The Greatest Camera Ever Made

Ha! knew that would get you reading!!

The sound of false-teeth smashing against phones and tablets and monitors is really incredibly loud . . . you've just spilled coffee all over your nice new slacks . . . there's toast crumbs splattered all over the front of the Guardian . . .

Why Sheephouse?

Why are you doing this to us? We're all comfortable and stuff! We don't have to think about anything any more!!

Why? you ask.

Well, because I have declared something which, though contentious (and obviously one man's meat is another man's septic boil, so YUMV as they say in modern parlance) I believe to be true.
Maybe I should call this, The Greatest 35mm Ever Made instead, because of my fondness for the Rolleiflex T (and coincidentally my good chum Bruce's fondness for the Rolleiflex in general [he's got 3] - no collusion, honest missus - he was supposed to synchonise this post with mine [a double-whammy as it were] so if the link doesn't take you to his page about Rolleis, blame him) . . . however that title doesn't nearly grab you by the doo-dads as much, so . . . Camera it is!

***

Regular F'ers will know that I am in the midst of a love affair with the Leica M2 - and why not - he's a lovely old man who has had a hard working life and is enjoying his retirement with some excellent day trips and TLC, cup-cakes, tea, and a nice comfy armchair in the evening. He's even sent you a postcard or two y'know, unless the pooch has eaten them again! 

There's nothing at all like the handling of the M2 - it is quick, intuitive and simple; no high-fangled gizmos or unecessary dangly bits; no meter, just a film advance and shutter speed dial, frame preview and self-timer. Marry up a lens and you have focus and f-stop too, and that's it. 

It's as easy as anything to take photographs with, and as near to as close to being an extension of your brain, eye and fingers (and thumb) as you could wish.
Like I said he's a lovely old man and still very nimble for his age.

However, recently, feeling guilty (because I hadn't used them for a while) I hauled out my wee collection of Nikons: the Nikon F, the Nikon F2 and the Nikon F3 (I also have an original Nikomat FTn, but he's excluded from this . . though he's still working very well) and had a wee marvel at them.
I am very lucky to own these - the F and F2 (and the Nikomat, though that was from an Uncle) were gifts to me from my friend Canadian Bob, and had belonged to his Parents-In-Law, Len & Joyce Holmes, who had bought them new and had used them extensively in wildlife and plant photography right up till they went digital - so that tallied approximately 35 years of good service. 

They gifted them to me in the knowledge that I would continue to use them, and in my hands I have - a lot, and only put them aside after buying the Leica, because as great as the Nikons are, they are a trifle heavy to lug around all day whilst on holiday . . .

(The F3 I bought myself from Ffordes because I intended running colour film through it and I felt the meter would be more accurate (which it is) . . it was cheap, and serviced and is also a superb camera.)

But anyway, back to the Canadian connection - in the same box as the F's, was an extensive collection of pre-Ai Nikkors too! here comes the list:
35mm f2
50mm f1.4
105mm f2.5
300mm f4.5
500mm f8
80-200mm zoom
You have no idea of the weight of that box, but it was really heavy and vastly exciting to open - the ghosts of the olde photogs who haunt Chateau Sheephouse were gathered thickly around the table as I cleared away all the polystyrene and air-bags . . .

The Canadian Box Of Joy.
Left To Right: F2 With 50mm f1.4, 500mm f8, 105mm f2.5, 80-200mm Zoom, 300mm f4.5, F with 35mm f2.
Can You Imagine Getting A Box With This Lot in?

The lenses were all in lovely condition with no problems with the glass, and in the case of the 500mm, I would say almost unused.
Over the years I have tried all of them out, and for my purposes, the ones I am most warmly attached to are the 50mm f1.4 S.C and the 35mm f2 'O'.

People talk about Leitz bokeh and detail, and then others will chime in with certain Pentax lenses and the odd Zuiko, but let me say here and now, the olde pre-Ai Nikkors really have something, and although the prices are starting to creep up (gone are the days a few years back when you could pick a pre-Ai up for as cheap as £30) they are still, for such high quality lenses, almost as cheap as chimps these days (not that chimps are cheap . . you try dealing with their food requirements, entertainment and potty training . . )
In short, these redoubtable, bomb-proof, pieces of Brass, Aluminium, Black Lacquer and solidity are really wonderful lenses.

Marry the 50mm f1.4 up with the nice and bright viewfinder of the original F and you have a standard lens dream-team. The 1.4 is lovely and soft where it needs to be and hellish sharp in the central region - in other words it does what it needs to do - concentrates the eye on the subject matter and gives things a thoroughly natural look, and that's as technical as a Sheephouse lens test is going to get! To put it bluntly, it makes photographs - ones you can be proud of.

Here's a few (not great, but I like them) pics I made with it

Gordon

Suzi

Alec Turnips

Joanna

See what I mean about the lovely out of focus bits? I think the lens gives things a wonderfully naturalistic look.

(And yes, I know I've (mostly) chopped the top of their heads off, so stop moaning about it . . it was a deliberate bit of artistic artifice OK? In the spirit of the greatest drinking toast ever "Take The Lid Off Your Id!" I thought I would signify that whilst you might be posing for a photograph, it is always better to let your ego and super-ego go elsewhere, allowing the id to have its day in the sun, OK? 

Everyone (do they really Sheephouse?) knose that  the ego and super-ego are what let you down when they get involved in photographs . . that half-shut eye, the gawky mouth, the snotty nose, the dribbles . . the egos, whilst trying to make sure that you look conformed for your pose, will often result in conflict, so you end up with a shit picture of yourself . . oh the pressures of conformity

My tip for a good portrait, if you are a victim and you haven't had a drink (everyone knose that a drink frees the inner you) - briefly close your eyes, centre your person comfortably in your head, feel the world under your feet, relax, open your eyes and look straight at the camera (or failing that, just PShop the fecker).

These portraits are (I think) lovely and natural . . the real nature of my victims is on display, they are free of controlling nature, hence my chopping of their heads . . 

Of course, this could all be total bollocks - it is up to you to decide.)

But back to the lenses - here's a couple more now - these were made with the venerable 35mm f2 'O' - it's a lens that has a cult following and actually it isn't hard to see why - I've had an enormous amount of pleasure using this lens - and it too has a very natural look to it.

Circus Poster In A Window

June 23rd

See what I mean - it's a great lens and not only that, can focus to just under 1 foot (0.3 meters).
But anyway, I am deviating again - it's easy to see that the pre-Ai's are fantastic and after all, a camera system is really ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS LENSES, so where does that leave us?
Ah yes, The F! 
It's a weighty camera if you aren't used to such things, solid like a brick or a tool should be, but its weight belies its finesse, because, unsurprisingly it's a picture-making machine that's as easy and as natural to use as the Leica M.
OK, well, that one over there, go on, pick him up - he won't mind - now, whilst you've got this heavy old beast up to your eye, ponder a minute. 

Yes that is 100% of what will appear on the film that you're looking at. 

Let me repeat that:

100%

Not 94%, or 97% but a full-on 100%.

I have no idea why so few SLR manufacturers ever managed to produce a 100% viewfinder, but Nikon got it right from the start - OK, strike One, the F wins.

Now turn that wonderfully awkward shutter dial back to 1 second and gently squeeze the shutter release. That lovely, deep, throaty whirr, is a sound to quicken the pulse isn't it.

I don't think Len ever had this (his original F) serviced, but at 1 second it is still accurate after 40 years of use.

The mirror moves up with a solid, but non-jarring thwok, and comes down again with the same movement. There is little vibration, unlike some SLRs I've used that go clackety-clack-THWAK!

OK, I will admit it isn't quite like using a Leica, whose buttery-smooth film advance is un-matched; on the F it is a bit 'harsher', but not harsh. There is obviously more movement from it because it has a mirror, so it requires concentration when you get down to lower speeds, though lock the mirror up (the worst operational aspect of the F) and the actual shutter is equally as quiet as the M2.

The shutter release has a deeper action to it than the M2, in that it requires a bit more effort to depress it, but glue it to your eye (or get a Nikon soft release) and get in the thick of the action and I am damn sure you'd never even notice.

The weight of the camera, isn't anyway near as sylph-like as a Leica M - if you were a swordsman, it would be like comparing a sabre to an épée, in that whilst they are both heavy duty, workmanlike items, the épée is more easily wielded. 

I know all this sounds like total shite, but I have fenced, and it is just my weighing of things.

***

Another Sheephouse aside:

My sister had a long-term relationship (and two daughters) with the rock photographer David Warner Ellis (just Google Image him . . you'll find a lot of stuff coming up under Redferns and Getty Images . . that's him). You've maybe never heard of him,  but, if you like music (especially from the 1970's) you will have seen a lot of his photographs, that is a certainty.

David was a fine photographer and owned one camera for his professional work . . . through his heyday of the 1970's and onwards to his death in the early 2000's - an F Photomic FTN.

Photography was his life and his livelihood, and the camera served beyond the call of duty. And the thing is it still works, and though it could do with a bit of TLC and some new mirror foam, other than that it was fine last time I met it. I don't think it was ever serviced either, just used, hard, and relied on as a professional tool

I find that remarkable - how many cameras can you say that about?

***

Well that was the question I asked myself, and, thinking about it a lot, what with David's use and Len's use and the countless professionals and amateurs who used them and still use them, and you know what? the more I thought about it, the more I inspected my own FTN.
I weighed it in my hands, felt its chunky solidity; I disassembled it and put it back together again; I loaded it with TMX 400 and shot real, live photographs with it;  I hefted it, carried it, balanced it, and felt that what I had in my hands (like a Leica M) transcended just mere mechanics - it had that zen feel you get from remarkable tools.
I thought about it and researched it and read about it (looking at Vietnam veterans tales of it being dropped from helicopters, shot at, blown up, soaked and burned, whilst becoming the stuff of legend).
I looked at old newsreel footage where every press photographer seems to be using an F.
I realised that sometimes things become invisible, simply because they are commonplace and with the F that was the case . . . and for a reason.

Battlescars.
Don McCullin's F.
Build Quality Entirely Evident.

Was there anyone back in the day that hadn't  used one?
Was there anything this camera hadn't photographed?

I looked at the accessories.
I looked at the most complete lens system ever devised for a camera system (from the start of manufacturing!) and I discovered that the lenses had the reputation of having some of the best coatings ever coated; that the machining on them was superlative, that they used (the then new) synthetic lubricants and adhesives, and that compared to Leitz lenses of the same period, were more likely to be in fine nick (and a good deal more reasonable to buy). 

And from all this I came to a conclusion:

(Roll the drums, bring on the parade) 

The Nikon F is the greatest camera ever made. 

I know.

It does sound like I am being disloyal to my Leica, but I am not really.

What can you say about a Leica that hasn't been said? It's an icon, and I still feel there is nothing like one . . . 

However, in terms of sheer bombproofness and ultimate reliability, I genuinely feel that the Nikon F has the edge.

This is my F

 ***

But what about the F2 Sheepy? I hear you ask.
Well, there is a place for that too, and many regard that as the ultimate SLR, however, owning both (and initially only using the F2 because of the crutch that it had of a working and reliable meter [more of the meter on the F in a minute]) and after replacing the few seals I had to replace on both and taking both out for dawdles and wanders, I came to the conclusion that the F is the better balanced and better handling camera (strangely Len agreed with me on this too).

Obviously this will vary with user, but to my hands, I like the blockier body of the F.

I like the fact that it isn't so easy to lock the mirror up (best not to even go there) and you have to turn a collar to get the thing to rewind.
I like the lower centre of gravity you get from the FTN head compared to the AS head I have on the F2 - it's almost intangible, but it does affect the way the camera handles.

I like the completely removable camera back and the (supposed) awkwardness of loading (till you get used to it).
I love that I get 100%
And I love the feel of its rugged mechanics.

In short I love its character. 

And unusually for an SLR, it has that in spades.
It's weird isn't it - most SLR's are fairly characterless don't you think?

I once owned a Pentax MX and it was lovely, yet totally anonymous - my OM 10 was a bit like that too, though I loved it.

On the other hand, the F is an aging Japanese gentleman, who is wirey, opinionated and a bit curmudgeonly, but despite his gnarly appearance is still fit and nimble. 

Compare that to the bloated grandchildren from numerous manufacturers that clog ebay selling for a mere handful of money compared to their once over-priced selves.

What you get with the F is build build build

To me, it is an iconoclastic camera - a genuine, hands-down, brilliant piece of engineering.

Even with the achilles heel of its meter (which, with a lot of them no longer operating, is still easy to deal with if you use the likes of a Northern European Sunny 11, and yes I know you can still get the plain prisms, but I see no reason to pay the massively over-priced prices that are being demanded for them - this being said I'd love to try one, but are they really worth the £200+ premium?) I still think a non-working meter FTN would be the way to go and let's put it this way, it's exactly the same as using a non-metered Leica . . simple - let the films latitude deal with things. 

Do a Gibson!
Sunny weather, Tri-X at EI 320, 1/125th at f16 in Northern Europe - piece of cake. 

Of course you can do this with any camera, and especially a Leica, however, the cost of a nice F is nowhere near the cost of a Leica and it may well be a lot more non-reliant on regular servicing. 

I also feel that you would be likely to feel less precious about it, given that what you are holding will still probably be around when all that is left is ashes and dust, scorpions and radiation.

Ivor Mantale did an excellent article on the F years back, and in it, he said he had asked a dealer whether the F was a collectable camera, or just an old camera . . . well it is both, AND it is also a reliable tool for the modern photographer. Get one serviced by the likes of Sover Wong and you have something that will outlast your eyes.

And so my rant and rave comes to an end friends - I know you're aghast and are saying "What about?", but have pity on an old man - sometimes you just have to speak out.
There is so much shite spouted about cameras on the net, most of it by people who like the idea of photography and immerse themselves fanboy-like in it, buying the most expensive things they can, without actually making any photographs.

With so few film cameras still being made younger photographers wishing to sample the delights with which we older photographers were brought up (and came to take for granted) couldn't really do any better than investing in a nice clean old F, even with a non-working meter . . .
Really - trust me.
Feel the heft. 

Feel the quality. 

Feel the legend (and it is one).

Feel the all-round essence of something that is as close to mechanical perfection as you can get, and then go out and make photographs. 

Lots and lots and lots of them.

TTFN. This month is pink pill month - just remember to tell your carer that.

A Brief Word About Lenses

Greetings Shipmates!
Well, what a week it has been. We been helping Mr.Sheephouse out, and we're plain knackered. It was shifting boxes here, shifting boxes there; sorting out this, sorting out that; a scritchin' and a scatchin' with a quill; use of the magnifier.
We even purloined a light.
Not just any light either but The Stevenson on the Mull O'Galloway.
Oh yes, up there at night, pieces of glass held up against its God-like brightness, checking for imperfections and blemishes.
What a week for it.
We settled in at the Stevenson though, even though we weren't supposed to be there. You can't beat a lighthouse in good weather and this is a beauty.
Clear views to the Lakes and the Isle 'O'Man and Ireland. Puffins and gulls. Wide vistas and clean air.
It also has the best collection  of snails I have ever seen (on a south facing wall) - there be hunners o' them - big too. We likes a snail or six, quick fried with garlic an' butter.
Mog hates them though, so he had to make do with a few tins o'Kattomeat from a local emporium.
Oh yes, what a week.
And then when everything was checked it was back on the Goode Shippe FB and off on the seas of ether.
We's got a long haul ahead of us this week though, he's threatening to lock us in his darkroom again so we might be out of signalling distance for some while.
Still, at least we've got a couple o'hunnerweight o'snails to keep us company.

***

I will warn you in advance - there are a lot of photographs in this weeks FB.

It is strange really and doesn't seem to make any sense at all, but quite a number of years ago, a weird phenomena overtook the world of photography, and it doesn't actually seem to be getting any less. If anything it is on the increase. And I find it hard to get myself into the mindset-cave where it is residing like some big cave-dwelling thing, waiting to devour passers-by.

Surely, photography, any form of photography, is all about the image.
I would hope that any of you reading this that aren't even of a photographic bent would realise this. Snaps of Aunty Tony and Uncle Sally, Nobby the Cat, your children, neighbours, friends, that tree that looms over your garden, a house, a bowl of pasta . . . get my drift . . . a photograph needs subject matter, and more to the point, the subject matter needs to be the reason for the photograph.

I've been doing a lot of legwork in the ether in the past few weeks, checking out lenses and their out of focus characteristics, and also the way they handle contrast and skin tones and detail, and having done all this, I have come to the conclusion that photography, which was once a means to an end, seems to have become an end to a means.

I'm going to be contentious here, but at the risk of getting my baseball cap knocked off my head by the youth with the cudgel, I'll say it anways:

Photography, looks like it has become almost exclusively a 'lads' hobby.

There . .

OUCH!

Let me try and explain how I came to this conclusion at the risk of alienating any female readers.
In much the same way when I was young, male teenagers of 14 and 15 and 16 yearned for a Yamaha 125, or a Kracker (Kawasaki) or a Suzuki moped, now, men (and some women, but mostly men) of a certain age, seem to have have become obsessed with cameras and lenses.
And it is a strange obsession, because it doesn't actually seem to have anything to do with what you can do with a camera. No, it is more of a 'let's-have-it-up-on-the-ramps-and lets-check-this-beauty-from-underneath' type of attitude.

I fully understand that the fascination with the beauty of cameras has been there from the start, and I have that fascination too, however it seems to have turned a corner and now what we are getting is the wholesale grading of every lens ever made with buyers in search of some magical extra something that will make them a better photographer.

So what you have is

Either

everything shot wide open,

Or

everything shot with a regard as to how sharp a picture is.

If it isn't sharp or if it isn't pleasantly smooth, then the lens seems to get disparaged.

Subject matter has nothing to do with it.

Common problems like closeness of subject matter and it's inherent lack of depth of focus, and landscapes and apparent depth of field, are discarded. Hardly anyone mentions the use of tripods or monopods in aiding a steady camera, or mentions the influence a mirror will have in its movements. There is no talk of how a lighter-bodied camera can actually make things worse. Photographic technique and craft? Forget it.

If a lens isn't sharp at maximum aperture, if it doesn't have bokeh smoother than James Bond, then it is almost totally disregarded and the madness and hunger drives them ever onwards.

I think I could understand this if interesting photographs were being made, but they aren't.

Not by a hole a million miles wide they aren't.

Lenses, and the whole point for their existence, photographs seem to have become a diversion from the main meat and potatoes.

We have entered the world of the Cool Wall, but with small bits of glass and brass and aluminium and lubricants.

On the Top Gear Cool Wall, millionaire's toys are paraded around with an audience hungry for petrol fumes and 'fun' and a total disregard for anything nearing practicality.

I used to love Top Gear, but I stopped watching it years ago because it became a semi-pathetic parade of middle-aged men strutting around with their flies open.

Everything became about the fastest, loudest, smoothest, most expensive, most exclusive.
'Petrol Heads' the world over fired up by this boy's-own attitude became intent on using up as much of the finite resource that is oil as possible, with scant regard for the planet's future (don't worry . . I'm not going to soapbox)

Do you know what I mean?

And this Bigger, Stronger, Faster, More attitude has now saturated my rather quaint world.

My Morris Minor Convertible has been nicked and pimped.

I spotted it the other day, harassing some Grannies.
Gone are it's wooden panels and old world charm, it is now sporting Twin-Carburettors, a jacked suspension and a 22 inch Sub-Woofer.

Instead of transporting its occupants on a pleasant Sunday drive for a spot of fishing, it now cruises to the nearest Drive-Thru for the consumption of mechanised meat.
(And whilst I am on the subject, if you eat meat, you'd better get used to becoming a vegetarian .  .there's no way we can sustain current meat production for the populations the world has. Remember the hydroponics plants so beloved of Science Fiction films? They're coming my friends. It's the only way to deal with the coming Hungers.)

Anyway, stop looking at your burger . . it's back on with the lecture!

When I started taking photographs I started because it was part of my college course and because my inherent curiosity about the world seemed to click ('scuse the pun) with making a photograph. I became fascinated with what things looked like in Black And White. I also became fascinated with maybe trying to single out things in this crazy world that looked a little different to my eyes. In a few words, I found a creative pursuit that would enable me to express myself in fuller terms than just playing the guitar.

My pursuit was borne of creativity and is still fired by it, and will continue to be so till I stop.

Yes I love cameras, for what they can do, but they are a means to an end and not the other way round.
Anyway, in the interests of the subject matter of this FB, I have compiled my own tongue in cheek

Cool Wall

Sub Zero

Leitz Summicrons and Summiluxes and Noctiluxes

Cooke Portrait lenses

Aero-Ektars

Anything of historical note with an aperture wider than f1.8

Large format lenses from the golden age of Pictorialism

Zeiss Planars and variations thereof

Zeiss Sonnars and variations thereof

Dokter Optik
There's bound to be a few more, but this isn't meant to be a definitive list

Cool

Plastic lenses from plastic cameras

Lens Babys

Nikon/Pentax/Canon/Olympus prime lenses with a highly regarded reputation (Like the Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4)

Ancient prime lenses from the 1950's and '60's

High End Mainstream Manufacturer lenses (the likes of the ED Nikkors)

Lomo

Diana

Kodak Ektar

Anything else other than the pinnacles, with Leitz or Zeiss engraved on it

Some Russian lenses

Nikon and Canon Rangefinder lenses
Certain Schneider, Rodenstock and  Fujinon Large Format lenses
Nikon large format lenses
Hasselblad

Uncool

Zoom  lenses

Praktika

Minolta
Olympus
Canon FD

Most 'ordinary' Rodenstock and Schneider and Fujinon large format lenses

Ordinary mainstream lenses from the likes of Nikon and Pentax and Canon
Rollei MF SLR lenses

Seriously Uncool

Anything by Vivitar, Tamron and other third party manufacturers making lenses for a less well-off mainstream camera buyer

Cheap Bundled mainstream Zoom Lenses

Lenses from people like Soligor - basically manufacturers now long extinct, who were possibly questionable at the time anyway
Zenit

***

You'll probably disagree with the list, but then it is just knocked up with only a tiny amount of thought at a ridiculously early hour of the morning whilst recovering from too much wine, so feel free!

This situation has led me to become convinced that what we now have is a:

Whoargh  

Look at the lens on that! 

Cwoooor
Check out them f-stops 

Cwooooooorrrrr 

Gauss?
Gauss! 

CWOOOAR 

Tessar?
Whooooohhh
Got Symmetrical Dialyte?
Drool

situation.

So, is there any point in this activity at all?

To be honest, I think the answer to that is no, and yet everyone seems to do it!

I'll just ask one question (and the ghosts of Eugene and Ansel and Henri and Wynn and Edward and Clarence are right behind me on this):

Are you going to make a photograph with that lens or are you just going to snap away at random objects and then see how sharp/smooth your new acquisition is? 

It is almost getting to the point where one questions a photograph anyway these days.

This is an enormously complicated subject and way beyond FB, because I could ramble on for far longer than anyone could be bothered with, but the photographic world seems to be morphing (a terrible word) between having a tool that one uses to interpret your take on the world and a gleaming chunk of metal that you polish on your driveway every week.

Faster.
Sharper.
Smoother.
More Expensive . . .

Does this make any sense to you? I sort of know what I am trying to say, but I am finding it hard to express myself (unusually).

Anyway, I have actually been there and done it, but only in a modest manner.

I've printed and checked and enlarged, and I will now bring out my soapbox and say that really it doesn't seem to matter very much at all.

What matters most is your subject and the way you have observed it.

That my friends is the whole point of picking up a camera in the first place.

It is your recorder of the world you are travelling through.

Anyway, enough of my personal opinions - you lot must get sick to the high teeth of them . . but as I have said before this Blog is my little domain and I can do what I like.

Just to show how very little difference things make (to me) I have included some images made with prime lenses from several different manufacturers.

It isn't an exhaustive list, just what I have to hand.

The only slight difference between any of them is film - it is a mix of Rollei RPX 100, Kodak Tri-X and TMAX 400 and Ilford Delta 400, and camera - SLR and Rangefinder, and camera-shake.

See if you can see a difference that is worth spending hours mulling over, other than the fact that the subject matter might or might not be interesting.

I apologise for the alignment - I couldn't be arsed finding out how to do it properly, plus I ran out of time . . . also the horizontal banding on some of them is from my ***ing scanner . . .

Here goes:

The above were made using a Pre-Ai 50mm f1.4 Nikkor on a Nikon F2.

Possibly my favourite lens - totally sharp wide open and detailed stopped down.

These were from the highly regarded SMC-M Pentax 50mm f1.4, used on a Pentax MX . .

Notice much difference?

The OOFA on this lens was always particularly nice.

And again - the above were from a 1980's Russian 50mm f2 Jupiter 8 used on a 1950's Leica.

Whacker-whacker-whacker . . can you tell what it is yet?

Character is what you get with this lens  - it is soft but does that make a difference?

The three above are from a pantheon of photographic achievement - quite remarkable seeing as it is nearly 80 years old . . a 1934 50mm f3.5 leitz Elmar (uncoated).

A very well made lens with great qualities.

Better in the 3 to 30 feet category and beautiful OOFA.

I'll even add some different focal lengths into the mix.

This is the sharpest lens I own - a Pre-Ai 55mm f3.5 self-compensating Micro-Nikkor - it is astonishing. So astonishing that they adapted it for film camera use when making the original Star Wars films.

It isn't nearly as good at infinity though - but you can't touch it for extreme close to near distance.

Ok, we'll take it down a shade now - the above were made with the humble 40mm f2.8 D.Zuiko on an Olympus Trip.

Nothing too tardy here I can tell you - very sharp all round with nice qualities.

Something a bit wider now - the three above were made with a Pre-Ai 35mm f2 Nikkor.

Sheer quality and great OOFA and sharpness - also a favourite lens.

It has great 'pictorial' qualities.

                                                     

And finally, some bottom feeding. The lens above is a Nikkor again, however this time the widest I own - a 28mm f2.8 (non-zoom) Nikkor on the lowly AFS600 compact which I purchased for the grand sum of £5.

The lens is actually very sharp indeed and with minimal shutter lag, if you want an all electronic film camera for general purpose picture making then this would be a good choice . .  .if you can find one!

The rewind motor is as noisy as hell though.

***

So there you go.

Be honest, can you notice any discernible difference other than subject matter and focal length?
Of course lenses are different and the variations are enormous, and owning a nice lens, is a nice thing, but it really isn't the be-all and end-all as far as I can see.
Maybe I am being naiive and stupid, but to me, the important thing is to make photographs.

I had fun making these photographs and printing them - they are my take on things.

They haven't been over-analysed, or mulled over (very much) - they are all to a man, photographs, not lens tests.

So try and get on with things.

In the words of Bobby McFerrin:
Don't Worry, Be Happy

and in the words of Tommy McFerrett:

Nae Worries, Any Lenses, Happy Bunny

Life is short, good light is shorter.
Stop reading about differences, spend the time on learning photographic craft skills - they will always see you right, and get out and make some photographs you can be proud of!
There'll be no FB next week for the simple reason that I need to organise my negatives and get some printing done (yes . . even at my usual ungodly hour of the morning). It might not seem like a lot of work, but each FB is hand-crafted, lovingly carved from words and given a final buff-up before being presented to you . . in other words they take up a huge amount of creative time, and I have let my filing slide!
Also I need to freshen my brain up. Winter's coming up fast - if I want to entertain you I need to take some time out and think about what to write. And also, I am just not sure how long FB can go on. Yes it has sharpened my writing, and yes it has been fun . . but I am not sure how much more I have to say . . . so we shall see. I know I have some regular readers out there . . and a big thank you for that - it is appreciated. So we shall see. I will be back though, even if it is briefly (I've got some planned that'll have you wringing your withers . . .), so worryeth not!
Anyway, as usual, take care, God bless, thanks for reading . . over and out.