Does anyone actually use cult lenses?

[Pete Roody]

I don't think of the following as cult lenses ("not too common" is a better definition) but I use them, like them and would not sell them:

300mm goerz trigor
360mm goerz trigor
180mm and 210mm F9 zeiss dagors
290/500mm zeiss double protar iv (1907)
250mm dallmeyer f2.9 pentac
307/450/660mm zeiss triple protar vi (1894)
135mm rodenstock perigon

[Shen45]

Just a thought, could it be as simple as this site has done more to raise or revive the cult status of some lenses because of the concentration of actual lens users. Ansel Adams was certainly a lens-aholic but Edward Weston less so. And that is not a bad thing either way. Many -perhaps most photographer of the past used the tools they had at hand and work out the limitations and possibilities they offered.

And another thought, if all the cult lenses were used to shoot a wide variety of subjects and real enlarged or contact silver gelatin prints made by different people, would their legendary cult status be so evident if displayed at a single venue? The only real difference I see with lenses when viewed as I suggest is that modern 6 element plastics look just that whereas the older designs, whatever they are have a certain character. This character may be discernible on a lens by lens basis by some people. My 300 Velostigmat shot at f32 is not all that dissimilar to a 300 Nikon on a well lit "ordinary" subject.

In my small collection I have 12" Ektar, Protar VII, Cooke Aviar, RD Artar and a couple of others. I can tell looking back on what I have shot as to the lens I used but the majority of time the variation of subjects is greater than the "legendary cult status of the lens"

I also have a 162mm Wollensak Raptar -- not a cult lens -- but I certainly wouldn't swap it for a modern glass.

Would I like another "legendary cult status lens"?

Of course I would. And it is all Jim's fault

Steve

[Daniel_Buck]

I don't know if it's considered cult or not, but I'm absolutely loving the petzval projector lens I purchased from Jim a few months back, it's honestly the most fun I've had shooting in a long time! I love the results, and I'm still using the original cardboard & packing tape 'lens board' that I made to mount it to my speed, the evening the lens arrived. haha! Maybe years later I'll think them over the top, but for now I enjoy them

[Lightbender]

Here is a couple of definitions:

Rare: a lens that you dont see very often, or at least less often than most other lenses.

Exotic: A lens that is extremely different than other lenses.

Fad: A lens that has gotten recent press and thus many users are looking to experiment with.

Cult: A lens that has a following of people who are willing to buy the lens at allmost any price. These people will continue to sing the praises of such lenses through years even as fads change.

[LH1H17]

My favorite rare/cult lens... the Carl Zeiss Planar 135mm f/3.5 T*
while not antiques (they date from the late 70s-80s i believe), they are:

- the only Carl Zeiss T* lens ever made for large format
- covers 4x5 with decent movements (unlike the xenotar)
- sharp wide open, unlike any plasmat design
- creamy bokeh throughout the range reminiscent of fine 35mm portrait lenses such as the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF-D (also a planar design?)

[David A. Goldfarb]

My favorite rare/cult lens... the Carl Zeiss Planar 135mm f/3.5 T*
while not antiques (they date from the late 70s-80s i believe), they are:
[...]
- covers 4x5 with decent movements (unlike the xenotar)

Does the T* version have a larger image circle than the previous version? I get a little room for movements on 4x5" with my intermediate version (the late one made for Linhof before the T* version, not the earlier one with the special shutter and recessed lensboard that closed with the camera), but not much.

[Randy H]

"CULT" lens? Hell, half of my old bag doesn't even have a name on them. If the lens is clear, and takes a decent picture, is correct FL and coverage for what you are shootin, what diff does it make who mfg it, what country it came from, or who else might be a better photographer than you that may or may not have actually used one? Send me you few hundred or thousand bucks, tell me what you are shooting, and if I don't have the "APPROPRIATELY MARKED" lens, I have a small magic marker and stylus. I'll make you one. Then YOU TOO can be a Weston. or Adams, or Galli.......

[Matus Kalisky]

Well, the lenses I am using are no cult lenses up to know, but this may change once I publish a few of my photos

[Arne Croell]

Does the T* version have a larger image circle than the previous version? I get a little room for movements on 4x5" with my intermediate version (the late one made for Linhof before the T* version, not the earlier one with the special shutter and recessed lensboard that closed with the camera), but not much.

It is the same design as the one immediately preceding it, just multicoated, so it will have the same image circle. The easiest way to distinguish them is the filter size: The older one with the smaller circle has a 58mm filter size, and the later one with the larger circle has a 67mm filter size (both single-coated and MC).

[zoneVIII]

i have one zeiss planar 135 f/3.5 58mm filtersize, that's my cult lens now, got little movement with 4x5 , tack sharp at wide open, dont have any scanner now to upload the results