fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell
1       2       3      
4
       end
   

Are alt lenses just a distraction?
  
 
freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


Is it possible the problem isn't the lenses forcing choices but the number of different mounts you're supporting with the various camera brands? Supporting M, RF, and Z, particularly if you focused on matching kits, could get to be taxing and expensive. One method would be to focus entirely on one camera type and let the best of the adapted lenses rise or fall based on that mount alone.
May 09, 2026 at 10:26 PM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #2 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


freaklikeme wrote:
Is it possible the problem isn't the lenses forcing choices but the number of different mounts you're supporting with the various camera brands? Supporting M, RF, and Z, particularly if you focused on matching kits, could get to be taxing and expensive. One method would be to focus entirely on one camera type and let the best of the adapted lenses rise or fall based on that mount alone.

Well, there's a history to that. It started with me getting M lenses to offset the large Canon lenses and still use FF. After not being totally thrilled with the rangefinder M experience, I dabbled both with other small MF lenses for my Canon and with optimizing the experience of using M lenses using various adapters. Later I threw in a few interesting lenses, just for fun. I generally just stuck with using them with adapters on my MFT and Canon gear, plus I used older Zeiss EF lenses on my Fuji GFX, just because I already had the lenses. That led to the current mess, about which you are right.

I'm now listing my Leica M11, my Fuji X and my Nikon gear, so that part of the mix will end soon.

In any case, there's a distinction between alt lenses I got because they fill a gap that I saw and alt lenses I got because I read or saw that they're 'interesting.' The former aren't needed anymore as that gap is filled by other gear, while the second may still be useful depending on what makes them interesting.

And speaking about alt gear, I just unearthed a lot of my prints and one favorite is a shot I took with a $125 Yashica-Mat years ago, easily beating the Canon 1Dx and Leica prints.


May 10, 2026 at 03:22 AM
freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


johnvanr wrote:
Well, there's a history to that. It started with me getting M lenses to offset the large Canon lenses and still use FF. After not being totally thrilled with the rangefinder M experience, I dabbled both with other small MF lenses for my Canon and with optimizing the experience of using M lenses using various adapters. Later I threw in a few interesting lenses, just for fun. I generally just stuck with using them with adapters on my MFT and Canon gear, plus I used older Zeiss EF lenses on my Fuji GFX, just because I already had the lenses....Show more →

"Because I had the lenses" is the logic most often applied to my experiments. Some of them have succeeded wildly, like my monochrome full-spectrum rII and film lenses, while some of them have proven misguided, like my short jaunt into 6x17 film folding cameras, but they've all been fun and mostly educational.

Maybe, in the end, what we need to accept is that photography is two hobbies for people who need to satisfy both the gear-head and photographer in them. Maybe the best we can hope for is to set limits on the gear-head and make sure to hang on to what the photographer really needs.
May 10, 2026 at 10:03 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


johnvanr wrote:
I have used the Shoten adapter now quite a bit. Even bought a Canon R8, which now gives me a small light camera to use with the M lenses. While setting up isn’t ideal, I do enjoy the combo. I will sell the M11. The irony now is that the 28mm Typoch I bought recently in the RF mount is now more difficult to focus on my RF cameras than the M lenses. Of course, color fringing is an issue with some lenses, but I don't shoot landscapes with my M lenses anyway.

But I'm also wondering about just adding...Show more →


johnvanr wrote:
About the Canon 45/1.2: opinions seem to diverge widely about this lens. I wish I could rent one here in Austria. I did have the VL 40/1.2 for M mount for a while and liked its rendering but not the lack of frame lines on the M models. Sold it and bought the lens in RF mount later. Didn’t use it much and sold that too. For some bizarre reason, in hindsight, I then bought it in Z mount, but I’m now going to ditch Z mount (since I can use my M lenses just as easily on the Canon...Show more →

I'll get around to using the Shoten adapter more.

I was just in Tokyo and visited Yodobashi (actually at their Yokohama store). They had most Canon RF lenses on display so you could mount them on your own camera to test/try. I'm also curious about the 16-28 and it has reviewed very well. I haven't looked at the test photos I did with it yet at Yodobashi, but it should be a pretty safe choice. It won't be a character lens, but it will be sharp enough and good enough for most uses, I think. That said, I ended up getting the 20/1.4 VCM instead (at a different store). I have the 16/2.8 and find I don't use it that much, and when I do, because my next widest RF lens is 28mm, it's often too wide for what I really want/need. This is where I expect the 20 to fill the gap, plus offer additional low light options the rare times I will need it. I figured, I've gotten by with 28 on RF for so long, the jump to 20 should suit most of my UWA needs (as it has with the M system). I played with/tested most of the VCM lenses while at Yodobashi and was generally impressed with them - reasonably sized and fairly light with fast focusing and appear to be nice and sharp wide open without major quirks. The other lens that caught my eye was the 28/2.8 pancake. It looks to be sharp from wide open and very small. Would be great on the R8. Canon just needs to release a 40mm pancake to pair with it.

I also did some quick shots with the 45/1.2 and generally had positive impressions based on what I saw in the EVF. Focus is not very fast and there will be LoCA/fringing in the right situations... If that bothers you, sell the RF 50/1.2 and get the VCM instead. It's better corrected and much faster focusing than the 45, though also a lot more expensive.

If you've got some time to kill over a weekend and don't mind the travel costs, make a short trip to Tokyo. But I hear it's a bit of a hassle flying Europe-Asia currently due to all the detours flights have to take now to avoid Ukraine, Iran, Russian and possibly Chinese airspace...
May 10, 2026 at 11:10 PM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #5 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


freaklikeme wrote:
"Because I had the lenses" is the logic most often applied to my experiments. Some of them have succeeded wildly, like my monochrome full-spectrum rII and film lenses, while some of them have proven misguided, like my short jaunt into 6x17 film folding cameras, but they've all been fun and mostly educational.

Maybe, in the end, what we need to accept is that photography is two hobbies for people who need to satisfy both the gear-head and photographer in them. Maybe the best we can hope for is to set limits on the gear-head and make sure to hang on to...Show more →

The lenses I already owned for Canon EF are ones I hardly ever use or used, but when I do, they're sooo good: the Zeiss 21mm and the Zeiss 135mm. Both are heavy. If they were worth a lot of money, I'd probably sell them because of their limited use, but since they're cheap for what they deliver, I keep them.

The same now kind of applies to the old Olympus OM lenses that I bought. The exception on value is the 100mm f/2, which runs at around $1,000, but it's so small for what it is, it's a keeper.
May 11, 2026 at 01:14 AM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


rscheffler wrote:
I'll get around to using the Shoten adapter more.

I was just in Tokyo and visited Yodobashi (actually at their Yokohama store). They had most Canon RF lenses on display so you could mount them on your own camera to test/try. I'm also curious about the 16-28 and it has reviewed very well. I haven't looked at the test photos I did with it yet at Yodobashi, but it should be a pretty safe choice. It won't be a character lens, but it will be sharp enough and good enough for most uses, I think. That said, I ended up getting...Show more →

Don't think I'm going to Tokyo for a weekend, but we're planning to live in Japan for two months next year (my wife is half-Japanese).

The RF 50/1.2 is my go-to lens in the studio. It's the 135/1.8 that I don't use enough there. And I've been thinking of selling the 135 and the 85/2 to get the 85/1.4 instead. Seems like the best of both worlds. I still have the EF 135mm, which is fine for portraiture.

I used to own the 16mm, but sold it because it was just too wide for me. I have the 28mm and it's indeed a nice little lens. Never tried the 20mm, but I do love the 21mm perspective (strangely hardly anyone seems to make those anymore).

I have to be careful with my Canon kit, though, because I do find that MFT can mostly deliver what I need in an even smaller package and with more capable cameras at a lower price point.


May 11, 2026 at 01:19 AM
freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #7 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


johnvanr wrote:
The lenses I already owned for Canon EF are ones I hardly ever use or used, but when I do, they're sooo good: the Zeiss 21mm and the Zeiss 135mm. Both are heavy. If they were worth a lot of money, I'd probably sell them because of their limited use, but since they're cheap for what they deliver, I keep them.

The same now kind of applies to the old Olympus OM lenses that I bought. The exception on value is the 100mm f/2, which runs at around $1,000, but it's so small for what it is, it's a keeper.



Zeiss lenses are beautiful things. I never fell for the 21 since it's not a key focal length for me, but I love that Sonnar. It can be a bit of a tank, but it's worth it. I tried to live without mine and sold it. I think it took me all of two months to replace it.

Do you remember when all the OMs fetched a higher price because they were one of the best mounts to adapt to Canon? Those days are gone for them, so it's down to the special ones, and you've got a very special one in the 100/2. What do you think of the draw?
May 11, 2026 at 02:23 AM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

tommmi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


I've been thinking do I miss something while I don't have and have never had any Leica native M lenses. Most of my lenses for my M11 are from LLL, MS Optics or Voigtländer. I just love the charm and character these provide. Voigt's tend to be more clinical but not Zeiss clinical (I have owned some and found them a bit boring, but very good optics still)

On the other hand, I have only the "native" lenses for all my other cameras, Hasselblad, Canon and Nikon. I have tried the better Sigma lenses (Art series) for Canon but I think the Canon lenses pair better.

Should I go for 35mm and 50mm Summicron's for my Leica? Or even Summilux?
May 11, 2026 at 01:55 PM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #9 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


tommmi wrote:
I've been thinking do I miss something while I don't have and have never had any Leica native M lenses. Most of my lenses for my M11 are from LLL, MS Optics or Voigtländer. I just love the charm and character these provide. Voigt's tend to be more clinical but not Zeiss clinical (I have owned some and found them a bit boring, but very good optics still)

On the other hand, I have only the "native" lenses for all my other cameras, Hasselblad, Canon and Nikon. I have tried the better Sigma lenses (Art series) for Canon but I think...Show more →

Don't know if I'm cheap or smart, but other than the Leica 28mm Elmarit, I own no Leica lenses and don't feel a desire to buy any of them. And I only got the Elmarit because it's relatively cheap and it's (or was when I bought it) the smallest 28mm lens I could get for the M mount. It's also the most used M lens I have.

My other M lenses are mostly Zeiss, the Elcan and a few Voigtlanders. While I still wonder whether they're a distraction, I'm happy with them for what they are.

With mirrorless, everything changed of course, because now almost every lens before mirrorless (and in some cases including mirrorless) can become a third-party lens on modern cameras. It's why I have so many adapters


May 11, 2026 at 02:32 PM
rico
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


tommmi wrote:
Should I go for 35mm and 50mm Summicron's for my Leica? Or even Summilux?

If you like Kool-Aid then drink it, but I recommend against that expensive route. Speaking as the owner of 14 M/LTM lens from 28-280mm, all Leica brand. If you really want to touch the Leitz lodestone then look for a 90 Elmar from the 1950s which should cost $100 in user condition. These are single coated, render beautifully, and have rock-solid build (I own three).

Also affordable are the 135 Elmars and Tele-Elmar from the same era:



TE 135, 1Ds, strobe
May 11, 2026 at 03:38 PM
theHUN
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #11 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


The 135 mm Tele-Elmar is a gem. The vintage 73 mm Hektor equally so, with jaw dropping results on a monochrome sensor.

But I am otherwise a Voigtlander guy.
May 11, 2026 at 08:27 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


tommmi wrote:
Should I go for 35mm and 50mm Summicron's for my Leica? Or even Summilux?


rico wrote:
If you like Kool-Aid then drink it, but I recommend against that expensive route. Speaking as the owner of 14 M/LTM lens from 28-280mm, all Leica brand. If you really want to touch the Leitz lodestone then look for a 90 Elmar from the 1950s which should cost $100 in user condition. These are single coated, render beautifully, and have rock-solid build (I own three).

Also affordable are the 135 Elmars and Tele-Elmar from the same era:


He has an M11. A rangefinder camera. Sure, 135 works with it, especially with the Visoflex, but it's not really a sweet spot focal length for the M system, even if it's a good lens. Hence a reason why those 135s are inexpensive. Also some of the older 90s.

@tommmi I think it's worth trying some Leica lenses. It's the only way you will know for yourself whether or not they bring something to your style of photography that resonates with you. If you're not after modern, clinical lenses, then look for something older, such as a 50 Cron Rigid, 35 Summaron and/or 90/2 pre-ASPH (also the various 90/2.8s). I do like the look from the older 50 Luxes, but they are relatively premium priced in good condition. Yes, you're going to spend a lot more for some Leica lenses, but with the older ones, they've already settled at a market price which you should be able to mostly, if not fully, recoup if/when you decide to move on. I don't consider it a risky venture. The only question IMO is whether you're comfortable tying up money in more lenses rather than elsewhere. But you already have the expensive M11, so I'm guessing it's not a big hurdle, at least mentally.

The newer M lenses are generally strong performers optically and less 'characterful' than older versions because they're better corrected. But, they're not necessarily at optimum performance wide open. For example, the 50 Lux ASPH has a touch of residual SA wide open that IMO works really nicely with people photography. It's not soft, but it's not painfully sharp, either. Sharpness and contrast jumps noticeably between f/2-2.8. The new 35/1.2 seems somewhat similar. That said, as Fred's lens tests have shown, the Thypoch 50/1.4's look is quite close to the 50 Lux ASPH. What it doesn't have though, is Leica ergonomics. This IMO is part of the last 5% that you pay 10x more to get. Really, you have to try it to determine if it makes sense for you. For me, I enjoy the M haptics and shooting process and do think that an all-Leica combination has the best user experience. If you care a lot more about the final images, this may be a much less important consideration.
May 12, 2026 at 03:11 AM
samuelphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #13 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


I’m in the process of culling out a boatload of gear. Why? My Q3 43 camera is stunning by every measure. And, for me, it has great handling and user interface. AF is plenty adequate. With the latest firmware update (4.1) there really isn’t anything more I could ask for but maybe an occasional 28/35 focal length. May just pick up a Q2 and be done. KISS.


May 23, 2026 at 07:29 PM
EMH2025
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #14 · Are alt lenses just a distraction?


I rather like my apo 135 Leica, the IQ is not only great, but it is so small and light for a telephoto. It is a real challenge to shoot moving things with the 135, none the less I have shot lots of bears with it, mostly it worked fine but requires a lot more shot planning like refocusing on a spot the near will be. For distance compression scenery the apo 135 is really nice.To do a classic moonrise over a mountain for instance 135 yields a big enough Moon to make the shot. No one is doing 135s now and Leica and ms optics are the most current out of production, the ms-optics one is almost vaporware and I never used one, but fortunately good copies of the apo 135 3.4 are easy to come by and because it likely frustrated street photographers into non use really good copies are fairly easy to find, not that cheap, but still easy to find.

I have been thinking with EV1 Leica might well revisit 135s, I find it easy to use on my EV1 and amuch more difficult on my MP. So the apo 135 might well be splurge, but I value it in my kit.

Jamie and Jam has a good 135 apo video on youtube and he used film....worth watching.

rscheffler wrote:
He has an M11. A rangefinder camera. Sure, 135 works with it, especially with the Visoflex, but it's not really a sweet spot focal length for the M system, even if it's a good lens. Hence a reason why those 135s are inexpensive. Also some of the older 90s.

@tommmi@ I think it's worth trying some Leica lenses. It's the only way you will know for yourself whether or not they bring something to your style of photography that resonates with you. If you're not after modern, clinical lenses, then look for something older, such as a 50 Cron Rigid, 35...Show more →
May 23, 2026 at 08:47 PM
1       2       3      
4
       end
FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register