If you could only have one lens...

Hello, I've posted several questions on this forum over the course of the last few months

and I have received many sincere and informative replies. I appreciate that very much.

After drooling over these cameras and reading the postings in this forum for the last year,

I finally bought one. A few days ago I purchased an M6ttl .58. I couldn't be happier. Except

for the fact that I haven't purchased a lens yet! I am a college student, so I have a limited

budget...(I sold basically every bit of gear that I had in order to afford this system.) That's

ok though, because I was honestly tired of carrying around a huge backpack full of Nikon

gear including multiple bodies and lenses, and I decided it was time to try something new

(and simple). I am going back and forth between the 35 and 50mm focal lengths. I am

most likely going to go with a 'cron. how do the 'crons do in low light as opposed to the

'lux lenses? That being said, if you were in my situation, and you could only purchase one

lens in the immediate future, which lens would you choose and what generation would it

be? Thanks for the help everyone...Evan

You should know from your SLR shooting which focal length suits you better. If I had only one lens, I would find the 35mm more useful, though I think a 28-50 combination is far more flexible. You'll have a hard time going wrong with a 35mm Summicron of any generation.

Purely personally, I'd say that I use a 35/1.4 Summilux for 80 per cent of my Leica shots, a 75/2 Summicron for 15 per cent, and all others (15-21-28-50-90) for 5 per cent.

 

My wife, on the other hand, probably uses her 50/2.5 Color Skopar half the time; 28/1.9 Ultron 25 per cent; 75 Summicron and 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar 10 per cent each; and all others (15-21-35) for the remaining 5 per cent. She uses mostly Bessa-R2 and Bessa-T.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com, where you can see many pictures taken with this kit)

35mm f/1.4 ASPH, 35mm f/2.0 ASPH, 50mm f/2, in that order.

 

Personally, I prefer shooting with a 35mm lens rather than a 50, and I like shooting in low

light. For those purposes, the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH is an amazing lens. I owned a 35mm f/2

ASPH for a bit and that one was amazing too, but I love having the extra stop and at the

moment the 35/1.4 is my main Leica lens.

 

The 50mm Summicron is a beautiful lens too, and I have one for its compactness, but to

me it's not as versatile a focal length. I have not been particularly tempted by the 50/1.4

ASPH because its price is high and because I already have a 50/1.4 for my Nikon system

that was 1/10th the price. :)

 

-- Mark

I agree with Mark totally. If you can afford the 35 Lux ASPH you will never regret it....next would be the Summicron 35. Again it depends on your style of shooting. I find that rangefinder photography lends itself to the 35mm lens field of view and so the 35mm is on my camera at least 75% of the time. You can supplement your other photography needs with other focal length lenses not necessarily Leica glass.

 

I like to shoot interior pictures and the extra stop is a big help. The thing about the Summilux ASPH is that it is made to be used wide open with no shortfalls in image quality compared to smaller F stop settings.

 

When I find myself going for another focal length other than 35mm it is usually wider....a 21mm!

... this question gets asked about once a month!

<br>Any of those asking it ever look in the archives?

I also have a .58 and I find 35mm is the better suited lens than a 50 mm (28mm is best). The choice between Lux and Cron and which version depends on your budget. Lux is a luxury of 1 stop over cron and that's it. I often shoot at night and find Cron more than OK with 400 film, again Lux is better if you can afford it. ASPH lens of both are the preferred choice but 35 Cron pre-ASPH is a great overall lens, quality very close to ASPH, much smaller and cheaper, hence my choice.

I have a 35mm and 50mm, both summicron. After shooting a lot with the 35mm, I found that the 50mm Cron (last generation) is my favorite lens. It gives me a comfortable shooting distance in the street. But the Cron, even used, is sometime expansive. So if I had a tight budget today, I would go for a used Elmar 50mm f2.8 in excellent condition.

Cheers,

 

Steph-

Evan, if you are not (yet) a Leica fetishist, do consider the Cosina/Voigtl䮤er Ultron 28. Its field of view seems ideally suited to your body (I mean the M6), and its construction (especially in chrome) and optical performance are more than good enough, even at full aperture (Erwin Puts himself agrees on that).

 

So you can start enjoying the Leica experience right now, and you can always resell it later to afford a Leica hood or cap ;-)

 

Cheers, ag

<p><em>I am going back and forth between the 35 and 50mm focal lengths.</em></p><p>Why then, get the Pentax 43/1.9 (see <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004AKC">this</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Dy0">this</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Tmr">this</a>).</p>

If you are on limited budget, try a Summicron-C 40mm (or the Minolta one which is the same), a f2 lens. It was made for Leica CL and it costs around US$200 to US$250 (used of course)

Using an SLR I found I only ever used a 35mm lens...with rangefinder I find 50mm suits me much better. Maybe the gap around the framelines makes it feel looser and less constrained than a 50mm does on an SLR?

 

Whatever, I don't think you would be disappointed with a 50mm Summicron - it's the only lens I've ever owned / currently own that I don't think I could ever part with.

 

I've also just got a 40mm Summicron, which, as I believe someone else has already said can be had cheaply (for a Leica lens at least) - I'll post some pics up here that were taken it. Should get them up either tonight or tomorrow.

if you have enough money: 35 lux ASPH

if you are on budget: 50 cron/ 35 cron pre ASPH

Can't go wrong with both..

If I could only have one lens for an RF it would a 50 FL

 

But not for a 0.58 body, then it would have to be a 35 FL

Michael wrote: ".. this question gets asked about once a month!

Any of those asking it ever look in the archives?"

This is a discussion forum, Michael, not everyone lurks here 24/7 and can't keep track of

everything that came before, and some who may have read similar posts in the past might

still enjoy seeing fresh light shed on the subject. My tone is not meant to sound

aggressive (it's difficult reading emotions on the web, so take my criticism lightly) but

people who shoot other posters down for bringing up repeated topics just makes it hard

for more reticent posters to participate. Or pretty soon, this forum will just be 10 regulars

holding court amongst themselves, some might say it already is.

 

Seb

What do you mean by <i>"If you could only have one lens..."</i>?<p>

Are there people out there using <b>more</b> than one lens? What for?<p>

Mine is 35/2 ASPH.

Although I have three lenses for my Leica kit, I rarely use the 90TE.

 

For a long time the 35 Summicron (v4)was my most-used lens. These days it the 50mm Summicron (current). If I had to choose one it would be the 35 which is simply a lot more versatile to me.

 

I tend to see a bit longer with my Nikon SLR's and the 105 has become my #1 lens.

I'm similar to Roger above, in that my most used lens by a long way is the 35mm

Summilux (pre-asph). A few years ago the 21mm would have been second, then the

50mm and the 90mm bringing up the rear. At present I don't have a 21mm, having

foolishly sold my 3.4 Super-Angulon a few months back (or a 90mm for that matter), but

in any case the 50mm has assumed greater importance recently.

Here is my sugggestion: For less than $100 you should be able to buy used, a Russian 50mm f2 Jupiter 8 lens, and a Russian 35mm f2.8 Jupiter 12 lens. With a screw to M mount adapter, they will fit on your M6. Use them both for a while and find out for yourself which (of these 2 most common) focal length(s) you prefer. Then you can spend the big bucks on a Leica lens in a self-informed manner.

Questions like this always invite a lot of opinions so here's one more. Try looking ahead a few years and think about the system you would like to have, based on the type of photography in which you are interested. I built up my M system by adding one piece of equipment a year till I had what I needed to take the type of pictures that appealed to me. I would not part with any of my M lenses or accessories. A 50 or 35 Summicron (any version) will get you going and over time you will discover what other lenses you would like. Just buy one and get back to taking pictures. You should be able to find some excellent Summicrons on the used market. I would stick with Leica lenses and don't overlook the 50 Elmar if you come across one in good shape at a reasonable price.

You be better off with a current black 50 elmar and then save up and purchase a 35 summicron asph. If you really wanted the 1.4 type lens, purchase the 50 lux pre-asph with 46 filter threads.

<i>... backpack full of Nikon gear including multiple bodies and lenses ...</i>

<p>

I have plenty of Konica SLR and Pentax SM gear, but I hardly use them still. For a year now, I shoot exclusively with a Konica Hexar + Spotmatic with 50/1.4 Super Takumar (though not side by side; either or). I find I need both 35mm and 50mm. My setup of choice would be:

<p>

Konica Hexar<br>

Leica M3 + Zeiss Planar 50 + hood + CV lightmeter<br>

Small Manfrotto table tripod

<p>

(The Zeiss Planar because I suspect it is better at suppressing flare than the 'cron)

Traded a full Nikon kit for a Leica body without lens and then asks strangers which lens to buy? Congrats mate you've found a home amongst peers here.

Follow Mark Wilkins' advice. . .

I have only one lens and its 35mm lux asph.