DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Which lenses do you use mostly and why

John:

G2 is a different animal -- an automated rangefinder. For the same price, an AX will provide auto-focus.

Assuming that hyperfocal focussing is insufficient for your situation, perhaps your eyesight would benefit from the eye-piece magnifier F-2N (under $50).

Besides an RTS III, I have a Canon D30 and AF does allow for casual, one-handed operation. For deliberate photography like portraiture or scenics, I find AF has no advantage.

Quality MF lenses (like CZ) will retain their value and, without motors and electronic chips, will be easier to service into the future.
 
Over the years I've owned the following lenses: 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 60 makro f/2.8C, 85 f/1.4, 100 f/2, 180 f/2.8, 300 f/4. The lens I use most is the 35. My second favorite is the 85. It along with 35 & 180 were stolen. I replaced them with 35, 60, 100, and 300. I miss the 85 and 180 very much. The 100 always seems a bit long and the 300 is very difficult to hand hold. But optically both are terrific. The Makro is superb up close, especially wide open. I rarely use the 50. I find its field of view to be too pedestrian. One last point regarding the 35 f/1.4 is its close-up potential. It focuses to 12 inches, and at 1.4 that close you get very shallow DOF which combined with the slightly wide FOV gives a very interesting look. If I could only have one lens, it would be the 35 f/1.4 hands down.
 
Erik,

Thanks for your len report. I'm in the happy situation of owning just one lens (the awesome 21mm Distagon). Why happy? Because more lens purchases are in my immediate future! 21-45-85 and 21-50-100 are my contenders for the next stage.

There is considerable difference in cost between the two 85s and the 100/2. MTF for the 100/2 shows uniform performance center-to-edge, which is my preference. However, your experience with this lens would help my decision.
 
Hi Rico,

I have the 100/2, it is my favorite lens, superb portrait lens, sharp excellent colour fantastic skin tones and great wide open with lovely out of focus effect on background. I have no experience of the 85/1.4 this is a much loved lens by many, but even though I once thought of getting one, now I have the 100 I wouldn't swap it for anything! I think I'd miss the focal length going to 85. I also have the 50/1.4 which gets a lot of use, I would recommend this over the 50/1.7 if you are likely to go below f2.8 frequently, I've had noticably better results.

Hope this helps your decision, all I need now is that awesome 21mm Distagon! Can't find any one anywhere at the moment, having to use a Zeiss Jena 28/2.8 for my wide stuff currently, need wider though!

All the best,

Art.

"MTF for the 100/2 shows uniform performance center-to-edge, which is my preference. However, your experience with this lens would help my decision."
 
>[Rico,

The image quality of the 100/2 is superb. As it also was with the=20 85/1.4. I never did any side-by-side comparison because I didn't own=20 both lenses at the same time. My preference for the 85/1.4 is based=20 on the following:

1. The 85/1.4 is smaller. It's by no means a compact lens but it is=20 smaller than the 100/2 2. The 85/1.4 is faster. This is useful not so much because I would=20 need the extra stop due to low light, but rather I would shoot wide=20 open to get extremely shallow depth of field. 3. But most importantly, I just seemed to prefer the field of view of=20 the 85 compared to the 100. The 100 always seems a little longer than=20 I need, and the 85 always just seemed right.

I hope this has been helpful.

>]
 
I have been using Contax equipment since 1985. Over the years, I used 5 different bodies, a Yashica FX-7, then the Contax 139q, the 159MM, and the RTS's I & II. Today I still use the RST-II, and I'm presently debating whether I should upgrade to an RTS-III or just move to the newest N-System.

The lenses I used the most are (and were) the 25/2.8, 35/2,8, 50/1.4 and 100/2.0. I especially remember an expedition in Northern Saskatchewan's forest (Canada) in 1990, when I carried both an RTS-I and a 159MM; the best pictures I took were all made with the 25/2.8, a gem of a lens in my opinion, with natural perspective and fabulous color rendition. I made amazing pictures of waterfalls in the northern forest with that lens. I parted with that lens a few years ago because I was in desperate need of cash, and today, I wish I didn't! Nowadays, I mostly use the 35/2.8 and the 18/4, since I mostly do urban landscapes.

A few days ago, I have acquired a 85/2.8 from eBay, but cannot comment about it just yet (too recent); however it is much more lightweight than the beautifull 100/2.0, so it's possible I will start carrying this lens with me on my nature treks next summer. The 100/2.0 is a fabulous lens for sure but it is big and heavy. Practicality is also a consideration.

In the end, the lens you use most is the lens best suited to your needs. It depends on a variety of factors. If you're doing mostly fieldwork, you'll prefer those slower but much lighter lenses (25/2.8, 35/2.8, 100/3.5, etc). If doing a lot of studio pictures, marriage or portraits, than you will probably benefit from using those faster lenses (28/2.0, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2.0, etc.)
 
Has anyone used the 35-135 MM zoom? I was interested in knowing how good it is.I travel alot and can carry only one zoom. Your advise is apreciated.
 
this is probably on of toe best contax zoom lens ever (35-135), much = better than the 28-85. this lens and the 21 re perfect for a light travel. the colors out of this lens are the best i have seen.=20
 
Brian, I own and use the 35-135 CZVS zoom lens. It is, in my opinion, one of the great lenses of all time. It is as sharp as my Zeiss primes and people are amazed at the over all "look" of the photographs I take with it. It renders color superbly. Now it is a big lens and takes 82mm filters. I purchased a lens hood for it since the barrell is so wide that it can be subject to lens flair on occasion. I don't necessarily agree with Mr.Sadat that the "(35-135),[is]much better than 28-85..." I think it all depends on what you use and are comfortable with. The 28-85 from what I read and hear is as good as the 35-135, it certainly is more popular. By the way, I noticed in your profile that you own the Aria, so do I along with the RX. I feel that the 35-135 balances much better with the RX than with the Aria. As I get older (soon to be 57) I find I prefer traveling about NYC with lighter gear so I have been taking out the Aria with the 28-70 or with primes and leave the RX with the 35-135 for special occasions/events. Still the 35-135 is a great, great lens and is for me the crown jewell of my lenses. Regards, Vincent
 
Vincent,Thank you for your response. So far all I have used is my 28-70. Although I am happy with it's performance so far I miss that extra sharpness and contrast that are said to be in the 28-85 and the 35-135. Actually, I have yet to compare the 28-70 with anything else. How do you think the 28-70 compares with the 35-135?
 
Back
Top