted that there is no disadvantage of using larger DSLR-based lenses even on such modified sensor with thinner sensor cover glass more optimized for rangefinder lenses. I always wondered about this since the sensor cover thickness should be optimized to the lens system in use.
When you say "poorly", can you further elaborate on this? I would be very interested to hear where the differences become obvious even this is off topic here. ...Show more →
It is the same optical principles as having too thick of a sensor stack for the design of the lens, when the lens was designed for a thicker sensor stack you will still have more problems the shorter the exit pupil and the wider the aperture. So small wide angle lenses (which tend to have shorter exit pupils) and primairly/especially those with wider apertures will show the most problems. I have come to believe the specific design of the lens can matter too, so it is always best to test each specific lens you want to use if it wasn't designed for the sensor glass thickness on the camer you are using.
whiteonline wrote:
Some of my most productive photography has come from owning a Q2.
The best images come from a camera which is easy to carry with you and delivers. The Q-series fits here well - I would also be on it if it came with exchangeable M-mount instead of fixed lens. Glad Leica issued the M EV-1 as alternative which I would consider if there wasn't the horrendous price tag of it.
