Cameras meh, lenses YES!

[woof woof]

As it's quiet and I'm just sat here...

I've never really found cameras all that interesting. I like them to be compact and to have the controls I need and I do care about handling to some degree but beyond that I'm not all that interested in them although in these digital days the camera does maybe matter more to image quality than it did in the past, maybe.

I've always liked lenses more though. Again, I like them to be compact and I like them to be nice to use. I have a little collection of film era primes and I do find these more interesting than modern AF lenses and even more so than the almost featureless fly by wire AF lenses that are common these days. Of the old lenses I think 50mm lenses interest me the most even though for some time I've been more of a 35mm user. 35mm lenses in the film days and in my little collection are mostly f2.8's as anything faster can be rarer and more expensive but with 50mm lenses there's a choice of apertures from f2.8 or slower through f2, f1.8, f1.4 and even f1.2 at affordable (ish) prices and that for me makes them more interesting.

I really like the look of Zuiko lenses like this.

But I think I like these Rokkors a little more.

These Takumars are similarly all metal with scalloped focus rings.

As are these Nikons, I much prefer these for how they look and handle to the later ones but these are bigger and heavier.

New lens wise I like the Voigtlanders as they're just like the old metal bodied ones I like. That's a Voigtlander on the far right. Zeiss do a range of modern manual primes but they look modern and aren't so interesting to me (all respect to those who love them, obviously) and I prefer the look and handling of those Voigtlanders.

The lens on the far left is a modern Sony 24mm f2.8 FBW lens but I like it because it's the size of an old film era prime and it has an aperture ring. It doesn't have the obvious metal build of the old film era primes or modern Voigtlanders though. Sigma have a range of compact primes with nice build, like the following which are all but one APS-C but Sigma do do a full frame range in the same style.

New firmware update on four Sigma E-mount primes | sonyalpharumors

Sigma issued a new firmware updated for those lenses: ・ SIGMA 16mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary (for APS-C) ・ SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary (for APS-C) ・ SIGMA 56mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary (for APS-C) ・ SIGMA 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary (35mm full size compatible)

www.sonyalpharumors.com

I do like compact primes, mostly in the 24 to 50mm range and my favourites are very probably those metal bodied ones with scalloped focus rings but these are just my thoughts and opinions So, what interests you? Cameras? Lenses? What and why

 

[SFTPhotography]

I am a digital photographer so camera tech improvements personally interest me the most - dynamic range and resolution really matters for landscapes.

What interests about lenses, its sharpness centre to edge (more uniform the better) and weather sealing to stop sensor dirt getting in. What I like in a zoom is internal zooming rather than extending barrel to reduce sensor dirt. Primes have less appeal for me but again - optical uniformity suits be more than style. Robust metal build helps for durability and I do like to manually focus so a long, stiff focus ring helps.

Appearance matters very little to me re lenses or bodies.

 

[woof woof]

How lenses look definitely matters to me but that is just one factor. I do like looking at them as nice objects and I have a duff one on a shelf just because IMO it looks nice.

I don't have any lenses I'd say are less than acceptable but some do suffer a marked drop off as you head away from the central area and some do have poor or even very poor corners and some do have wild bokeh with unfriendly compositions at their widest apertures. When pixel peeping it's often very easy to spot shortcomings across the frame but whole images are IMO usually easily acceptable for me and usually lenses are easily good enough anywhere I'd put a main point of interest but across the frame sharpness and smooth bokeh are another matter.

 

[Retune]

I do like compact primes, mostly in the 24 to 50mm range and my favourites are very probably those metal bodied ones with scalloped focus rings but these are just my thoughts and opinions So, what interests you? Cameras? Lenses? What and why

The scalloped metal look is nice. I only have one that would qualify as a compact prime, the 24mm Nikkor-N f/2.8. Mine is a proper AI conversion with the factory kit, so it's a 50 year old lens that's compatible with modern Nikons.

https://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/wides/24mm.htm

NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.14 | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights | Nikon Consumer

I also have an early Leica 135mm f/4 Tele-Elmar. It's one of the cheapest Leica-M lenses you can buy, partly because 135mm isn't terribly practical on a rangefinder and it's a bit of a beast when fitted to an M-series camera. This ugly duckling might well be something of a swan on mirrorless, though.

Leitz Tele-Elmar 135mm f/4 – Leica’s Secret Sonnar

A close look at a less often discussed Leica M mount lens reveals a hidden gem for Leica photographers - the Leitz Tele-Elmar 135mm F/4.

casualphotophile.com

LENS REVISIT – LEICA TELE-ELMAR 1:4/135

Right, 2014 is a big year for me in terms of photography. Not only have I made a big leap in my photographical skill, but I’ve also made a switch from my much loved and used Canon DSLR setup …

talktog.wordpress.com

 

[woof woof]

I've been thinking about cameras and I suppose I have liked a few...

I quite like this Medion because it's very small, credit card sized, metal and quite a nice thing and AFAIK fixed focus or at least that's how it seems and if it is it's like the first camera I had, a Kodak. The Medion is the silver one in front here, the image quality is frankly pants but IMO it manages to be a nice object.

I liked this Kodak as it's small and weighs next to nothing and is very simple with minimal controls and fixed focus. I still have this camera but I haven't used it for years.

I also quite liked the Olympus trip for it's compact size and relative simplicity.

Modern cameras I sort of like include the Panasonic GM5 because it's so small but still has all the controls and good handling and good image quality and also the TZ100 for similar reasons. I'd like the TZ100 more if it was possible to select a focal length it'd power up to as I could then use it like a 25, 28, 35 or 50mm prime lens camera rather than having to select something other than 25mm when it powers up or having it return to whatever it was set to when last turned off.

 

[Plain Nev]

I do like the scalloped rings on a vintage lens. I went through a mad phase of buying lenses recently, but it's a handful of primes that I find myself using the most. Only today I got the Olympus 50 1.8 to go with the 101 I picked up. Perfect little lens really.

 

[toohuge]

Both the aesthetics and build quality are two things that I value in lenses. How it makes me feel owning it and using it, usually, far outweigh my opinions on it's use - sad I know!

I prefer lenses / products that were obviously a compromise / pushing the envelope and it's apparent in the final version, a few of my favourites:

Nikon 200 f2/ Canon 200 f2 / 1.8 - weird shaped lenses. I've got the Nikon and on the look out for the Canon 200 f2
Nikon 300 f2
Canon 300 1.8
Canon 400 f2
Canon eos 85mm 1.2 - I owned one briefly but it was faulty and had to go back, but LOVED the grapefruit on the end of the lens mount (I'll get another in due course_
Leica Elcan 90mm f1.0
Nikon 6.2mm
Sigma 200-500 2.8
Canon 1200 5.6
Nikon 58 1.2 Noct
Some of Nikon's monster telephoto / zooms lenses are just awesome like the 1200-1700mm zoom

The list goes on haha

 

[the black fox]

As it's quiet and I'm just sat here...

I've never really found cameras all that interesting. I like them to be compact and to have the controls I need and I do care about handling to some degree but beyond that I'm not all that interested in them although in these digital days the camera does maybe matter more to image quality than it did in the past, maybe.

I've always liked lenses more though. Again, I like them to be compact and I like them to be nice to use. I have a little collection of film era primes and I do find these more interesting than modern AF lenses and even more so than the almost featureless fly by wire AF lenses that are common these days. Of the old lenses I think 50mm lenses interest me the most even though for some time I've been more of a 35mm user. 35mm lenses in the film days and in my little collection are mostly f2.8's as anything faster can be rarer and more expensive but with 50mm lenses there's a choice of apertures from f2.8 or slower through f2, f1.8, f1.4 and even f1.2 at affordable (ish) prices and that for me makes them more interesting.

I really like the look of Zuiko lenses like this.

But I think I like these Rokkors a little more.

These Takumars are similarly all metal with scalloped focus rings.

As are these Nikons, I much prefer these for how they look and handle to the later ones but these are bigger and heavier.

New lens wise I like the Voigtlanders as they're just like the old metal bodied ones I like. That's a Voigtlander on the far right. Zeiss do a range of modern manual primes but they look modern and aren't so interesting to me (all respect to those who love them, obviously) and I prefer the look and handling of those Voigtlanders

The lens on the far left is a modern Sony 24mm f2.8 FBW lens but I like it because it's the size of an old film era prime and it has an aperture ring. It doesn't have the obvious metal build of the old film era primes or modern Voigtlanders though. Sigma have a range of compact primes with nice build, like the following which are all but one APS-C but Sigma do do a full frame range in the same style.

New firmware update on four Sigma E-mount primes | sonyalpharumors

Sigma issued a new firmware updated for those lenses: ・ SIGMA 16mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary (for APS-C) ・ SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary (for APS-C) ・ SIGMA 56mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary (for APS-C) ・ SIGMA 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary (35mm full size compatible)

www.sonyalpharumors.com

I do like compact primes, mostly in the 24 to 50mm range and my favourites are very probably those metal bodied ones with scalloped focus rings but these are just my thoughts and opinions So, what interests you? Cameras? Lenses? What and why

Just bought a mint olympus 50mm f1.8 off a mate for a £10 ,needed it for my new digiscoping rig . MF with peaking makes it easy peasy
Also got a cracking Nikon 300mm f4 a-fs lens with a faulty focus motor ,again bought cheap but stunning lens coupled with MF and olympus focus peaking .

 

[woof woof]

I do like the scalloped rings on a vintage lens. I went through a mad phase of buying lenses recently, but it's a handful of primes that I find myself using the most. Only today I got the Olympus 50 1.8 to go with the 101 I picked up. Perfect little lens really.

I find the Zuiko's a bit clunky when changing the aperture, but I do like them.

I've been think of thinning out my little collection as I have far too many but I just can't seem to get around to it but even if I do move some on (or attempt to) I will keep some even if it's just a couple/few 50mm's.

There was a time when you could find these lenses in good condition for £15 but sadly those days seem to have gone, but you can still get lucky now and again As Jeff has just proved above!

 

[woof woof]

I prefer lenses / products that were obviously a compromise / pushing the envelope and it's apparent in the final version, a few of my favourites:

I tend to get interested in lenses that someone else writes off as rubbish.

I read a while ago that the Nikon Series E 28mm f2.8 was the worst prime they ever made (or maybe even the worst lens) so I bought one and I think it's a perfectly acceptable prime. I got the MKII which looks nicer than the MK1 and I think the image quality is perfectly acceptable. Maybe there's sample variation and I got a good one, that could explain it. Anyway, where one person sees a poor lens someone else could see a lens with some interesting character trait and look.

Here it is, Nikon series E 28mm f2.8 MK2.

This is something like what the MK1 will look like, although this is a Series E 35mm f2.5 MK1.

The MK2 is IMO a better looking lens but then again the MK1 is maybe attractive as it's the lesser loved Cinderella?

 

[fujilover]

im more of a body guy and modern lenses with ever improving performance.

i dont mind if someone wants to buy old lenses but its not for me

 

[woof woof]

im more of a body guy and modern lenses with ever improving performance.

i dont mind if someone wants to buy old lenses but its not for me

I suppose if we view the kit just as tools we've never had it so good with both bodies and lenses as the quality you can get today is just so good and we're really reduced to nit picking differences between excellent kit. I do find all that interesting and I'll watch and read the reviews of the latest 50mm f1.2 which is possibly the best lens ever made with interest, but I think I'm more interested in something with maybe a little more/different personality.

For example, I have a Sony 55mm f1.8 which is IMO very good and sharp corner to corner from wide open but with a coupe of things to point at which aren't so good. I also have a Voigtlander 50mm f2 which is better and I read one review which said it's one of the best 50's ever made but to be honest I prefer the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 because it's smaller and is really a dual character lens with somewhat wild performance at f1.4, less so stopped down, but with poor corners at any aperture. It's just a lovely thing though.

 

[f/1.2]

I couldn’t care less about cameras or lenses or what they look like. I am only interested in the images they produce and my buying choices are based on the the most efficient way to get the images I want.

 

[Retune]

This Is Just a Part of William Eggleston's Extensive Camera Collection

Want to see what the camera arsenal of a world famous photographer looks like? A photographer whose work fetches millions of dollars at auction? Check out

petapixel.com

 

[woof woof]

I couldn’t care less about cameras or lenses or what they look like. I am only interested in the images they produce and my buying choices are based on the the most efficient way to get the images I want.

I think it's sometimes nice to enjoy things beyond efficiency. Even when I was sat at a desk staring at a scope I had a favourite make and model because of how it was built, how it looked and how the controls felt and worked.

I like it when a company tries a little harder rather than just producing a black box or a featureless black tube of a lens even if they're the SOTA at the time. I can understand how some can ignore any nod to aesthetics and design as long as the picture is sharp corner to corner with smooth bokeh and I can understand people looking at camera gear like white goods but I think it's sometimes it's nice to enjoy something else. The ideal would be excellence of design and engineering to produce excellent photographic tools coupled with aesthetics and handling and I suppose the Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo is getting there for me although it lacks AF and that'd rule it out for you. I do think it's nice to use something different now and again like a Rokkor or a Nippon Kogaku not just because they're lovely things to use but also for the different less technically good look they give. As photographs are a visual thing I think there's room for something other than a technically near perfect picture from a SOTA black box with a next to featureless black tube mounted on it, now and again anyway.

 

[woof woof]

This Is Just a Part of William Eggleston's Extensive Camera Collection

Want to see what the camera arsenal of a world famous photographer looks like? A photographer whose work fetches millions of dollars at auction? Check out

petapixel.com

I don't know what they are beyond Leicas and they look near identical to me but I'd guess the guy cared about how the kit looked and handled.

 

[Retune]

I don't know what they are beyond Leicas and they look near identical to me but I'd guess the guy cared about how the kit looked and handled.

To the Leica geek, it's all about those subtle differences between models, so this is a real collection rather than a random stash. Looks like he has a I, III, IIIa, IIIb, IIIc (wartime 'stepper'), IIIc (post-war), IIIc (post-war with later wind-on knob?), IIf, IIIf ('black dial'), IIIf ('red dial')...

 

[SFTPhotography]

I get @woof woof POV. It's akin to those who drive expensive cars because they like the feel of them, any car gets you A to B but one an fancy one makes it more fun.

Given what I shoot I am more an end results guy - but good end results doesn't have to mean poor aesthetics or lousy build. I realised this with my 645z. Everything is solid on that and it feels great just to lift out the bag - even the flip out rear screen just moves with a well defined precision. The D850 technically is as good - but it's build leaves a lot to be desired compared to the 645z - from the button dampening, chassis, screen mechanism - everything really.

Brass tacks - you really don't see much difference in the end result though. I happen to miss my Sigma ART primes - not because the lens on the 645z aren't amazing, nor are the F2.8 zooms for the D850 good - but the metal build, stiff accurate focus ring really did make them lovely to use and hold.

 

[woof woof]

I get @woof woof POV. It's akin to those who drive expensive cars because they like the feel of them, any car gets you A to B but one an fancy one makes it more fun.

Given what I shoot I am more an end results guy - but good end results doesn't have to mean poor aesthetics or lousy build. I realised this with my 645z. Everything is solid on that and it feels great just to lift out the bag - even the flip out rear screen just moves with a well defined precision. The D850 technically is as good - but it's build leaves a lot to be desired compared to the 645z - from the button dampening, chassis, screen mechanism - everything really.

Brass tacks - you really don't see much difference in the end result though. I happen to miss my Sigma ART primes - not because the lens on the 645z aren't amazing, nor are the F2.8 zooms for the D850 good - but the metal build, stiff accurate focus ring really did make them lovely to use and hold.

I like nice things but I also like some things in a sort of inverse snobbery way for example that Medion compact above because it's a simple little thing and although it isn't very good it's still sort of attractive as a thing. Car wise I've had some nice cars but I prefer small roadsters like MG's and MX5's and to be honest I'd rather drive one of those than a Porsche.

I've never had a Leica but I did have a couple of cheaper RF's so I do see the appeal but I can't see myself going back to film or RF's now and I now get my tactile gear fondling and enjoyment from mirrorless cameras, often with modern lenses but also sometimes with the lenses I've mentioned above. I like them because they are IMO nicer to look at as objects and nicer to handle and use and because they give a different look when compared to something like a Sony 55mm f1.8 which is a very good lens which will give excellent results but is maybe rather functional than attractive in itself. If you follow me

I can obviously understand why someone like Tommy who needs to sell a product will prefer a modern AF 50mm f1.2 which will be excellent into the corners from wide open and give smooth bokeh at f1.2 but if I'm wandering about at the coast or in the countryside a Rokkor 55mm f1.7 might be a different and more enjoyable experience for me

 

[f/1.2]

I think it's sometimes nice to enjoy things beyond efficiency. Even when I was sat at a desk staring at a scope I had a favourite make and model because of how it was built, how it looked and how the controls felt and worked.

I like it when a company tries a little harder rather than just producing a black box or a featureless black tube of a lens even if they're the SOTA at the time. I can understand how some can ignore any nod to aesthetics and design as long as the picture is sharp corner to corner with smooth bokeh and I can understand people looking at camera gear like white goods but I think it's sometimes it's nice to enjoy something else. The ideal would be excellence of design and engineering to produce excellent photographic tools coupled with aesthetics and handling and I suppose the Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo is getting there for me although it lacks AF and that'd rule it out for you. I do think it's nice to use something different now and again like a Rokkor or a Nippon Kogaku not just because they're lovely things to use but also for the different less technically good look they give. As photographs are a visual thing I think there's room for something other than a technically near perfect picture from a SOTA black box with a next to featureless black tube mounted on it, now and again anyway.

I guess it just depends on if you are more interested in photography or in photography equipment.

For someone like yourself that collects old glass, the equipment itself seems more important than what you can do with it, there is nothing wrong with that, You won't be on your own I am sure.

For someone like me photography is work, so I am only interested in the result.

Same thing applies to most things I guess. For example if I was a taxi driver I would probably want a Skoda Superb as they are functional, reliable and have reasonable running costs. They are a great car for that job, I wouldn't personally buy one as I want something that looks better, brings me joy and that will rip my face off when I put the boot down.

 

[Retune]

Sergio Larrain on why he bought a Leica:

 

[woof woof]

I guess it just depends on if you are more interested in photography or in photography equipment.

For someone like yourself that collects old glass, the equipment itself seems more important than what you can do with it, there is nothing wrong with that, You won't be on your own I am sure.

For someone like me photography is work, so I am only interested in the result.

Same thing applies to most things I guess. For example if I was a taxi driver I would probably want a Skoda Superb as they are functional, reliable and have reasonable running costs. They are a great car for that job, I wouldn't personally buy one as I want something that looks better, brings me joy and that will rip my face off when I put the boot down.

But the two things can go together as it's not just about the gear as with different lenses you can produce a different look. I wouldn't say that the gear is more important to me than than the result and in fact that simply isn't true it's just that the end result can be different with different kit.

 

[TheBigYin]

This Is Just a Part of William Eggleston's Extensive Camera Collection

Want to see what the camera arsenal of a world famous photographer looks like? A photographer whose work fetches millions of dollars at auction? Check out

petapixel.com

well, it's safe to say that he's definitely "got a type..."

 

[f/1.2]

But the two things can go together as it's not just about the gear as with different lenses you can produce a different look. I wouldn't say that the gear is more important to me than than the result and in fact that simply isn't true it's just that the end result can be different with different kit.

You often chat on this forum about all those old lenses you have, but you don't seem to use them much at all. Only going from the posts of yours that I have read, but you seem to get quite excited about the collecting process more than you do about actual photography. There is nothing wrong with that of course. You have said yourself many times before about the multiple 35mm and 50mm ish lenses you own. You have also said many times about the limited amount of time you have available for actually taking photographs.

You definitely appear from your posts on this forum anyway to be a collector of camera equipment, over and above your interest in photography itself and again there is nothing wrong with that, I am not saying that you have no interest in photography, just that you seem from your personna on here anyway to be more interested in equipment and in particular old vintage equipment. You seem to base your buying choices predominantly on what the equipment looks and feels like rather than what it can actually do.

I also talk a lot about equipment on here myself as do the majority of the members here but for me it's always about discussing the best tool for the job rather than chatting about the volume of lenses I own in a particular focal length, what those lenses look like and how they feel.

Yes its true that the two things can sometimes go hand in hand, for example lots of great photographers shoot Fuji for because they like how the equipment looks and feels even when it is rarely the best choice in terms of actual performance. They sacrifice performance and accept limitations because of how the equipment looks and feels to them. Nothing wrong with that it is the same for many other things as well. Each to their own and all that.

You are not heading out for the day with 10 x 35mm lenses shooting the same thing and then choosing between the images based on which one looks best for that particular shot. Your lenses are all gathering dust at home based on what you have previously posted on here. There is nothing wrong with being a collector of things for no other reason that you want to collect them.

Old cameras and lenses do look cool, in our office we have a few on display. When we have client meetings they are often commented on. I haven't used any of them ion years and some of them are probably no longer functional, their sole purpose is just decoration. The equipment we use is all kept locked up until we need it.

For someone like yourself were photography is just an interest it is different of course and I would guess that for a lot of people who are interested in photography as a hobby, how equipment looks and feels can be as important as functionality, sometimes even more so, and off course everyone likes nice looking things.




.

 

[woof woof]

You often chat on this forum about all those old lenses you have, but you don't seem to use them much at all. Only going from the posts of yours that I have read, but you seem to get quite excited about the collecting process more than you do about actual photography. There is nothing wrong with that of course. You have said yourself many times before about the multiple 35mm and 50mm ish lenses you own. You have also said many times about the limited amount of time you have available for actually taking photographs.

You definitely appear from your posts on this forum anyway to be a collector of camera equipment, over and above your interest in photography itself and again there is nothing wrong with that, I am not saying that you have no interest in photography, just that you seem from your personna on here anyway to be more interested in equipment and in particular old vintage equipment. You seem to base your buying choices predominantly on what the equipment looks and feels like rather than what it can actually do.

I also talk a lot about equipment on here myself as do the majority of the members here but for me it's always about discussing the best tool for the job rather than chatting about the volume of lenses I own in a particular focal length, what those lenses look like and how they feel.

Yes its true that the two things can sometimes go hand in hand, for example lots of great photographers shoot Fuji for because they like how the equipment looks and feels even when it is rarely the best choice in terms of actual performance. They sacrifice performance and accept limitations because of how the equipment looks and feels to them. Nothing wrong with that it is the same for many other things as well. Each to their own and all that.

You are not heading out for the day with 10 x 35mm lenses shooting the same thing and then choosing between the images based on which one looks best for that particular shot. Your lenses are all gathering dust at home based on what you have previously posted on here. There is nothing wrong with being a collector of things for no other reason that you want to collect them.

Old cameras and lenses do look cool, in our office we have a few on display. When we have client meetings they are often commented on. I haven't used any of them ion years and some of them are probably no longer functional, their sole purpose is just decoration. The equipment we use is all kept locked up until we need it.

For someone like yourself were photography is just an interest it is different of course and I would guess that for a lot of people who are interested in photography as a hobby, how equipment looks and feels can be as important as functionality, sometimes even more so, and off course everyone likes nice looking things.




.

I suppose the numbers are relative. I think I take a lot of pictures but I do accept I'm no machine gunner. I might take 100 pictures on a trip out as I did on Thursday but I might only get one trip out a fortnight. I don't take 1k pictures at an event every weekend or even every night as some do.

You and some others may know as I've talked about it at length on this site, I have responsibilities which mean I'm tied to the house a lot of the time so reading about, researching and buying lenses is a sort of add on hobby to the photography that I only have limited free time to do but photography definitely comes first and any gear collecting is definitely a secondary thing and enjoyment, an add on.

When I can go out the chances are that I'll have a camera with me and it's often a manual lens or lenses although to be honest the Voigtlanders have pushed the old film era primes out a lot. If I'm by myself I might take 2 or more lenses (24 and 50 maybe, 35 and 85 maybe) and all of my old lenses do get used pretty much in rotation so you'll be glad to know that they're not just gathering dust. I might have a Canon FD day and next time I might have a Chinon day. I do use them all and if you were to search the various thread on here you'd probably see pictures taken with them all as I've posted pictures taken with them all. I'm not a collector who puts things in cases, they're all used.

Reading your posts, and this really is not a dig at you, it'd be easy to think that you have little interest in photography as an enjoyable hobby and that could be understandable as you shoot for a living. I'm not saying that's how you actually feel but if it was I could understand as when I used to fix computers I was sick of the sight of them and had no interest in reading about them, talking about them or using them for fun. You never post your work stuff and that's understandable but I don't remember you posting a single picture and whilst that's your choice and maybe understandable I can relate more to people who enthuse and show a bit more passion and enjoyment and post and talk about pictures and the kit more. The only things I do know about your photography are you shoot weddings professionally and like technically good lenses with smooth bokeh. I can see why it's just that I like to compare differences and different looks. I could buy a 50mm f1.2 GM for it's technical excellence but the bulk and weight do put me off and to be honest I'd rather go through the process and learn about and use and enjoy something else.

There's room for all.

Doesn't this just scream... "Go on. Take me out and use me!"

 

[f/1.2]

I suppose the numbers are relative. I think I take a lot of pictures but I do accept I'm no machine gunner. I might take 100 pictures on a trip out as I did on Thursday but I might only get one trip out a fortnight. I don't take 1k pictures at an event every weekend or even every night as some do.

You and some others may know as I've talked about it at length on this site, I have responsibilities which mean I'm tied to the house a lot of the time so reading about, researching and buying lenses is a sort of add on hobby to the photography that I only have limited free time to do but photography definitely comes first and any gear collecting is definitely a secondary thing and enjoyment, an add on.

When I can go out the chances are that I'll have a camera with me and it's often a manual lens or lenses although to be honest the Voigtlanders have pushed the old film era primes out a lot. If I'm by myself I might take 2 or more lenses (24 and 50 maybe, 35 and 85 maybe) and all of my old lenses do get used pretty much in rotation so you'll be glad to know that they're not just gathering dust. I might have a Canon FD day and next time I might have a Chinon day. I do use them all and if you were to search the various thread on here you'd probably see pictures taken with them all as I've posted pictures taken with them all. I'm not a collector who puts things in cases, they're all used.

Reading your posts, and this really is not a dig at you, it'd be easy to think that you have little interest in photography as an enjoyable hobby and that could be understandable as you shoot for a living. I'm not saying that's how you actually feel but if it was I could understand as when I used to fix computers I was sick of the sight of them and had no interest in reading about them, talking about them or using them for fun. You never post your work stuff and that's understandable but I don't remember you posting a single picture and whilst that's your choice and maybe understandable I can relate more to people who enthuse and show a bit more passion and enjoyment and post and talk about pictures and the kit more. The only things I do know about your photography are you shoot weddings professionally and like technically good lenses with smooth bokeh. I can see why it's just that I like to compare differences and different looks. I could buy a 50mm f1.2 GM for it's technical excellence but the bulk and weight do put me off and to be honest I'd rather go through the process and learn about and use and enjoy something else.

There's room for all.

Doesn't this just scream... "Go on. Take me out and use me!"

Your are absolutely right. I have very little interest in photography as a hobby. It’s not that I don’t love photography because I do but I mainly only like photographing people and I get to do that via work.

I have other hobbies that aren’t photography related. I have no doubt though it will return to being my main hobby when I stop working.

 

[woof woof]

Your are absolutely right. I have very little interest in photography as a hobby. It’s not that I don’t love photography because I do but I mainly only like photographing people and I get to do that via work.

I have other hobbies that aren’t photography related. I have no doubt though it will return to being my main hobby when I stop working.

That's good to know.

I still avoid a lot of tech to this day and have no interest at all in computers or smartphones and computer wise I won't have one set up as I think they dominate rooms. I have a lap top which I close and put out of sight when not in use.

 

[Plain Nev]

This Is Just a Part of William Eggleston's Extensive Camera Collection

Want to see what the camera arsenal of a world famous photographer looks like? A photographer whose work fetches millions of dollars at auction? Check out

petapixel.com

What's that, a box full of Zorki's?

 

[adrianday]

The Zuiko 50mm, f/1.8 was the first lens I owned (along with an OM-10). I still remember how the focus ring felt. Just enough resistance in stark contrast to the Canon 50mm, f/1.4 FD that replaced it (along with an A-1). That felt much stiffer.

Moving on a lifetime... I use Voigtlanders today and adore the way they're engineered. I've a 40mm, f/1.4 that's permanently fixed to my Bessa R3M and regularly use the 40mm, f/2 pancake and 58mm, f/1.4 on my NIkons (D810 & F6). There's something very special about the lenses. They improve with use; almost as if they need breaking in, It's hard to fault the craftsmanship which harkens back to a time of brass and chrome.

Well, that's enough sentimentality from me for the day. Time for a cup of tea and some digestives.

 

[Retune]

What's that, a box full of Zorki's?

Wash your mouth out with Dektol!

 

[woof woof]

The Zuiko 50mm, f/1.8 was the first lens I owned (along with an OM-10). I still remember how the focus ring felt. Just enough resistance in stark contrast to the Canon 50mm, f/1.4 FD that replaced it (along with an A-1). That felt much stiffer.

Moving on a lifetime... I use Voigtlanders today and adore the way they're engineered. I've a 40mm, f/1.4 that's permanently fixed to my Bessa R3M and regularly use the 40mm, f/2 pancake and 58mm, f/1.4 on my NIkons (D810 & F6). There's something very special about the lenses. They improve with use; almost as if they need breaking in, It's hard to fault the craftsmanship which harkens back to a time of brass and chrome.

Well, that's enough sentimentality from me for the day. Time for a cup of tea and some digestives.

I used my Zuiko 50mm f1.8 today, plus the 28mm f2.8.

Don't spoil your dinner.