Beautiful versus useful lenses

[edumad]

I would bet most of those here with more than 3 manual lenses don't have the lenses because they are using them all the time.
Multiple 50mm, multiple 135mm, sometimes more than one copy of the exact same lens.

But my point is not about lens buying addiction, but more why some lenses are more attracting.

I appreciate design, so look many times to lenses and cameras as beautiful items of design.
I think many share the same view, some lenses we want because they are beautiful, not because they are useful or great quality.

What lens would you like to get because it is beautiful, weird, rare, or any other reason rather than its a good lens with the focal lenght you need to shoot?

For me, any silver lens sparks my attention. The zebra CZJ are also very nice. Industar 50-2, weird design interesting.
I would love a mint SMC Takumar 135mm F3.5 with original caps and hood, every time I see an example I drool a bit

[Humulus]

I am attracted to Soviet lenses from the 80's - especially the KMZ ones. They aren't particularily pretty but they have a sort of charm to them. Maybe because they remind me of the times when I was a kid and my dad used to take photos with his Zenit camera. I'd love to expand my Soviet lens collection with a nice APO Telezenitar-M 135mm f/2.8 or maybe a Telemar 22A 200mm f/5.6. A few days ago I came across a massive Variozenitar-M 40-120mm f/3.5 on eBay that is so rare that you can't even find its photos on the internet. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford it

[iangreenhalgh1]

Actually, I own virtually ALL of my lenses because they are useful. I couldn't give two hoots what they look like.

[mo]

My personal favorite and one that I have many copies of is the CZJ Pancolar 2/50.I was introduced to the Takumar lenses on this forum and find I like their compact design and smooth focusing.I am currently looking at the early Auto taks,why because they look good and have a good reputation.

The silver lenses have an attraction as well and I have a few of them I confess I don't particularly like plastic lenses although there are great lenses made of plastic.The all metal of a lens is what attracts me the most,I have to stop and at least check it out.Then I will see if it has a reputation and buy it if its the right price.

[edumad]

On the plastic versus metal, it is not clear to me why, but for some reason everyone manages to produce metal lenses more beautifull than the plastic ones.
And its not a past versus present thing, modern metal lenses can look great too.

[vroger]

I like the metal lenses, but the silver lenses make me drool.... not that they necessarily take better pictures.. :0)

[Jeff Zen]

I don't know. I have lenses that are beautiful on the outside but if they do not have character or style or a certain level of performance then they don't look so beautiful to me anymore. They are just pretty paperweights. In some cases poor performing lenses can be historical artifacts and worth collecting, though!

[Minolfan]

I have a silver Tessar, half automatic and a disaster to use, but I like how it looks like.
My favorite though is a beautiful Steinheil Culminar 50mm 2.8, a kind of reversed Tessar. The focusing is stuck by wrong repair, so it is hardly usefull. Even if working I do'nt expect it is a really excellent lens.
But I certainly do'nt throw it in the bin; I will purchase a M42 helicoid adapter for my Nex to get it at work again.

[bychance]

The canon FL 50mm 1.8 is for me, a thing of real beauty, an utterly gorgeous style.

Steve.

[kds315*]

"Form follows function" for me. They need to function, "beauty" is nice to have but function is a "must have".
I also convert lenses, don't even ask if those look like at times....

[!Karen]

I too have a soft spot for silver lenses. Still I only keep them if they end up being decent enough performers.

@humulus: this reminds me, I have a telemar 22A. Had completely forgotten about it. Need to mount it on the camera this weekend.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[newst]

I truly appreciate beautiful lenses but I spend my money on lenses that I can use to take photographs. I have equal appreciation for my beat up aluminum Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135/4.0 as I have for my pristine chrome Zeiss Jena Triotar 85/4.0 but that is because they both shoot beautifully not because they do, or don't, look beautiful.

There is a lens currently on Ebay (US) that claims to be a Zeiss Jenna 60mm Sonnar in LTM mount. It is a gorgeous piece of chrome and glass. It doesn't interest me though. It's not so much the $2000.00+ asking price but that I believe it to be a fake. The printing on the lens ring is just wrong. It would never have left the factory looking like that.

[padam]

The best looking lens I have is the Canon 28/2.8 LTM and I had the silver Nokton 50/1.5 VM which is also pretty(and now miss but not just because of that).
If only there would be a digital camera that would match these in style that is Not a Leica - I guess I need to switch to film because it looks better

[CBokeh]

[Nordentro]

Well ,I collect SLR Zebra lenses and I have a few cine wide angle lenses which are too nice looking to be sold, but vignettes to much to be used

I also love silver and silver/black Japanese LTM lenses like Nikkors, Serenars, Tanakas, Suns, Kyoeis ++ and old USSR FED lenses like my 28mm f/4.5 and the 50mm macro which is tiny, but I also use m39 lenses a lot.

[Lightshow]

I have a metal lens fetish :p
Rokkor MC, Canon FL, Super-Taks, Topcor R, older Nikkor Pre AI, etc...
Those milled focus rings are just sublime.

[enzodm]

I honesty cannot think to need really all the 50s and 135s I have, even taking into account the rendition differences they have (and I'm not the owner of the largest collection here ). Beauty is one reason, in broad sense because sometimes is some special form of ugliness ( e.g. I like Jupiter 37a because it resembles a cannon). Beatiful: Pancolar star wars, Serenar 100/4 first series, Triotar 135/4 ( I too have a preference for bare metal...). Of course functionality is needed, but not necessarily at the top.

[woodrim]

A lens has to have something special about its optical performance. Special to me. Second is build quality with many-bladed diaphragm closely following. Having those characteristics met usually means a metal build. Silver over painted mostly because I find the aforementioned criteria to be met better with the older lenses. Pre-set also. I will not buy a lens just for its appearance, but I do remember a time when I was very young that I thought a very big and long lens was very cool. My hormones were also raging at that time.

[Humulus]

I also like the "reverse zebra" looks of E. Ludwig Meritar 50mm f/2.9 but I don't really use it since I also got a better M.O.G. Trioplan 50mm.
@ !Karen - congrats on your Telemar. Hope it performs well

[Oldhand]

There are many excellent lenses that produce images that delight. This should be the first priority for all of us. If these lenses also look good it is an added bonus.
Of course, some of them do both.
I have a distinct liking for the Yashinon DX range. They present in two types - silver and black or all black.
It is the all black varieties that look sooooo good. Beautifully designed with an unstated elegance to my eye.
I have posted pics here before, but these were lost in the GFC (great forum crash)
The 200mm is often referred to as the black beauty
OH

[araucaria]

I love 100-135mm lenses, I have the nikkor 105 2.5 sonnar and the nikkor dc 135 2. I love the way they render, it's my favourite focal length area. The problem is that this particular fov is not really useful to me. This took me to the pentax 67 105 and It has been my doom because now I own like 5 different Medium format systems... and playing with the idea of large format...

[LucisPictor]

My favourite lenses are the ones that amaze me with their looks and their performance. Those are the "keepers".

If a lens looks great but performs poorly, I won't use it a lot.
And if a lens performs great but looks ugly, I for some reason don't pack it in my bag a lot either. Strange, isn't it?

[BeardsAreBest]

I have a butchered, extremely used looking Jupiter 11 from 1958 and everything on it except for the glass looks like shit.
But it is nice and sharp and easy to use.
I also have a mint kiev 1953 version which is lovely to look at but is not much better if at all at capturing images.
It's the way of the world unfortunately, a high percentage of people buy things because they are pleasing to the eye.
I know, i work in the automotive industry and like the saying goes, "you can't polish a turd! but you can cover it in glitter"

[Marek]

After buying first 10 often must-have MF lenses I don't need anything special or extra optically that much, so I collect.

More or less, everything I wanted optically I already own, so I simply prefer look and condition before optics and drawing.

Of course it's always fine to combine it with a certain optical quality.

I only collect mint looking silvers, especially rare ones and with full accessories (original caps and so).

The only MF black I really insisted to have was Pancolar 80, or secondarily Planar, but I grabbed the first one which is end of the story for me. When I discover another ugly must-have lens either for butterflies or portraits, I'll buy it.

I think it's highly irrational attitude and also kind of dumb, but not that different from buying 51st lens because of being a great pefrormer but very similar to, lets say, 10 lens you already have. SO, WE ARE ALL WEIRDOS.