28/50 or 35/75 combo preference

[james_.1]

We hear quite a bit about the 35/75 combination, how about the 28/50

as a 2 lens set? Guess it depends if you're a wider vision for

photos or more tele. It would seem the 35/75 combination would be a

bit less fiddly for one body since the 35mm seems to be able to stand

alone for M photography on average. Any comments?

 

Personally I think either works well.

[aa2000]

I tried 24/50 before, and now I'm back to 35/90.

[mark-j]

I have 28, 35, 50, 90 and 135. Prefer the 35/90 combo. The 28 is too wide for a 2 lens set. For 3 I take 28, 50 and 90.

 

Cheers.

[shambrick007]

28/75 if the 75's a 1.4, otherwise, 28/50.

[john_brewton]

I agree with Mark. But my two lens set is a 50/90. I've never shot a 35. Anyone in the loaner business? The 28 is a great lens and I probably don't use it enough, but it's not my first or second choice.

[john_elder1]

I have 28,35,50,and 90tele-elmarit. 2 lens outfit would be 35/90.

3 lens outfit would be 35,50.90. The reason for the 50 as the 3rd lens is because it is a summilux and I need the fast lens more frequently than the wide lens. However, its a close choice between the 28 and the 50 for the 3 lens set.

[back alley]

i like the 35/75 combo.

would likely add a 28 for wide.

[rgh]

On a trip to Indonesia a few years ago I thought I'd try a 24/50 outfit, but got cold feet in

Singapore and didn't pass up a deal on a used 35mm which still got most of the work. I've

also used for years in the past the classic 35/90 combination.

 

But now I'm into the 35/50 grove. Some people think of them as almost the same, and the

35mm or 50mm with a couple feet can work as the other - true in some ways but they are

different. Sometimes that distance the 50mm gives to a subject is important, or that .7 m

close focus is just enough to get in tight. Subjects can be nicely isolated with a wide

aperture with the 50mm too. The 50 is my minimum lens the 90 used to be. The 35mm is

good general wide, but not so much that you

lose detail, its an easy wide to use with a view that is natural to me. Both are light and

small and its really no problem carrying both.

[joe_r1]

35/90 is my favorite combo. I suppose I could get used to the 75 framelines, but they seem awkward. I use the 35 about 80% of the time, the 90 20% at best.

[Rob F.]

Since the point of a 2 lens set is to save weight and bulk, the 75 Summilux seems to defeat the purpose, unless the C/V 75mm f/2.5 is used. I shot with 35/90 for some years, and did pretty well with it. Today, with the 90mm Tele-Elmarit available, it seems like an even better option now. But then, a 50 takes up little room in the bag, so maybe a 3-lens outfit is the best idea. Personally, I don't go out without a 35mm, no matter what else I do or don't bring.

[Aoresteen]

I used the 28/85 and while I like each lens, I found the 28 is too wide. I now have 35/85 set up.

 

For 3 lens I use 21, 28, & 50 which works very well.

[gee-bug]

I use a 35ASPH cron & 50 Elmar combo quite a bit. Their perspectives and characteristics really are quite different. These two focal lengths are, IMHO, the most useful focal lengths on a .72 body. The cron + Elmar combo is small, unobtrusive, and light (and relatively inexpensive).

[dan flanders]

Leica had a good idea when they designed the CL around the 40/90 combination. I use it today, supplemented occasionally with the 25 Skopar and consider it more flexible than the old 50/90 that was common for years. Additionally it yields the most quality for the least outlay of any combination I can imagine.

[eddie y.]

I use a 35lux/75lux combo. Took me a while to figure out that this works best for me. I rarely need anything wider than a 35mm (I'll probably buy a CV 21mm in the future). But I also like the 75lux for more reach and for portraits, for which it is a better lens than the 50cron. I shoot indoors and at night fairly often, so I really appreciate the extra speed of these lenses.

 

But, for example, a 28-Ultron/50-cron combo is a great setup too.

[timothy_nelson]

It depends on the environment, too. If you're talking about travel photography, the

35/90 is a universal combo that works for me in almost any circumstances. I like the

28/50 more for urban settings with tighter spaces. Last time I traveled with 28/50, I

missed having the 90 when I found myself in some music and dance concerts. I

always come across some situations when I wish I had a 21 or my Widelux along, too,

but that's the price for keeping it simple. The flip side is that it's visually inspiring to

be limited to just 1 or 2 lenses, so my imagination works harder. The 35 works for

me as a 1-lens kit, but not the 28, unless it's an environment I know well in advance.

[lee_shively]

35/50.

[travis1]

35/35

[gary e]

James,

 

I use the 40cron-C/90elmar-C most of the time and sometimes add the VC21 for a 3 lens combo. All pretty compact and light which is why I like to use my M in the first place. My friends use the 35cron/90cron combo.

 

Between the two choices, I'd chose the 28/50. I'd wish there was an 80elmarit or cron in the M line; the 75 is too large and heavy.

 

Regards,

Gary

[jsbc]

I have all the focal lengths - sometimes the mileage would vary depending whether you want to shoot portraits (35/75) or scenic (28/50). In the case of the latter, my experience is the 50 get used more of the time.

 

Personally, I think two camera 3 lens is the best combo (24/35/75or90).

 

If I have to carry one bod & two lenses, it would be a tri-elmar plus a 35 lux.

[chris_chow]

35/90 for me. Prefer the 35 to the 28. If possible, will also carry the 24. The 75 is too bulky.

[ken_k1]

35/90 for Leica

 

60/80 for 120 6X6 (OT, Sorry)

[henry_ting2]

James, my comment is different from the others. Lens should reflect the way the individual sees. I find regardless of what angle a specific lens covers, its the perception of being able to visualize the result that is vastly more important. I also find getting used to a particular lens takes time. Especially with a rangefinder, which is unlike a SLR where you can compose and see the result, a rangefinder takes a much longer time to be able to have a feel of what a particular lens could/couldn't do. That takes time and having since bought all kinds of Leica M lens, to this date I'm still more creative with a 35mm and a 50mm. As a matter of fact, everytime I purchase a new lens, I tend to stick with it for at least several months to see if I can get used to the lens' character mentally. The end result of course is the picture that counts, not so much as to whether its sharp or technically capable or whether its too heavy or big; but rather whether my perception can adapt to the lens' character. After all a lens should be my creative tool and since photography is all about vision, I wouldn't hangon to a lens that is in conflict with the way I see things.

[henry_ting2]

BTW, you can call be prejudiced in preferring to see things my way instead of opening my eyes to see all the possibilities. Personally I don't think its possible to have a gamut of different perspective covering the entire range of Leica lens from 21mm thru 135mm in photography unless one is so gifted.

[david_lamond]

I use three lenses - 28/2 asph, 50/2.8, 90/4. Light weight and unobtrusive. The 50 accounts for only about 10% of my shots - I don't like its perspective.

 

Now to the original question: If restricted to 2 lenses, I would pick 35 and 90. There is a modicum of science in this, as explained in the following post (here is the link if you want the original: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/eye.html )

 

Subject: Re: Lens Kits

 

Bob,

 

Thanks for the reply. I understand your point about the 35 or 50 as the

"normal" lens. I have two comments on "normal".

 

The first was from a local shopkeeper when I was buying an SLR back in the

70's. He showed me both a 40 mm on a Pentax and a Konica, and a 35 f/2.5 E

lens on the Nikon. I told him I preferred the view of the 50 mm. He said,

"Maybe for now, but one day you'll be using a 35 or 40." How prophetic!

What turned me was the realization that many scenes I saw where I thought,

"Boy, that would make a great shot", framed perfectly in the 40 mm Pentax.

 

The second part of this, is that after I had this inspiration of a great

shot a number of times, I sat down one day and tried to figure out just how

my eyes and brain worked versus focal length. I spent an entire day out on

the back porch with my camera, lenses, pad and pencil, a steel tape, and a

scientific calculator. By mid-afternoon I had it figured out. And this is

what I found:

 

1) the standard tables of lens angle of view give the angle on the diagonal.

We don't see that way. Our eyes are on a horizontal plane, and our field of

view is wider than it is high. So we need to worry primarily about the

horizontal angle of view for the particular format we are looking at. This

is all 35 mm for me. Comment that 43 mm is the diagonal of the 35 mm frame

and therefore is the focal length of a "normal" lens seems to be more of an

argument for Pythagoras, rather than relating to how we view scenes and

prints.

 

 

2) I found that if the eyes are not converged, but focused at infinity, the

effective angle of view corresponds to roughly a 38 mm lens. So a 35 or 40

mm sees about the same way we do when we are not focusing in on a specific

detail. I know our peripheral vision extends to nearly 180 degrees, but

color perception and sharpness are best in the areas I am talking about

here. It also takes a while to learn to be aware of when your eyes are

converging or not. I refer to this region as the focal length of perfect

composition. Or the region of sudden inspiration, since when we glance at a

distant scene we have not yet converged our eyes to pick out details, but

are taking in the whole scene.

 

3) If you close one eye and run the same experiment, the region of sharpest

vision is that of a 50 mm lens. I refer to this as the focal length of

perfect perspective. Great for art works and architecture if we want to

preserve the proportions. But jarring for portraits. An artist I know (she

teaches photography and art at Case) uses a 55 mm lens for portraits.

People who see her work comment on the tension in her prints. There is

always a feeling of confined energy. I think we are sensing the wrongness

the one-eyed view point her lens gives.

 

4) I then worked on the issue of convergence of the eyes. This was quite

surprising as I found that there is a minimum angle of convergence which is

stable. If you try to converge less than that, your eyes tend to flicker.

I believe this is a matter of the minimum amount of muscle tension which is

required to stabilize the eye position. This turned out to be about 80-85

mm. Anything narrower is stable as you concentrate your attention on a

point. So I think of 85 mm as the beginning of the region of convergent

vision, or the region of detail.

 

5) if you take all the previous points, you can define your vision in terms

of focal lengths. 35-40 mm is the point for non-converged binocular vision.

50 mm is a singular point of monocular vision. 85 mm and longer is the

region of stable convergence. Shorter than 35 mm is the region of wider

than normal vision. It requires motion of the head or eyes to get the same

effect.

 

6) Since 35 mm is the equivalent of non converged eyes, and 85 is the

minimum convergence, there is no vision mode between those two focal

lengths, except the singular point at 50 mm. If a zoom lens covers 35-70,

you will always want more length, but not often a lot more width. A 35-105

or 35 -135 covers the critical 35 mm focal length and gives a useful amount

of length beyond the 85 mm point. Hence my satisfaction with the 35 and

70-150 combo.

 

Once you understand what the various focal length ranges correspond to, it

helps you to pick out your lens set.

 

After I had gone through all this effort, I thought I can't be the first

person to have found this. So I went to the library and began to search for

prior articles. Sure enough. In the Kodak Photographic Encyclopedia I

found references to all of the things I have listed. I feel pretty good

about working it all out for myself, even though I had rediscovered the

wheel. But why is this not common knowledge?

 

[andy_aitken]

David, that was brilliant, just the sort of "real world" science we could use more of here! Thanks for sharing.

 

I knew there was a reason I liked my 35/90 :-)