"To Summicron 28" or "To Summilux 35"

In my last post, I asked about a combination change, but I would

now like your recommendation as to whether I go for th

Summilux 35 I had, and add either a 24 or more likely the 28

later, OR get the 28 Summicron now, and add the 35 later.

 

I have never used this combination much before. Focal length

aside, is this a better idea for now, or should I just stick with what

I know, and be a little limited in the wide area. I guess I could

always add a fairly cheap Ultron 28/1.9 sooner than later to the

35, or add the Ultron 35/1.7 to the 28.

 

Please advise, as i will make a decision in the next 8 hours. I am

absolutely useless when it comes to buying, and your help is

much appreciated. I know I'll like both lenses, especially the

35/1.4, but am I better off with the "cheaper Summicron" now?

Thanks

If you don't know what you need, then you don't need it.

Kristian:

 

Gully asked nearly the same question about five posts down. I suggest you read over the responses made to him <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003YVz">Here</a>

<P>

Cheers,

I wish it was that simple. I know I need the 35mm, but the 28mm

might be more versatile for now, as when I get the 35mm, I'll

probably need something wider. And for now I can only afford

one.

Thanks Jack. Can you explain why you prefer using the 28/2 over

the 35/1.4?

 

Thanks

That 35mm Suumilux-M - f.1.4 is quite a lens ---- Either ASPH or NON. Go for it and you will be very pleased with what you can accomplish with that lens. Bill

Hi Kristian,

My "extremely high priced" advice would be to go with the 28MM. The focal length difference between the 28 and your 50 is greater allowing for cropping if necessary and it is one of the most outstanding lenses in the Leica stable. The only honest question you need to ask yourself;"How often will I need F1.4?"

If the HONEST answer is "only once in a great while" then you have your choice.

Kristian: To clarify, I don't believe I have ever stated that I preferred the 28(Cron) to the 35(Lux). If I ever implied that, my apologies as it isn't true. As a matter of fact, right now they would probably be the last two lenses I got rid of, and if it came down to just one I would keep the 35. I do think both lenses are marvels and capable of incredible images, and I do think they are enough different for my style of shooting to justify owning both. (FWIW, I never really liked the 28's with my SLR's, preferring the 24, but for some reason I much prefer the 28 to the 24 on the M.) Ultimately I would advise you the same way I advised Gully: Try to rent, beg or borrow one before you drop the big bucks on it, because it is the type of lens that may not be for everybody; too wide for some and not wide enough for others.

 

Cheers,

Kristian--A little more than a month ago I had an advertising job to spend 24

hours in a hospital documenting "a day in the life". Talk about a dream, I shot

three Leica Ms only, and had a 21, 28, 35, 50 and 90 with me. All on Tri-X.

About 30 minutes into the shoot I did something I've never done -- I dropped

the 35 Lux (nonAsph). I didn't worry so much about a "broken lens" nearly as

much as not having the 35 for the shoot. As it was I did okay with the the rest

of the lenses. I missed the 35 like an old friend plus the 'speed' of the Lux. I

sent the 35 to Sherry for fixing (she said it was one of the hardest repairs she's

ever had to do on a lens). Anyway, a month without the 35 was not fun. I really

missed it. I really think the 35mm is the most basic Leica M lens. I believe

anybody who photographs people should build their system around the

35mm. So, if I were you I'd get the 35mm which you're comfortable with

anyway and worry about the other stuff later.

Kristian,

 

I'd consider the 35 to be more versatile, unless you know you're going to be shooting indoors predominantly. Outdoors, you can always move back to include more in the shot, or move in to crop. Indoors, when you can only back up so much, the 28 will allow you to include more of the surrounding scene scene, if that's what you're after.

Dear Kristian,

My first M lens was the 4th version 35 cron. I still take 90% of my photos with it although I also have a 50 lux. 90TE, and 28 cron.

The 28 is a great lens, but not a normal lens unless you are Winogrand reicarnated. Buy the 35 and shoot with it for a long while before buying a second lens. You won't regret it!

I use the 35/1.4ASPH as the low-light counterpart to my Tri-Elmar, on which I use primarily 28 and 50. In the days before the Tri-Elmar I shot with a late 28 Elmarit and 50/2. I still own a non-ASPH 35/2 and used to own the 35/2ASPH but once I got my first 28 the 35's saw little use. It's all in personal preference, which nobody can decide for you. If you can, rent a 35 and a 28 (they don't have to be the ASPH's) and shoot them.

i always thought i would eventually get a 28/2 to go with my 50/2, but i ended up getting a 35/1.4 and have never regretted it. now i am thing that i may skip the 28 and go really wide say a 21.

This and many past posts can only really be answered by the poster.

 

To garner the "correct" answer there are really only two questions they must answer.

 

1.) How much lens speed do I need?

 

2.) For their photography, what angles of view best suit them.

 

Oops, I lied. There is a third question. Given the answers to the first two, what can I afford?

 

Jerry

Man, I really think the 35 is the best all-around lens for the M. Having seen some nice 35 work with natl. geog., plus the logic of a lens that's wide enough, but not too wide in practice, clenched the fact that the 35 is my versatile one lens. Additionally, I like my 75 lux for the reach and speed. Portraits, etc., the 75 is a nice addition. In the future, perhaps I'd like the 24 or 28, probably leaning towards the 24 though. I'm sure you already have a body for the 35, but in retrospect I'd prefer a .58, since I wear glasses, but the .72 isn't bad to use with it either.

 

Anyway, good luck and may your decision work out in practice.

John Fulton- What all happened to that 35 'lux that Sherry had such a time repairing? Cracked glass? How many elements? Was the cam damaged? I have wondered how much damage it takes to total out the lens-- where it is cheaper to buy a new one.

>>>>>What all happened to that 35 'lux that Sherry had such a time

repairing? Cracked glass? How many elements? Was the cam damaged? I

have wondered how much damage it takes to total out the lens-- where it is

cheaper to buy a new one.<<<<<

 

Frank Horn--Here's the deal with the 35mm Summilux repair. Understand that

I got this as a new lens from my first wife for my birthday back in early to

mid-1970's. Since then I've used it daily and have done zip to it. About seven

or so years ago Leica technicians said it was in serious need of a CLA. The

focusing was loose. The lens itself was loose and the front element/assembly

would easily unscrew. It was a mess, but it was my mess and it worked fine.

The fall it took was from about waist level onto a linoleum floor. Linoleum

tends to be "somewhat" soft. Right. At that point the lens was no longer loose.

The focus wouldn't move. In essence Sherry said that this was one of the most

time-consuming repairs on a lens she's ever done. The focusing helicoid had

to be "lapped" three times because the lens took an inside cut. She also did a

complete CLA, re-greased the helicoid and "installed new lever" (whatever

that is). The lens is now like a new lens. Honestly when I use it I have to look

at to be sure it's my "old" lens. It's amazing. BTW, I have no idea what this lens

is worth. If we take a guess that it's worth US$600, the repair came in at less

than 30% of that amount, fyi. I hope that answers your question.