These are my lenses [for my Z6]. AMA.

It's 38 C outside today so we're sheltering in place until this evening. To pass the time then, here are the contents of my lens collection as of July 2024 after some recent trimming. It's pretty eclectic. Any questions? Anything there that interests you? Let me know in the comments and I'll do my best to answer!


(Artralab) unbranded clone of the Artralab lens I bought on eBay from China. (/Y) nominal cost in yen divided by 100, was approx. equal to USD back when I started keeping this list. (*) asterix indicates lenses in regular or recent use.

The list has changed substantially since I bought my Z6 (and sold my D3500 and Pentax K-1). The addition of the Leica M -> Nikon Z adapter was a watershed moment, between the M-mount and the Z-mount manual focus primes I have what I need, and outside of macro my DSLR lenses don't see too much use these days.

To answer a couple of the obvious questions I can think of in advance.

Which is the best lens you own?

Nikon 35/1.4G.

Which is your favorite?

Zeiss C Biogon 35/2.8 ZM.

What's your most used focal length?

35 mm.

Why do you own so many similar lenses?

I like them. For one reason or another, they mean something to me and I appreciate the small differences.

Why do you keep cheap lenses around when you own (moderately) high-end lenses like the Leica Summarit?

Good question! It turns out that imaging traits I find desirable are not exclusive to expensive lenses. No need to be a lens snob. Quite the opposite.

How do you like the Artralab ? Is this one of the "vintage" style lenses ? I was considering ordering one in Z mount of the f/1.4 lenses.

madecov said:

How do you like the Artralab ? Is this one of the "vintage" style lenses ? I was considering ordering one in Z mount of the f/1.4 lenses.

Click to expand...

I was also considering the Z-mount 35/1.4 but have so far held off based on lackluster reviews vs. the relatively high price (since it cannot be bought used).

I have gradually warmed to the 50/1.1 though. At f/4 it's a perfectly useable, clear 50mm, and things get progressively fuzzier and bloomier as you open up to 2.8, 2.0, 1.4, and finally 1.1 where things are just completely wild.

I tend to embrace the look, reinforcing it with black mist filters, and even adding streak filters.

Here are a couple of recent examples, but note this is not the lens itself but the lens with the aforementioned filters added

[I should also add that the handling is really good, nice size and weight, good feel to the focus and aperture rings, everything in the right place. The bayonet hood is a bit dinky, but I can live with that.]


black mist only


black mist only


black mist + blue streak


black mist + blue streak


black mist only

Do you have examples of photos taken with these lenses that you feel cannot be captured or would look significantly different if taken with the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses?

Fabian Joya said:

Do you have examples of photos taken with these lenses that you feel cannot be captured or would look significantly different if taken with the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses?

Click to expand...

The only limitations of a lens are the focal length and aperture, outside of that there's nothing my Summarit 50/2.5 can do for example that any other 50 mm cannot replicate.

It's just a matter of what kind of rendering you prefer, and how much you prioritize these subtle differences over other things such as price or convenience.

But okay, let's play the game you seem to be requesting - though I warn you that such comparisons inevitably fail to satisfy. Here's a shot taken with the 35/1.8S:


Nikkor Z 35mm F1.8 S

and here's the same subject taken with the Voigtlander 35mm F1.7 VM a few moments later,


Voigtlander 35mm F1.7 VM

What do you think? Which do you prefer?

You will see that the Voigtlander is among my current lenses while the Nikkor is not, which gives you the answer to the latter question from my side.

Richard Murdey said:

Fabian Joya said:

Do you have examples of photos taken with these lenses that you feel cannot be captured or would look significantly different if taken with the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses?

Click to expand...

The only limitations of a lens are the focal length and aperture, outside of that there's nothing my Summarit 50/2.5 can do for example that any other 50 mm cannot replicate.

It's just a matter of what kind of rendering you prefer, and how much you prioritize these subtle differences over other things such as price or convenience.

But okay, let's play the game you seem to be requesting - though I warn you that such comparisons inevitably fail to satisfy. Here's a shot taken with the 35/1.8S:


Nikkor Z 35mm F1.8 S

and here's the same subject taken with the Voigtlander 35mm F1.7 VM a few moments later,


Voigtlander 35mm F1.7 VM

What do you think? Which do you prefer?

You will see that the Voigtlander is among my current lenses while the Nikkor is not, which gives you the answer to the latter question from my side.

Click to expand...

A little hard to judge because the light, composition and exposure is different. Plus it's only a single photo. How would you describe the difference? Why do you prefer the Voigtlander?

Fabian Joya said:

A little hard to judge because the light, composition and exposure is different. Plus it's only a single photo. How would you describe the difference? Why do you prefer the Voigtlander?

Click to expand...

It's perhaps hard to see without knowing what to look for, but the Voigtlander consistently has deeper/richer colors, smoother, more attractive bokeh, and - crucially - a more three-dimensional, lifelike look. I found the Nikkor Z 35/1.8S to be dull/dry/flat in comparison, even though, as evidenced in that example, it's the sharper of the two.

Of course, you are welcome to form a different opinion. Perhaps the difference in sharpness is more important to you. Perhaps you cannot distinguish any practical difference in the quality of the blur. So it goes...

By the way, this isn't a characteristic of the Voigtlander in particular (the "3D pop" is on par with most of my other good lenses), the lifelessness or "joylessness" (for lack of a better term) is more of a peculiarity of the 1.8S Nikkors. [This may be a side effect of a lens design that optimizes sharpness at wide apertures, or overly aggressive anti-flare coatings, I really have no idea.]

Richard Murdey said:

Fabian Joya said:

A little hard to judge because the light, composition and exposure is different. Plus it's only a single photo. How would you describe the difference? Why do you prefer the Voigtlander?

Click to expand...

It's perhaps hard to see without knowing what to look for, but the Voigtlander consistently has deeper/richer colors, smoother, more attractive bokeh, and - crucially - a more three-dimensional, lifelike look. I found the Nikkor Z 35/1.8S to be dull/dry/flat in comparison, even though, as evidenced in that example, it's the sharper of the two.

Click to expand...

Yes, judging from the example you provided, I agree with you. I would characterize the picture taken with the Voigtlander as having much higher contrast, a more attractive bokeh, and a more three-dimensional look. I can see why you prefer that lens.

The difference in contrast surprised me the most, because the MTF chart for the Nikon shows it to have excellent contrast.

IMPRESSIVE lens collection. And I notice you favor wide to normal focal lengths -- as do I for whatever that is worth...

Regardless, in these kinds of discussions, I would like to know what post processing you are using. Are you shooting RAW, or are these JPEGS out of camera?

If RAW how are they converted?

No criticism here intended. But how the images get to me as viewer is interesting too.

Save raw, and convert in NX Studio. I don't normally spend too much time on post-processing though, many photos are saved close to if not exactly at the in-camera settings. It's more of an insurance policy.

Richard Murdey said:

Save raw, and convert in NX Studio. I don't normally spend too much time on post-processing though, many photos are saved close to if not exactly at the in-camera settings. It's more of an insurance policy.

Click to expand...

OK. Thanks. I use NX Studio for conversion as well.

Fabian Joya said:

Richard Murdey said:

Fabian Joya said:

A little hard to judge because the light, composition and exposure is different. Plus it's only a single photo. How would you describe the difference? Why do you prefer the Voigtlander?

Click to expand...

It's perhaps hard to see without knowing what to look for, but the Voigtlander consistently has deeper/richer colors, smoother, more attractive bokeh, and - crucially - a more three-dimensional, lifelike look. I found the Nikkor Z 35/1.8S to be dull/dry/flat in comparison, even though, as evidenced in that example, it's the sharper of the two.

Click to expand...

Yes, judging from the example you provided, I agree with you. I would characterize the picture taken with the Voigtlander as having much higher contrast, a more attractive bokeh, and a more three-dimensional look. I can see why you prefer that lens.

The difference in contrast surprised me the most, because the MTF chart for the Nikon shows it to have excellent contrast.

Click to expand...

Is that the lens or the composition? The interesting lines in the Voigtlander image give much more perspective and dimension than essentially all sky in the Nikon image.

Fabian Joya said:

Do you have examples of photos taken with these lenses that you feel cannot be captured or would look significantly different if taken with the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses?

Click to expand...

After the OP's last thread where they denounced the Nikon Z 1.8 primes, this was my question as well. But they seem to have abandoned that one and not responded at all, even after it got dozens of replies.

egk4260 said:

Is that the lens or the composition? The interesting lines in the Voigtlander image give much more perspective and dimension than essentially all sky in the Nikon image.

Click to expand...

Despite the framing differences, the photos are representative of the output from each lens - at least in that kind of general-use scenario. Used at night for example, wide open, would highlight another set of characteristics.

Wezre said:

Fabian Joya said:

Do you have examples of photos taken with these lenses that you feel cannot be captured or would look significantly different if taken with the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses?

Click to expand...

After the OP's last thread where they denounced the Nikon Z 1.8 primes, this was my question as well. But they seem to have abandoned that one and not responded at all, even after it got dozens of replies.

Click to expand...

I read a few responses, if I missed anything later on that was worth replying to let me know.

Most of it was people telling me I was wrong because my evaluation didn't align with their worldview. A predictable reaction which I see no value in interacting with. I'm not here to change your mind.

Richard Murdey said:

Wezre said:

Fabian Joya said:

Do you have examples of photos taken with these lenses that you feel cannot be captured or would look significantly different if taken with the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses?

Click to expand...

After the OP's last thread where they denounced the Nikon Z 1.8 primes, this was my question as well. But they seem to have abandoned that one and not responded at all, even after it got dozens of replies.

Click to expand...

I read a few responses, if I missed anything later on that was worth replying to let me know.

Most of it was people telling me I was wrong because my evaluation didn't align with their worldview. A predictable reaction which I see no value in interacting with. I'm not here to change your mind.

Click to expand...

That’s fine, but this is a discussion forum. When people take time to respond, it’s fair to expect the OP to discuss what’s said. Especially when presented with a few fairly controversial statements from the OP. Posters asked why you felt that way and I personally asked for you to describe how you felt about the rendering characteristics of a few photos, since that was a major point of contention.

Richard Murdey said:

Wezre said:

Fabian Joya said:

Do you have examples of photos taken with these lenses that you feel cannot be captured or would look significantly different if taken with the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses?

Click to expand...

After the OP's last thread where they denounced the Nikon Z 1.8 primes, this was my question as well. But they seem to have abandoned that one and not responded at all, even after it got dozens of replies.

Click to expand...

I read a few responses, if I missed anything later on that was worth replying to let me know.

Most of it was people telling me I was wrong because my evaluation didn't align with their worldview. A predictable reaction which I see no value in interacting with. I'm not here to change your mind.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I don't believe you. You wrote a 600+ word manifesto, full of provocative, contrarian claims and baseless speculation, pre-emptively dismissed any counter-arguments or evidence, got hammered for it, and ran away. That's my take.

Nobody invests that kind of time and effort, who does not care whether or not they are persuading anyone.

I think you managed to be both long-winded and unconvincing - not a good combination, from a writing perspective I mean. But if you truly don't care about that, it's probably a good thing! =)

--
Jonathan
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jtr27/

I see you like your 35mm lenses. Did you ever try the 35mm f2? If so, how did it compare with your favourite - the 1.4G?

I currently shoot the 35mm f2 but I use it primarily for film.

jtr27 said:

I am sorry, but I don't believe you.

Click to expand...

But why does that bother you so? Don't then.

I bought the lenses. For a year or so I compared them with others I used. I sold them because I liked the others better. I took time to explain why because this notion of what makes a lens "satisfying" vs. "good" both bothers and interests me and I wanted to share the results.

Pragmatists/objectivists reject this distinction out of principle, but as I said, that's their worldview. I have nothing to say to them, and nothing they say is of any interest to me.

jimmy.walsh said:

I see you like your 35mm lenses. Did you ever try the 35mm f2? If so, how did it compare with your favourite - the 1.4G?

I currently shoot the 35mm f2 but I use it primarily for film.

Click to expand...

Which 35/2 do you mean?

I've owned the Nikon Nikkor-O and O.C. 35/2, the Ai 35/2, and the Nikon AF-D 35/2. And the Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZF.