Best lens for street photography on Leica M10.

Smaller as in wider?

wider field of view. smaller than 40 mm.

Weren't you talking about the 7 Artisans 50 F1.1 a while back? That is still on my "sometime" list - they also have a 35 F2 - the 50 $369 the 35 $280 ish. Not Leica, but on a budget, if they're good...

Yes, I was. I prefer the CV 50/1.5 over the 7Artisans50/1.1. Both are very good lenses. I have both. I did not buy their 35/2 as I have a Summicron 35/2, a Summilux 35/1.4, a Canon 35/2 and a Nikon 35/1.8. There is a limit to what I will buy.

 

Raid

As a long time user of Leicas M2, M3 and M9, either lens would work well for general photography. A 35 mm lens works better for more intimate street photography (i.e., ambush photography), architecture, groups and interior shots. With a 50 mm lens you can stand off further, e.g. HCB style street photography, and have better perspective for portraits and most landscape photography. 50 mm is borderline for accurate focusing with an M10 (max view, 28 mm), so I'm not sure the cost of a Summilux over an f/2 Summicron is worth while. You don't need the extra stop for speed, considering the ISO flexibility of a digital M10.

 

My personal preferences for a kit filled out would be a 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2, all Summicrons of about any vintage. I like landscape photography, for which my preference order would be 50, 90, and 35 mm lens, in that order, perhaps with a 135/4 Tele-Elmar added to the mix. Critical focusing with a 90 or 135 requires an eyepiece magnifier, IMO (you can't shoot everything at f/8).

 

Ambush photography? Interesting:)

I find I can do most anything I want on the street with a 35 Summicron, though on full frame, the 50 is also a very nice length. I've used 28, 21 and 75 equivalent lengths as well but the 35 the most by far and what I would have if I could only have 1.

One step back changes your 40mm into a 35mm.

One step back changes your 40mm into a 35mm.

Get a 35, 59 and 75 Summilux. Old ones. Shoot wide open.

One step back changes your 40mm into a 35mm.

 

Only if there is no wall, cliff, or other impediment.

If you are using a 50mm with M8, it sounds like your current shooting preference is for longer focal lengths. Are you happy with this, or would you like a wider angle of view? As Wouter says, only you can make the decision about what is right for you. I also like to have a range, and so I chose (for my film M) older lenses, which allowed me to fit a 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses into a budget smaller than the cost of a single current lens. But if you prefer the modern lenses, you might be best off to try a few different focal lengths (and possibly different versions - eg do you really need a Lux over a cheaper Cron; again a purely personal decision) before spending a sizeable amount on a single lens. Good luck!

Dear Rajmohanfotograf; I am definitely not happy with 50mm on M8, since my focal length is really limiting me with quick shots, in which "there isn't a second chance" circumstances. Since frame lines marks very small portion of the frame on M8, I certainly need wider angle of view. But certainly it would be wider on a full frame M10 if you compare with M8 because of the crop factor. Because of this, I really consider 50 summilux also not to miss portrait shots.

I prefer to upgrade Summarit to summilux because of my higher shutter speed requirement (I want pin sharp details), without increasing ISO even with far better higher ISO performance of M10 versus M8.

With 35mm summicron -because of wider of angle advantage- I think speed will be secondary issue.

So you see it is a hard decision for me since I will be investing only on one prime lens. :)

Hakan Karademir

The last time I shot my M6 in the street ( in Morocco) using a 35mm lens I realized I would be better off with a 50mm, which would allow me to get closer without intruding or drawing attention.

I've had the opportunity to use the Summarit 50, Summicron 50 pre-aspherical and Summilux 50 on a full-frame digital M. For one lifetime lens, the Summilux 50 hands down. The Summarit is a fine lens but no match for the stunning realism of the Summilux (example at f/2.8 below ). The Summicron pre-aspherical has the older look, which is great for some shots but not a general purpose match for the Summilux. If you really want that older look, too, later on you can get one of a number of choices to supplement the Summilux; they are available at economical prices, by Leica standard.

 

.

I think if I had to compare a $4600 lens (Summilux 50/1.4) to a Summicron 50/2 costing only $2400, I would see "stunning realism" in the former. Somehow the example above doesn't get me there. Perhaps if I close my eyes and repeat some mantra ;)

 

I have noticed Summicron lenses from the 60's have less contrast than newer ones or their Zeiss counterparts. 50 years ago the difference might be +1/2 a paper grade. Now it's a click on a gamma slider.

I think if I had to compare a $4600 lens (Summilux 50/1.4) to a Summicron 50/2 costing only $2400,... I have noticed Summicron lenses from the 60's have less contrast than newer ones or their Zeiss counterparts. 50 years ago the difference might be +1/2 a paper grade. Now it's a click on a gamma slider.

 

The Zeiss approach to contrast, micro-contrast, and falloff is different than Leica's. The difference is more than what happens by pushing one slider in post processing. It is also a matter of taste, so yes, if you prefer the Zeiss style, yes, get a Zeiss lens.

 

If you are patient and watch eBay, your local craigslist, and Fred Miranda, you can get that Summilux for less than US$3000. You can save on the Summicron, too, although not as much in percentage.

Please tell me how you see "stunning realism" in the image above. You threw out a string of buzz words, but "micro contrast" is not demonstrated.

 

I've used Leicas for many years, but if there's any magic, it came from the darkroom or the content.

I am definitely not happy with 50mm on M8, since my focal length is really limiting me with quick shots, in which "there isn't a second chance" circumstances. ....

I prefer to upgrade Summarit to summilux because of my higher shutter speed requirement (I want pin sharp details), without increasing ISO even with far better higher ISO performance of M10 versus M8.

With 35mm summicron -because of wider of angle advantage- I think speed will be secondary issue.

I feel challenged to follow your arguing.

I am barely ever that close to interesting people that I'd miss the chance to step back to capture an imagined entire scene. with my 50mm on M8. - Why does one get that close at all?

Next even bigger issue: If there is no time for framing, why should there be time to get something focused at f1.4? - I recommend drawing a higher shutter speed requirement from the ISO setting not from the aperture. Take a look at some DOF calculator and see what you'll be up to with using f1.4 instead of 2.8. - It can be done sometimes, but I'd keep the RF patch on the subject's eye and spray & pray.

as much as I like the Leica M system: For shooting 50mm @ f1.4 by habit, I'd rather have something else. - Sony maybe? - I'm surely not enthusiastic about trying such with EOS 5D IV.

I feel challenged to follow your arguing.

I am barely ever that close to interesting people that I'd miss the chance to step back to capture an imagined entire scene. with my 50mm on M8. - Why does one get that close at all?

Next even bigger issue: If there is no time for framing, why should there be time to get something focused at f1.4? - I recommend drawing a higher shutter speed requirement from the ISO setting not from the aperture. Take a look at some DOF calculator and see what you'll be up to with using f1.4 instead of 2.8. - It can be done sometimes, but I'd keep the RF patch on the subject's eye and spray & pray.

as much as I like the Leica M system: For shooting 50mm @ f1.4 by habit, I'd rather have something else. - Sony maybe? - I'm surely not enthusiastic about trying such with EOS 5D IV.

Dear Jochen;

Since M8 has crop factor issue, you definetely can't guess exact frame when shooting. So you -sometimes- can not realize how much you approached to the main subject for critic shots. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, I want to use higher shutter speed than general recommended values -since I want pin sharp images. To get that, -Since I hate noisy upgraded ISO pictures- I want to solve the light issue with lens, instead of ISO setting.

Thanks for your comments by the way.

Viewfinder frames in the M8 are correct for the designated focal length, and include the 1.3 cropping factor. The frame boundaries are generous, cropping tighter than the image on the film. If you substitute a 40 mm lens for 50 mm, you have more space yet. Consequently, if you are attentive, cropping off some critical part of the subject is not a problem. if you want to crop to the frame line, an SLR or MILC would be a better choice.

 

Digital noise is not manifest with a CMOS sensor until you reach upper limits of the range. There is a degradation of the dynamic range proportional to the iSO value, but again has little effect on most practical situations.

 

If you shoot at the maximum aperture, whether f/2.8, f/2 or f/1.4, expect a lot of OOF results. Traditionally you need to refocus and shoot again as many times as practicable, and hope for the best. Alternately, you can ignore the focus issue and call it "art." You could say the same for grain/noise.

Ah! -Thanks for elaborating!

you definetely can't guess exact frame when shooting

Is IMHO not really to blame on M8's crop factor, more on (Leica's?) rangefinders in general. I do a lot of product photography with 50mm on M8, so yes the framing is guesswork. In the beginning of that job I also brought the 90/4 "macro" but gave up since framing seems too hard to do with it and especially the goggled extension tube on M8. - On the M9 based Monochrom it is just a tad better but going for a flower in the park is more like trial, error, retrial & "OK, I'll fix it in post". Leica changed the distance for which their framelines are most accurate over the various models (somewhere 1m, somewhere else 2m?). The only ways to exactly frame a close up shot seem to either deploy something Visoflex, be it optical or EVF or to rely on the leg tips tips of the BOWU (extension tubes kit for copying postcards, A5, A4 with old 50mm) for guidance. You are right that the issue seems to matter less when shooting a wider lens but I'd guess framing is the same absolute distance off just less percentage of the captured subject.

 

I'll leave the elephants standing in the room: For desperate low light shooting I'd currently lean towards acquisition of either stabilized SLR lenses (Tamron 35, 45, 85? / Canon 35/2 & 85/1.4 or 100/2.8?) or a mirrorless kit with IBIS. With the digitals' metal shutters noisy recocking mechanism the silence of film Leicas is gone. 5D IV in silent mode sounds competitive or similar obnoxious to me, MILCs should have an edge over everything else. Some variants of AF work faster and better than I could.

 

But: An amateur has to buy what he'll want to shoot. Everything else is less likely to take pictures, since it might stay at home.

 

As others already suggested: If you go M10, take a step at a time; shoot your current 50mm first and figure out if you'd like 35mm more.

Here's the 50 mm Summicron pre-asph. Not sure about "stunning realism" but it does render nicely. This was in fairly low light. Personally, I've always liked the look of Summicrons over the Summilux. From examples I've seen, the latest Summilux ASPH can make photos with "stunning realism" but it almost looks to "clinical" to my jaded palette.

and here is the 4th version of the 35mm pre-asph. Its also not too bad.

and here is the 4th version of the 35mm pre-asph. Its also not too bad.

Awesome Pic