The Online Photographer

It's a special kind of Tessar. Here is its MTF performance—but this looks worse than it is, because it shows measurements for the very stringent standards of 20, 40, and 80 lp/mm, whereas most MTF charts you'll come across are for 10, 20, and 40 or even 5, 10, and 30 lp/mm. The larger the structures they're measuring (i.e., the lower the number of lp/mm or lines per millimeter), the better the measurements look. If you're up on how to read an MTF chart, you might already have guessed what you're looking at before you read the caption:

Performance data of a Tessar lens for a mobile phone camera measures [sic] with 20, 40 and 80 Lp/mm. It is better than the best 35mm lenses—but only for a very small image.

The chart and caption come from a ZEISS white paper on Tessar-types written by H.H. Nasse and published by Carl Zeiss AG Camera Lens Division in March of 2011. The paper also says:

The name Tessar lives on in our state-of-the-art miniature lenses for camera modules in the mobile phones of our partner Nokia. The similarity to the classic Tessar is that four lens elements are usually used. The small size is also a related feature and an absolute must for the small volume [that is, size —Ed.] of a pocket sized device [the phone]. However, the functionality of this tiny lens no longer has anything to do with the original Tessar patent. It is usually designed with four lens elements with aspheric surfaces. The resolution of these small and economical optics is far superior to the best 35mm lenses—but this is due to the short focal length and the small image field.

At the link, look at the remarkable picture with the matchstick in it. Superimposed on a FF sensor, for scale, it shows a cutaway of a Zeiss/Nokia Tessar phone camera lens, in which you can see the extreme and bizarre asphericity of the elements. Talk about mustache curves!

In comparison, here's the MFT chart of the Leica 43mm in the Q3-43 that Ken extolled in yesterday's post, at ƒ/2.8:

Looks better at first glance, doesn't it? But no. Don't get me wrong, it's truly awesome for a FF lens (especially in the extreme corners), but it's nowhere near the Zeiss Nokia Tessar because the frequencies represented here are 5, 10, 20, and 40 lp/mm! That means the lowest set of lines (solid, sagittal; dotted, tangential, a.k.a. meridional) on this chart are for the same structures as the middle line in the Zeiss/Nokia chart. No contest. By the way, I like an MTF chart that gives data for large structures, i.e. 5 and 10 lp/mm. That predicts both contrast and bokeh, which in the case of this Leica lens should be very good indeed.

So it's a bit of a trick answer to the question. But it's kinda neat that no matter what fancy FF lens you might have in your bag, the best lens you have is most likely in your pocket.

Mike

P.S. I might also add that as a general rule, lenses designed for less coverage measure better than lenses with more coverage. For film, 35mm lenses measure better than medium format lenses, which measure better than sheet film lenses. The larger formats make up, or more than make up, the image-quality deficit by requiring less enlargement—an 8x10-inch print from a 35mm negative requires enlargement of 10 diameters, whereas an 8x10-inch print from a 4x5 nagative requires enlargement of only two diameters. So it stands to reason that lenses designed to cover the much smaller typical sensor size for 2011 mobile phones would be better still, and this is what Zeiss confirms in its white paper. The 2011-era iPhone 4s, as an example, had a 1/3.2-inch sensor that was 4.5x3.4mm in size. Current iPhone sensors are considerably larger.

This isn't a hard-and-fast rule; spy satellite lenses (which fell under my father's purview when he was a Director of NASA in the 1970s—I got to see one of those lenses once) covered 10x10", and you can bet they resolved better than consumer camera lenses. Then again, those lenses cost $1,500,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars ($250,000 in 1975).

Another point of interest: I think I heard this from an official of an institution closely identified with Eastman Kodak, but I won't name or describe him to avoid embarrassing him if my memory is off. However, I believe I was told that Eastman Kodak developed, and once owned, the patents to mass-producing tiny press-moulded aspheric elements. But there was at the time no application for such lens elements, and the company couldn't figure out how to make money from them, so, assuming the technology was useless, they essentially gave the patents away. Today there are several such tiny aspheres in every mobile phone camera module.

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Stephen Cowdery: "I noticed this phenomenon of the incredible resolution of small-format lenses with my Pentax Q7 and adapted larger-format lenses. With the exception of macro lenses, even the best bigger lenses couldn't compare with the native ones for the Q7."

Ed note: The Q7 was an interchangeable-lens digicam with a 1/1.7-inch type sensor 7.44 x 5.58mm in size.

Geoff Wittig: "I can confirm the Kodak press-molded aspheric element tale. One of my patients back in the day was a Kodak engineer who worked on the project. His team was flabbergasted that Kodak didn't exploit the idea but just threw it away since they couldn't comprehend how to get the kind of profit margins on it they were making from film. And within a couple of years such elements were in every CD/DVD player on the planet."

Forgive me. I know I ought to continue the "Big Honkin' Normals" list before starting another one. But...

Back in the days when the Dallas Cowboys had a player called Ed "Too Tall" Jones, I joked with a football-playing co-worker, whose name happened to be Darrell Green—no relation to the Washington cornerback, although my friend Darrell played cornerback too—that my nickname should be "Too Tired" Johnston. Cracked him up.

Anyway, since he's been sick, Butters barks me awake every morning because he has to go out, and my morning routine, formerly so orderly, is in shambles.

So I'm too tired lately. (He gets his big test tomorrow, which will hopefully result in getting the proper medication to help.)

But to continue on the theme of normal lenses, which is what we've landed on lately, here is a "listicle" of my favorite normal lenses, of all the ones I've ever used. Listicle is a portmanteau of list and article—meaning an article structured as a list. In case you have been sleeping on that.

I've included 40mms on this list but not 35mms. Have to draw the line somewhere. But a number of my favorite lenses have been 35mms, I must admit. And all of these are either lenses I used for a long period of time or owned. A possibly apocryphal quote, attributed to a Leica lens designer: "All lens tests are shortcuts. To really get to know a lens, you have to use it for a year." I agree with that, whoever said it.

This list is purely personal, based entirely on how much I liked the lenses—it's not a list of "best." And I go by pictures, not measurements. With a nod to handling. And in the case of the film-era lenses, my standard films were Kodak Plus-X and Kodak Tri-X, and sometimes Ilford XP2, not color films. For that matter, I use the Sigma lens only on a monochrome camera.

Finally, the tag "of all time," as in the post title, is pretty dumb. Mostly when the phrase is used it's talking about something very time-bound (e.g. "best websites of all time"), where most of "all time" doesn't enter in, and of course they can only be talking about the time up until the list was written. But it does indicate that it's meant to cover everything, without limitation, and that's appropriate for certain lists. Listicles are fundamentally pretty foolish anyway...

...But here goes nothin'. Counting down:

10

Asahi Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm ƒ/1.4 for M42 screwmount cameras such as the Spotmatics, the one with the metal focus ring—although many of the 7-element 50mm's were very similar, up to the AF FA [Note: the foregoing is corrected from the original version of this post]. The quintessential classic double-Gauss fast normal. Pentax developed multicoating with Zeiss, and given the co-operation with what was then considered the top camera lens maker in the world, the prestige of Japanese optical companies and by extension of Japan itself was felt to be on the line, and Asahi pulled out the stops. This lens was originally a loss-leader, sold for less than it cost to produce. It's a deluxe lens, better than the German competition of the era. Herbert Keppler, perhaps the No. 1 photography "influencer" in the English-speaking world in his heyday, did a whole article supporting this contention in an issue of Modern Photography way back when, complete with graphs and charts. It is also one of the best-built classic lenses—even today its quality can be appreciated in a good sample. You'll never feel a more buttery-smooth focusing helical.

9

Rodenstock APO Sironar-S 150mm ƒ/5.6. Part of the fun of shooting 4x5-inch film is experimenting with the old lenses that are still floating around out there, as long as they have shutters that work. But if you want the very best, this pinnacle of the breed came along just before they all went away. The APO Sironar-S equaled the quality of the more pedestrian Sironar-N's one stop wider open, and covered more (offering more movements on 4x5), and, although sharpness is not going to be your problem with sheet film unless you enlarge it too much, were just that little bit more sharp. The lens is also very compact and light, making a perfect match with many 4x5 field cameras. This is no longer available new, unfortunately. The market just won't support these products any more. Nevertheless, it is an ideal 4x5 lens.

8

Sigma 45mm ƒ/2.8 DG DN Contemporary for L-mount. Hey, I can't leave my current lens off the list, can I? One of only three digital-camera lenses on this list. That's not a knock against today's lenses, just the result of the fact that I was the go-to equipment reviewer for a couple of the camera magazines I worked for when I was young, and I tried everything under the sun. When I wrote something jaded and dismissive about this lens before trying it, I believe it was Ken Tanaka who encouraged me to stay open-minded to it. Luckily for me. It's an almost perfected optic, with no bad habits, no weaknesses that I've found yet, very good build quality, and superb feel to its manual focusing. I guess some people don't like it because it's not big enough or expensive enough, so maybe that's a weakness. You can see examples in my Flickr Photostream.

7

Panasonic Lumix G 20mm ƒ/1.7 II ASPH. for Micro 4/3. I only had the first version, which looks like this. Well, I owned them both but only used the first version extensively. Here's a review of both, with samples. The Mark II version is the only one available new. It seems to have been cheapened a little, but was assured by Panasonic that the optics are identical. To me, this is the ultimate walk-around lens. It's tiny and very light, so it doesn't hurt my neck (I have a permanently sensitive neck from hanging too much heavy camera equipment from it in my youth). The focal length equivalent is 40mm, perfect for me. And its properties are very nice, although its contrast-detect autofocus is on the slow side. I'd guess there is more than the usual sample variation going on as well. I liked this lens's look so much that when I had it, I actually decided to commit to the lens going forward in my life, and use the latest cameras with it. That's what Henri Cartier-Bresson did with the No. 6 lens on my list, below. That commitment lasted eight nanoseconds—I got too antsy waiting for the E-M1 to come along, and switched to Sony. Hey, look at it this way: if I were good at sticking to one thing, this list wouldn't exist.

6

Leica 50mm (or 5 cm) ƒ/2 Collapsible Summicron. The original normal for the Leica M3 in 1953. It was replaced by the "rigid" 7-element Summicron in 1956—same lens but in a non-collapsible lensmount—although the collapsible wasn't officially discontinued until 1960 or so. You can't buy the one I had: mine had been custom multicoated as an expensive aftermarket modification, which, amusingly, reduced the value of the lens. This was Henri Cartier-Bresson's lens, and he stuck with it from the M3 to the M6. I believe his was later multicoated too. The Leica Dual-Range Summicron (the one in Josh Hawkins' picture in the comments the other day) had the same optical cell as the rigid lens, but cherry-picked to be at the very top of the tolerance range. The lens sucked wide open and wasn't much one stop down, but at or near optimum aperture, oh my. Magic. No wonder it was once the most famous lens for 35mm photography in the world. I gave it up for various complicated reasons, and from time to time still hear from the fellow who bought it from me.

5

Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm ƒ/2 Auto-Macro. Note: not the Zuiko Digital one introduced with 4/3. Olympus was one of the very best lensmaking companies for a long time, although it never enjoyed that reputation, at least not widely. Some of their lenses were absolutely wonderful. One of my absolute favorites was a macro lens that wasn't quite at its best in the macro range—even though Olympus had incomparable expertise in making macros! It's a 1:2 macro, not 1:1. It was at its best used as a normal or standard lens. Of pedestrian specification—50mm, ƒ/2—it had a huge mount with a long helical for precise focusing, a deeply recessed front element obviating the need for a hood, and for optical quality I liked it better than any other 50mm. Extremely satisfying to use; I never stopped marveling at pictures taken with it.

4

Fujifilm XF 35mm ƒ/1.4 R for Fuji X cameras. You have to have a sharp eye for optical properties to distinguish pictures made by this lens from those made by similar lenses today, so "bunched at the top" are normals today. But read around within user reviews at sites like B&H, Amazon, and elsewhere, and you'll see that others agree with my feelings about this special lens. It's subtle, I'll admit—many normals now are fine lenses. One caveat: investigate the properties of the bokeh for yourself at various apertures. I tend to use it either all the way open or stopped down to ƒ/4 and smaller; o-o-f specular highlights at ƒ/2 and ƒ/2.8 are a little hinky. YMMV. Of course you use it mostly stopped down; who would use a fast normal lens all the way open unless they had to? That makes no sense from an image quality standpoint. Wide apertures are for emergencies.

3

Schneider-Kreutznach MF Xenotar 80mm ƒ/2.8 for the Exacta 66. Note: MF Xenotar, not any of the several other normal lenses made for that camera. This was a breechlock lens for the rubber-armored Exakta 66 made as a hobby project for Heinrich Mandermann when he owned Schneider, Exakta, and Rollei. It's the same lens optically as the normals made for the Rolleiflex 6000-series cameras when they were the top professional cameras in Europe (Hasselblad had the American market sewn up). Mine was the single best lens I ever used, but I got lucky and got a perfect one: I tried to replace it several times without getting another that had quite the same qualities. True story, after I sold it I saw a picture in a group show on a local gallery wall that just blew me away for optical quality, and I inquired at the desk as to the name of the photographer so I could go ask the person what lens they used for the picture. It turned out to be the guy I had sold my MF Xenotar to! I had recognized my old lens from a picture on the wall.

2 (formerly No. 1*)

Minolta M-Rokkor  for the Minolta CLE. Believe it or not, this was the only lens I ever used that regularly drew comments from non-photographers based purely on image quality in prints. That includes numerous Leica, Zeiss, and Nikon lenses. It's remarkable because we photographers mostly use fine lenses for our own gratification, not because non-photographer viewers care very much. (I once joked that we'll look at a print and be thinking, look at that detail! That microcontrast! That color fidelity! That gorgeous bokeh! while the person we're showing the picture to will be thinking, that's his cat.) This lens was made near the peak of Minolta's co-operation with Leica. The rumor was that the CLE came very close to getting Leica branding. It's another example of a Japanese company striving to be worthy: Minolta knew it was expected to come up to Leica standards. The trouble with the lens is that the CLE had 40mm framelines but the M cameras didn't and don't. Oh well. Get a good one, and I could care less about status and build quality and name brand prestige and measurements: if you need image quality better than this lens provides, image quality isn't your problem. Lovely.

1 (formerly No. 2)

Olympus Zuiko 40mm ƒ/2. C.E.K. Mees and Loyd Jones at Kodak conducted research in the 1930s based on viewer surveys, and discovered that people preferred lenses of high contrast rather than high resolution (now lenses are optimized for both, but the further back you go, the more it tended to be a trade-off). The company designed the famous Commercial Ektar view-camera lenses as a result. The Zuiko 40mm has a similar signature, and I couldn't get enough of it. I just love the way pictures from it look. I've written about this lens several times in various places. Its look was unique; it had loads of character, and pictures from it look like those from no other lens. Its downside is that it was designed to be the smallest lens in a lineup of small lenses, and the aperture ring is on the front of the barrel: in fact, you screw the rubber lens hood into the aperture ring and can change apertures by turning the hood. Not the most robust arrangement, but oh well. On the other hand, it was very small.

Mike

*I changed my mind. I always go back and forth on these.

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Chris Rusbridge: "Even though I only had it for six months or so, after doing my OCOLOY (sort of) I was really sorry to part with my M-Rokkor 40mm ƒ/2. Absolutely my favourite lens ever, and helped make my favourite photo. I used it on a Leitz Minolta CL and then a Bessa R3A (I did say sort of!). I credit that exercise for getting me back to where I started, black-and-white film, but I didn't much like the rangefinder experience, and could see that it would get eye-wateringly expensive very quickly. But I was really sorry to sell that lens."

Andrew L: "Nice list! I concur with the Panasonic 20mm being on there, it's a legend. I actually don't think there's as much sample variation as some other Micro 4/3 lenses. I've owned the of the 20mm's through the years, and all three were great. My personal addition would be the Pentax 43mm ƒ/1.9 Limited. It's worth a try if you get your hands on one, with a Pentax DSLR (or, heck, the Leica version with a screw-mount!). The focus transition and color rendering are particularly delightful, as is the great build and small size."

Mark Sampson: "I've owned only one of your ten best lenses, the famous Leica 50mm ƒ/2 DR Summicron. Sadly it will fit but not focus on a digital Leica M, due to that special focusing mount. And I no longer have a (working) film Leica M, so I don't use it any more. It sits and waits.... But the 'normal' lens I've used most in the last 40 years has been the 55mm ƒ/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. Just a superb optic for the industrial, commercial, technical, and reproduction work that has helped pay my rent all these years. It doesn't have an obvious 'signature,' but then again, I wouldn't want it to. Just high resolution, no distortion, clean color rendition, and excellent contrast."

Mike replies: That was LIFE Editor and photographer John Loengard's lens as well. If you've ever seen one of his books you know how in tune with it he was.

Dan Khong: "I have the No. 4 and No. 10 in your list. The No. 4 is so good (at least for its 'bokeh') that—if I am not mistaken—Fuji has not replaced it with something 'improved.'"

Mike replies: They have—with the 33mm ƒ/1.4, a modern "big honkin' normal" 15-element lens more suitable for video. Here's the link:

https://tinyurl.com/3495eykb

However, you and I agree on our assessment and appreciation of the "old" one (and it's only 13 years old, which is nothing).

As old-timers might know and some newcomers and early-days people might not, a "normal" AKA standard lens is the ordinary, everyday, middle-of-the-focal-length-range prime lens ("prime" being a not quite technically accurate term for single focal length) that used to be supplied as a starter lens on cameras before "kit zooms" came along. Its focal length varies with format; normals for press cameras such as Speed Graphics were 135mms—the number here refers to the focal length—which were moderate wides on 4x5-inch sheet film. Whereas the normal lens for the Asahi Pentax Auto 110 (the frame size is roughly the same as a 4/3 sensor) is 24mm. In its canonical state, the normal was a small, cheap-ish, medium-fast 50mm on a 135 (meaning the film format), or 35mm, camera. 135 / 35mm (formats) is now called "full frame," a term which is a status claim and doesn't make sense any other way, and I don't care what anybody says, he mumbled grumpily. There is or used to be a lot of confusion about the term "135," so here ya go:

The term 135 was introduced by Kodak in 1934 as a designation for 35mm film specifically for still photography, perforated with Kodak Standard perforations. It quickly grew in popularity, surpassing 120 film by the late 1960s to become the most popular photographic film size. (Wikipedia.)

The Ur-Leica, Oskar Barnack's prototypes for his miniature camera that eventually became known as the Leica—there might have been two of them originally, but one of them resides in Leica's headquarters in Germany and is possibly the World's Most Valuable Camera—had a 40mm normal lens, not a 50mm. This was discovered by Malcolm Taylor, the British master Leica repairman chosen by the company in the 1990s to service the totemic device, which task he carried out with appropriate reverence and care. Normals for 135 (the format) have also been 55mms and even 60mms on the narrower end and 45mm or even wider on the wide end. 

35mm cameras were once sold with standard
lenses, in this case a Yashinon 55mm ƒ/1.8

Pentax has a 43mm normal in its Limited series of lenses—which, oddly, were never limited—which is as close as can be to the 43.27mm diagonal of a 24x36mm rectangle, which is one definition of "normal." Although it is a wonderful lens and almost 3D-sharp, and, um, "Limited"—it doesn't qualify as a BHN as it's a rather petite almost-pancake lens. It works great to "smallen" and lighten a K-1 II, although it won't do at all for males who think of their lens as a penis substitute. In fact it makes so much sense that you can buy the camera and lens as a kit from B&H Photo. Reviewers by and large give the combo five stars.

A normal lens was once meant to be ordinary, basic, and practical. Most (even the 50mm Summicron designed by Walter Mandler after Leitz moved the M4 tooling to Canada) were (relatively) cheap. Early ones had minimal numbers of elements, because flare—the small percentage of non-image-forming light that is reflected rather than transmitted through an air-glass interface—quickly compounded in multi-element lenses to degrade the quality of the image. Lens coatings liberated lens designers; and yet, still, in the loss-leader normal lenses, corners were cut when they could be, and not every surface was coated. When multicoating came in, not every coated air-glass surface was multicoated. A cheap normal might have a mix of single-coated surfaces, mutlicoated surfaces, and uncoated surfaces. This led to some oddities in the way particular normals handled flare, and some of them would occasionally give strange effects in specific situations. I recall a Yashica lens that was very beautiful with evenly-lit subjects that flared like a mf when you shot against the sunlight. Hugh Crawford, who reportedly owns 50 50's, could tell us more about that. In the 1960s, when 35mm SLRs really got going, the included normal in a camera kit might have been a smallish 50mm with a moderate speed of ƒ/2. This might have been modified to  ƒ/1.9. ƒ/1.8, or ƒ/1.7 because those sounded better; but there was often little real or practical difference—Modern Photography magazine's lens tests used to measure the actual widest aperture of lenses, and it showed that these hopeful designations were somewhat more precise than the actual tolerances. There was a fair amount of slop in the system. I used to think of all of them as ƒ/2's, and you might as well.

The mighty Noctilux, normal ne plus ultra

Those early days are gone! "Normals"—primes of the middlin' focal length—are now some of the biggest, baddest, mostest and bestest lenses a camera company can produce, securing bragging rights for owners. As such they are completely over the top, ridiculous and absurd—hence, wonderful and desirable. The more absurd and extreme the better. In fact, whenever any photographer you know makes a plaintive wheedling little noise that he "needs" one of these lenses, the proper response should be "shaddup!" spoken like a '30s movie tough. There is no actual practical reason to own any of these lenses, so when someone claims a practical use—shaddup. "I need ƒ/1.2 for my theater work"—shaddup. "It gives me the bokeh I want"—shaddup! "I want to be ready for anything"—SHADDUP! Claims that the level of performance possible is actually needed could be a sign that the speaker doesn't have anything like the technique and understanding to get the best out of any lens. Shaddup. Biggest, baddest, mostest, bestest is what these lenses do, and it is what they are for. (Okay, you might also need it for your theater work or like the bokeh. I'm just trying to be amusing.)

The set-aside
When I went to Dartmouth, on the plane I was reading an issue of Vanity Fair magazine that I picked up in the airport, not one of my usual magazines. It happened to have an article about the best drinking schools in the country. At the beginning of the article, the author set Dartmouth aside as being so far ahead of all the others as to be beyond category—the big daddy, the Kahuna, matchless, the standout. If I recall correctly, there was a little liquor store on Nugget Alley in Hanover that was the biggest beer distributorship between Boston and Montreal. Dartmouth was a drinker's paradise, and oh-by-the-way had the highest percentage of alcoholics among its alumni at the time.

Similarly, to list some of these big honkin' normals, we have to first set aside the great-granddaddy of the breed, the original, the O.G. It is sui generis, and beyond ranking. That would be the Leica Noctilux for M-mount rangefinder cameras, an antediluvian holdover from the era when lens speed (i.e., its widest aperture) was the chief bragging point in the lens arms race. There were actually faster lenses made by several companies back in the day, but...too late. The Noctilux already secured the position. We won't rank this one but rather set it aside on a pedestal where it belongs. And lest you think lens worship is not a thing, "Uncle" Arthur Kramer, the longtime lens reviewer for the old Modern Photography magazine, had the very best lens he knew of—the 105mm Apo-El-Nikkor enlarging lens—cast in lucite to use on his desk as a paperweight. He was an executive for an advertising agency—was it Young & Rubicam? I forget, and there is no good bio of Uncle Arthur on the WWW, alas. I believe his was serial number 007. Note that my memory for numbers is not the greatest.

I notice that the new Noctiluxes have bifurcated into two lenses, something which had escaped my attention, and the iconic ƒ/1 has been "improved" to ƒ/0.95. This is nonsense of which I do not approve. One (1) is the numerological sign of identity and unity—"make me one with everything," said the Guru to the hot dog vendor. "ƒ/0.95" doesn't have the same cachet, I'm sorry. One (1) has roundness, wholeness, and perfection. However, our Noctilux (the Noctilux of now) also gets the palm for the most expensive normal, at a cool $13,295. Buy it through my link when you get yours and I will be in your debt—my spiff would be $398.85 and that would make my month right there! Be still, my beating heart*. For those whose Quest is the magic bullet that will automagically impart specialness to their pictures, the Noctilux is the pinnacle solution. One review at B&H Photo is titled, "Outstanding! Images have a special and distinct look." And so they do, so they do. Leica sells three a year.**

There is a smaller, less expensive, slower one too. But never mind. It would be much more practical, and thus is not to the manner born.

Having set the paragon aside, we will next proceed with a brief tour of the Big Honkin' Normals of Now, crowning champions left and right as we wend our way. Overlord lenses. Phat glass. For rangefinders, medium format to Micro 4/3, SLRs and mirrorless. With commentary of, shall we say, a somewhat tart nature. Stay tuned for Part II, maybe next week?

Mike

*I'm being tongue in cheek. If the Universe endures to be quadrillions of years old, no one will ever buy a Noctilux through my links. (AI Overview hilariously states, "The universe is expected to last trillions or even quadrillions of years, but it's difficult to be precise." Made me laugh.)

**I totally made that up.

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Nigli: "My favorite 'normal' was the Pentax Super-Takumar 105mm ƒ/2.4. Lovely fall off and super sharp."

Mike adds: For the Pentax 6x7.