Which 50mm lense next?

I bought a Leica M2 and a 35mm Summilux F/1.4 and expect delivery in

a day or so. Also, I couldn't stop myself from bidding and winning a

M3 last night as well.

 

I've been selling off everything that is not nailed down to the

online auction gods, including my beloved Yashica Lynx and

Electro's, as well as a pair of F5's.

 

I have mainly always shot 50mm with all of my other cameras, and I'm

holding out for a 75mmf/1.4 Summilux down the road. So knowing this

I would hate to spend money on a 90mm Summicron.

 

How do the two stack up in the 50mm class. I'm probably talking pre

Asph with a $1000 budget.

 

I'm leaning towards the Lux because most of what I shoot is

available light, and when in doubt I go for the extra stops.

<p>This or a near-identical question is raised every couple of weeks.</p><ul><li><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BgkG">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BgkG</a></li><li><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BazB">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BazB</a></li><li><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AO05">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AO05</a></li><li><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ceuv">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ceuv</a></li></ul><p>Etc etc.</p>

THe only lens I own is a current gen. 50mm Summicron. It's great!

 

Pretty much all the 50mm lenses seem to be just fine. I shot with my buddy's FM3A + 50 1.8

and it was wonderful.

 

I shoot my old Nikon F with a 30+ year-old 50 1.4, results are fine when my eyes are

properly calibrated (no meter).

 

Hard to wrong with a 50mm from a reputable source.

Not exactly an answer to your question, but... you ARE aware that none of the M cameras you just bought has viewfinder framelines to show you the FOV of that "75mmf/1.4 Summilux down the road" that you're holding out for? You will have to learn how to guestimate it's coverage within the 50mm lines. If that lens is so high on your wish list, why didn?t you buy more recent models?

<I>"I'm leaning towards the Lux because most of what I shoot is available light, and when in doubt I go for the extra stops."</I><BR>

<BR>

For your M's, I'd look for a used Leica 50mm F2 lens. If you want to get a few extra stops use faster film. I use Delta 3200 pulled back 2 stops and any Fuji 800 for color prints. Here's an example using Deltal 3200 pulled to 800.<div></div>

Ie neede toe gete thee brakese one mye care fixede, ande alsoe Ie thinke Ie neede newe

windowe glasse because there'se ae rocke chipe one thee fronte windshielde ofe mye care.

I like the most current 50mm f2, primarily because the glass is the same but the lens has a built-in hood. Nice minimalist package. Hoods in Leica lens world are a kind of fetish, but I think this arrangement is perfect. As Frank said above, you can do a lot with an f2 lens if you make some adjustments in film and processing.

You'll wind up owning all of them at some point. I have. Noct, lux, two crons, summar, elmar 2.8, elmar 3.5. The best trade-off is the 'lux. But if you're stuck on size like I am, you might want the collapsible 'cron or red scale LTM elmar.

I have FS a 50mm Summicron F:2.0 "Rigid". It's a classic, and in excellent condition...skip

I use a DS M3 with 50mm DR Summicron -- nothing better IMHO!

If you mainly shoot available light, why not consider the Noctilux 50/1.0?

It sounds like you are an "available light freak" like I am. I saw a used Noct. on B&H's web site, you might as well get it out of your system now. Frankly I am going to stick with the Cron. and fast film for now.

The Noctilux 50/1.0 is a good tool; like a 12Lb sledge hammmer. IF one runs out of iso/asa and shutter speed; then it can do the trick. The Noct is usually owned for just less that a year. After the honeymoon phase many folks drift back to a F1.4 or a F2 50mm lens. The F2 50mm is like a 16oz hammer; alot lighter; usefull for most applications. The elmar is a bird house/tack hammer; cool and compact.

Faster lenses have their place in photography, but most of the time I use 50/2 lenses for their size and weight and sharpness. Like many people here I have accumulated over time more than one 50 lens for the Leica camera. I am now using a Nikkor 50/2 and a collapsible 50/2 Summicron. Such lenses are not terribly expensive and getting them gives me a lot of enjoyment. A clean Summicron 50 lens is easily within your budget, Robbie.

The current 50 2.8 Elmar, case closed.

I've got 3 Summicrons and haven't used any of them since I got a pre-ASPH Lux. I even had a chance to shoot it wide open, hand-held with ISO 400 film in low light (the only reason I'd want a 1.4 lens after all) up against the ASPH and maybe my eyes aren't so acute that I can say definitively there's no difference, but there sure isn't $1900 difference and that was the cost differential with mine. If your purpose is to shoot highly-detailed subjects with slow film and on a tripod with the lens wider than f/4 and make 16x20 enlargements, then the $2500 Lux ASPH or a $400 Summicron might be better choices. Another lens maybe worth a look unless one of your criteria is the lens has to say "Leica" on it, would be the Voitlander Nokton.

I use a first rigid version of the 50/2 Summicron and love it.

I also enjoy the fact that it's a lens that is contemporary to my M3 body and also simply 'looks right' on it.

<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/rsilfverberg/image/30613394.jpg">

<br>

</center>

A DR would be another great option - maybe even the best one in my eyes. 'Bonus' is that you'd get a great lens and for much less money than buying new. As for speed - using something like Fuji Neopan 400 gives you faster film with very fine grain. F2 has never really felt limiting to me and I also shoot available light only.

Good luck.

I cut my Leica teath on the Lux. I sold it to pay for the Lux ASPH, and while waiting for it to be

delivered, I used a 'cron. I didn't really like the cron. It was the non-tabbed version with a

detachable hood. It seemed pretty flarey compared to the Lux, and I didn't like the bokeh

wide open. So far, the Lux ASPH has really impressed me, but if I were to get an additional 50

it would probably be the zeiss, and not another 'cron.

Rich, that is one sweet-looking combo. My M2 and 50mm Rigid Summicron are so beat up they scare the muggers away.

Ben, I'm with you ... I've never found any reason to complain about my pre-aspherical lux. In low light it has lovely, saturated colors, a lovely glow, and great b*h.

The Zeiss 50mm f2 Planar is a viable choice.

I also second the 50 Lux.

I had an older 50 lux bought used in 1966. I loved it but soon fell for the siren song of the 35

and 90. Chorus: "You just don't need the 50." A few years ago I bought a 75 lux and 35 lux

aspher., selling the older 50 lux. Well, the '75 gives a sweet, tight angle of view but it's huge

and heavy. So I bought a 50 chron ant that's the lens that gets the most use and wear now. I

keep the 75 because it is such a strong special-purpose lens for me. And I don'tget the

newer 50 Lux cause it's heavy as well.<div></div>