The most useful Lens for M6

If I have to stick on just one leica lens for a Leica M6 TTL body, which lens is the most useful and perfect combination in quality & performance?

Thanks for your advice... <http://welcome.to/studionaki>

It is a toss up for me... either the 35mm or 50mm Summicron.

<p>

35mm- Great candid lens for hip shots. The horizontal base is equal

to the distance from the subject, so "eye-balling" composition is a

snap, (pun intended). In the dark room, you can remove excess, but

you can't add extra after the shot, so those extra couple of

millimeters can come in handy. Physically, the last Pre-Asph version

has to be the nicest combo on an M camera... it is truly tiny.

<p>

50mm- The moniker of "normal" or "standard" is applicable to both of

these lenses since the actual "standard" for 35mm film is just over

43mm, and these two lenses are pretty much equally on either side. I

think the fifty is better for more "considered" photography. It

allows more use of selective focus, but still give good deep focus

when set hyperfocally. The use of the fifty makes it easy to see

around the frame with-in the finder... allowing great anticipation

during dynamic shooting especially in crowds.

<p>

Every roll shot with one of these lenses makes that particular lens

my favorite at that time. I do anguish when deciding which one to

carry, (I sometimes like the one lens approach), but you really

couldn't make a "wrong" choice... they are both great. The last 25

roll that I have shot were about 80% 35mm Summicron... but then

again... that fifty...

I pretty much agree with Al. Between the the 35mm and 50mm lengths, I

can't really say one way or the other. It depends on what's on the

camera. Right now it's a 50'cron. I usually take it, the 35'cron and

the 21 wherever I go.

IMHO

<p>

For me its the 50 for a few months, then 35 for a few months.

<p>

Both are of equal quality.

<p>

The 50 is more useful outdoors, the 35 is more useful indoors, the

35 is more useful outdoors for environmental portraiture and for

conveying the sense of a place.

<p>

So I guess its the 35.

<p>

Check back in two months time ;-)

NHP, I am also divided between the 35 and 50, but being a wide-angle

enthusiast, I'd say the 35 is the more versatile. The 35 Summicron

is very sharp, so, as noted above, you can always crop. The

perspective of a 35mm focal length looks very natural to me. I think

it's the closest to my own vision, no matter what they say about the

50 being closest to human vision. Also, note that although, as noted

above, the true diagonal of the 35mm format is 43 mm, this is only

true if we are using the entire frame. But if we are printing to an

8x10 format, then we are using 24x30 mm of the negative, not 24x36.

Then the effective diagonal becomes 38.4mm. Thus the 35mm lens comes

closest to "normal."

<p>

One other thing. Following the rule that the lowest hand-held

shutter speed should be the reciprocal of the focal length, then with

a 35mm yo can shoot in low light at 1/30 second. But with the 50, we

would shoot at 1/50. This means that 1/30 at f:1.4, with the 35mm

Summilux, will give us almost the same exposure as 1/50 at f: 1.0,

with the Noctilux! And cheaper!

<p>

Regards,

Since the theft of my 35mm Summicron-RF(gogles) I have been forced to use the 50mmSummicron f2.0,mainly on M3.I love the perspective and feel of the 50mm.I can use it at maximum aperture for out of focus backgrounds and closed down for long depth of sharpmess.I have a large frame to compose in.If my main camera was M2/4/6 I think it would be the 35mm!Again its the biggest frame in finder.Also one could shoot at one speed less.Makes lens faster...as said earlier.The beauty of Leica is the lack of vibration and ability to shoot at slow speeds.I have hand held portrait candids at an 8th or 15th.About one in 5 is quite sharp.

A wonderful portait of a friend was done this way.

The 50mm Summicron is my suggestion.There is also very little chance of distortion unless one does portraits at 3feet and under.The photographers out there saying not true about distortion perspective with 35mm are wrong.Compare such photos with civilians.(non-photographers),You are in for BIG surprise.We accept and understand the feel of wide angles.I have collapsible lens.It makes camera and lens, easy to slip into large pocket.Bill Mitchell will tell you how big and clumsy the M-series are, compared to screw mount Leicas.The other alternative is the "Tri-Elmar".One has 28/35/50 in one lens.The only drawback is slower speed.If the point and shoot mob are happy with f10.5 lenses or slower,the f4.0 looks positively fast.There are fast films.I use 400 speed negative film for large prints.I`m about to test the 800 speed.

I'm a wide-angle aficionado, so my favorite lens on an M6 .72 is the

35 Summilux ASPH. I like photos that show some context along with my

subjects, so the 35 is ideal. The 'lux is a fantastic available

light lens, too. My second favorite is actually the 28 Elmarit (I'm

waiting eagerly for the new Summicron), especially on the Hexar RF.

<p>

The comment above about the Tri-Elmar is valid, too. I'm looking

forward to trying one out on the Hexar.

<p>

But as far as a single focal length goes, 35 wins hands down for me.

Please Solms, oh please, give me an f:4 tri-Elmar 35,50,90 about the

same size and weight as the 28-35-50, and I'll never complain about

those stinkin', lousy, virtually useless, 80% of true size, frame

lines again.

More a question than a contribution:

<p>

I have an M6 and a Summilux and I'm trying to choose another lens.

It's a choice between a 50mm (perhaps the f1.4) and the 24mm. I'm

mostly interested in street photography, so I am leaning towards the

24mm. Obviously, a choice I need to make for myself but I'd

appreciate any comments, particularly regarding the various 50mm

lenses.

<p>

Fergus

<p>

P.S. In answer to the original question, I'd choose what I have: the

Summilux. I love it's low-light abilities.

The best match camera and lens for M6: 50 'cron on 0.85 M6 and 35

'cron on a 0.72 M6. All Lieca latest lesees are good. Particularly

the the wide angle lenses. Nothing like it from the SLR counterparts.

The 35 and 21 asph lenses changes my veiw of 35 format wide angle

lenses.

Thanks for sharing your opinion... Let me tell you about my situation. I had Two Leica M6 TTL and Summicron 50/2, Hexanon-M90/2.8 and

Elmarit 28/2.8, but I have sold one M6 and 28/2.8. I am wondering between following option; 1. Sell Summi50/2 & Hexanon90/2.8 and buy

Summicron 35/2 ASPH. 2. Keep current system and add 35/2 or 28/2. That's why I posted questions on this site. BTW, I have got Hexar Silver

35/2 about 2 weeks ago. I think it is pretty good, but I am not sure about its quality and performance in compare with Summicron 35/2 ASPH.

My specialty is in Architectural, Still Life, and Street Photography. You can see my images <http://welcome.to/studionaki>. Leica M was, is my

dream camera since I had studied photography, and I love to shoot people in the street with M6. Therefore, at least I want to keep this M6 even if

I quit photography for any reason. Well, what do you think about this situation? Of course it's up to me, but I want to know your thought.

Thanks for help.... ^L^...

http://welcome.to/studionaki

www.welcome.to/studionaki

I spent about a year with an M6 and 50mm Summicron. Then I added a

Hexar Silver for 35mm.

<p>

Since then I've added the 35mm Summicron. For the most part, I wish I

had gotten the 28mm instead. The 35mm Summicron is wonderful, but I

doubt that there's any practical difference between it and the Hexanon

lens. Also, I continue to get my best images with the 50mm Summicron,

and there's no way that I would give up this lens.

<p>

I frequently travel with only one lens. The 50mm is usually what I

pick.

<p>

A year ago, I came across a used Tri_Elmar at a good price. It solved

a lot of these problems, but has the usual disadvantages of a zoom

lens: slow and large. Now I'm wondering if I should sell the 35mm

Summicron (but then, I never get rid of any photo gear).

If I am restricted to carry one Leica M body with one lens, I almost

always go for a 35mm lens. IMHO, the 24/35 makes a good combination,

as does the 28/50 if you donB�t want moderate wide angle.

<p>

If you were headed in the direction of a M6 body with one lens, I

would strongly recommend that you consider the 35mm Summilux ASPH. I

have used both the 35 Summicron ASPH and Hexanon 35 (Konica Silver)

but later upgraded to the 35 Summilux ASPH. To me, the essence of

using Leica M system is to be able to shoot large and open f-stops

without much optical/image compromises. The Konica Hexanon 35 is an

excellent lens overall; but its open f-stop performance is well

behind the two Leica lenses. While the performance of 35 Summicron

and 35 Summilux is about equal, the ability to shoot f1.4 make the 35

Summilux worth its extra cost.

<p>

Cheers,

Most M owners swear by the 35.

<p>

Most M owners also seem to own a 50.

<p>

This is something I don't understand very well, but there certainly

are people who find one to be anathema and the other to be perfect.

After some experimentation, I discovered that I'm a 50 man myself --

a good thing, because I have an M3!

<p>

One minor thing about 35mm lenses that I dislike: most non-zoom P&S

cameras use this length, so people are very used to seeing it.

As an aside, does anyone know what wide-angle lens did David Allen

Harvey use mainly on his work in Cuba last year? I hear conflicting

reports between a 28 and a 35. I like the composition of his

pictures and the way the environment is included in most of them.

Also, I did not notice any distortion of faces along the edges of his

pictures as evidenced by most wide-angle lens.

I am essentially a 50mm man too. However I do have the 40mm Rokkor

for my CL and this is a great standard focal length too. I like

closer cropped shots as a rule and I find 35mm never allows you to

get so close. I notice above that this is precisely what many people

like about 35s though - it allows easier cropping.

<p>

A really nice thing about 35s is that they are very small - smaller

than the equivalent 50. 35s are also very good for photos of groups

of people, particularly at weddings and inside as you can get a wider

view without appreciable distortion. I have to confess that this

would be very useful on occasion. Otherwise I do prefer the 50mm/28mm

combination.

I used to be a 50mm type- more because that was all I had for the

longest time on my camera. Then I next got a 28mm, and felt for years

that that was the only way I could see things. Lately, while almost

shooting exclusively my Hexar, I've found going back to the 28mm on my

SLR is not that easy- I seem to have gotten quite used to the 35mm.

<p>

I think if I were to get an M6, my first lens might be a 50mm

tho'. Like others have said, I'm happier with intimate portraits with

this lens- the 35mm can be pretty darned unflattering if you get close

in, IMO. (And sure, environmental portraits can be great- but to me

that implies that you as the photog can walk around- and get further

from your subject- in that environment.)

<p>

Just don't put me in front of some beautiful landscape, lest I run to

get my 28 (or should I say 35, now??)