Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
Because it's frickin' FUN.

Quality does not always mean better. It could mean different. I have an old, uncoated 35/3.5 Elmar. It's in perfect condition. Tiny little thing. Few would argue that the Summaron and Summicron are not "better". But how so? Maybe I do not want better, maybe I do not care how a lens performs on an Air Force test chart. Maybe I want it because of its character and how it makes photos. I love the 35/3.5 uncoated Elmar. It make beautiful photos!

As mentioned above two of my favorites are the Contax 45/2 Planar for G2 and the 50/2 Summicron DR. Very different lenses with very different character and I use them for different subjects, films and conditions. Or sometimes I am just more in the mood to shoot one over the other.

It's why I get miffed when someone posts something like "don't get so-and-so lens because the such-and-such lens is BETTER......and sharper." So what!?!?
I agree, but I don't want to buy for same reasons. I like craftsmanship, but that alone is not enough to push me to change systems.

I'm happy with the sharpness I get.

But I want more contrast and better bokeh. The main reason I shoot film is that I love the way highlights are rendered, so consequently a lot of backlit stuff is shot where contrast matters a lot.

Ideally it would be a three element design with top of the line multicoating. But I can't seem to find one. My CZJ tessar isn't too contrasty for some reason. And I'm afraid a cron with 6-7-8 elements is not a solution.