Got the camera and now the lens...

[ike k]

Hi Guys,

 

Camera M6TTL (0.58) is on the way (Got it from other forumer's here) and now my lens

choice. I'm eyeing on 35/2 cron and the 50/2 cron, what would be good option for me to

start? I appreciate any input for all forumers here and I can't wait for my new photography

journey with leica :)

 

iKe

[Rob F.]

Since you bought the .58, it seems you plan on shooting with wide angle lenses. Why not start with the 35?

[35mmdelux]

the .58 m6 is best with wide angle lenses. Hence, your best option would be a 35mm cron.

[woodward_hoffman]

No one seems to be neutral about 50mm lenses. Some people love them, some people think they're expensive paper weights. I think it depends a lot on your style and personal preferences. But, since you asked, I'd go for the new 35mm f2 asph, or barring that, the last (fourth) version of the 35mm f2 non-asph. The perspective of the 35mm lens just seems to work better. With a 50mm it always seems either a bit too long or a bit too short. Plus, you can add 90mm for the "classic" two lens kit.

 

But (don't everyone start throwing rocks at once...) with the 0.58, I'd be very tempted to go with the Tri-Elmar. You'll loose two f-stops, but add flexibility. (Full disclosure: I own the Tri-elmar but it seems to spend most of its time on the 35mm setting :-) .)

[terry_rory]

You cannot go wrong with either. A good 35/2 will be more expensive than the same generation of 50/2 assuming condition is similar. (About 60 percent more expensive in my experience) A used 35/2 will need to be checked to ensure the front element is not unscrewing, we hear about this frequently, partly due to the design and partly due to careless users twisting their lenses on and off camera by using the lens hood as a grip! (Never hear about this happening with a 50/2)

 

Not much else I can think of really except that the difference in price between a nice 4th gen tabbed 50/2 and a nice pre-asph 4th gen tabbed 35/2 (both with hoods) will pay for a CV 35mm f2.5 M bayonet fit 'pancake' lens. That is what I would do.

[james_elwing]

Just trying to be irritating here. Yes of course you need a 35, any Leica 35/2, but you should automatically buy 90/4 Elmar M, fair one should cost $50.

[dan flanders]

The 50mm lens has long been accepted as the standard lens for the 135 format because its angle of acceptance most closely matches the PRACTICAL

compass of the human eye. Obviously the eye has a wider angle of perception, but it requires concentration to exploit the wider angle. OTOH the 35 has been regarded as the beginning of the wide angle experience because that is the angle at which distorted perspective begins to be exhibited if the lens is not carefully leveled. The 40 is a good compromise between the two and the Summicron C (and its clones) is one of the best buys, affording the most speed and precision for a modest price, and is regarded by many as one of best lenses that Leica/Leitz has ever provided. It is usually available for one third to one half the cost of other comparable Leica lenses. I would suggest that you give it consideration as your beginning lens. I have used it for nearly twenty years on my M6 and I have had no reason whatever to question its performance. I am sure that if you research the PN archives you will find many others of the same opinion. Good luck!

[notraces]

35 cron is a great lens for the .58 --- I shot that combo in Cuba and loved it...

[frederick_muller]

I'm going to break ranks here and swing afield. In my opinion, the .58 and the 28mm focal length are MFEO. I suggest you go for a 28mm VC Ultron (or a used 28mm Summicron) and later add a 50mm Summicron as a "short tele", which is exactly what it looks like in the .58 view. That pair, and the .58, make a wonderfully versatile package.

[woodward_hoffman]

I've seen over and over again the claim that the 50mm somehow matches the human eye's view. But I've never seen the hard evidence or analysis to back it up. It feels more like an urban legend than anything.

 

My bigest problem with the 50mm lens is that it's almost always too narrow for interior shots or, for that matter, taking pictures outside in some quaint little town with narrow winding streets on your next vacation. I agree with James Elwing's idea above of picking up an inexpensive (for Leica) 90mm f4 Elmar (or spend a little more and get the 90mm Tele-Elmarit which isn't much bigger than the 50mm Summicron).

 

As for the 40mm, it doesn't match any of the M6's framelines. But it is inexpensive and it is better than all but the last of the pre-asph 35mm f2's.

[jim_a]

The .58 and a 35 were made for each other. Great combo. Not a big fan of using a 50 on my .58 body. I tend to us the 50 on my M2.

[SolaresLarrave]

Ike, get both if you can. Usually, the 35/2 is the expensive one, but a decent 50 'cron can be had for around $400 (in very good shape).

 

I must admit that I seldom use mine, and that my camera usually has a 35mm lens on, but after using wide-angles for a while, the 50 feels like a refreshing change... and gives you the impression of using a looong lens.

[andrew_c2]

I love the 50 and hate the 35. Yes, hate. The 50 lets me isolate the subject more and can be used as a stand-in for a short tele or a 35 in a pinch. With the 35, I have to get way too close for comfort to the subject in order to isolate. And I don't care too much for 'getting the environment in' that many 35 users rave about. Remember Capa, "If your pictures aren't good, you're not close enough." Regards

[gp_.]

I think the 50 cron is the cream of the crop. But since you already have the .58 camera, no reason not to get the 35/2 and maximize the capabilities of that viewfinder, also a great lens with tremendous sharpness.

[vic_.]

Ike, You have to ask yourself some questions:

<br>- Why did you buy a 0.58 body as your first body? Was it because it was a good deal, or after some research you found it was the body you wanted?

<br>- In your past, what focal length have you preferred? Not everybody likes the 35mm or the 50mm, even though 90+ percent of photography is done with the two. Some like the 24mm perspective. These surveys are dangerous, because you can go broke following some of the advice and getting a lens you end up not liking. <b>What does Ike like?</b>

<br>- If you're restricting yourself to the 35/2 or the 50/2, and might (in Leica terms there is no might, there's will) get a second lens in the future, buy whatever's the better deal right now.

<br>- I caution you that prices of used Leica gear have gone up recently, so act fast.

<br>I hope you enjoy whatever you choose. Best wishes!

[wmwhee]

My only lens for leica rangefinder camera is a 35mm Summicron lens, which suits my style of shooting and subject matter perfect-- wide enough for decent landscape pictures and long enough for individual and group pictures. My second lens would be the new 75mm Summicron lens. But I could die a happy man, as far as photography goes, with never owning anything other than the 35mm lens. Photographer and columnist Mike Johnston addresses the question of best lens for Leica in one of his Sunday Morning Photography pieces.

 

Go to <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-dec-04.shtml>.

 

Have fun.

[paul_neuthaler]

35 'cron or 'lux -- but if you're a real player, a 28 Summicron on your .58 M6ttl.

[john dorfman]

The 50mm lens doesn't match the angle of view of the human eye, it matches its

perspective. This is a very common misconception. With a 50, you don't get any

exaggeration of converging verticals, etc., nor do you get pictures that look

squashed, as with a telephoto. No lens sees exactly like the eye. For my

photography, I've found that the 50 is versatile enough for most purposes. Except

when something like a wall keeps you from backing up any further! And if you look

over the history of photography, the vast majority of memorable pictures were made

either with a 50 or with the equivalent "normal" focal length in other film formats.

Wide-angle lenses were too much of a challenge for lens designers till relatively

recently. Those lenses tended to be too slow and have too much vignetting or

distortion for everyday use.

[vic_.]

Mike Johnston also wrote this hilarious article on photo.net:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column57/index.html">Click here for: Uses and applications of 35mm Lenses</a>

[huw_finney]

Try a 35/2.5 CV pancake, cheap (ish) and very good.

[terry_rory]

My I add one of my own (in the spirit of Mike Johnston)..

 

Leica MP (A la Carte) + 35mm Asph f/2.... The lottery winner's Olympus Stylus Epic. One stop faster and 5 percent better results in 95 percent of the same situations. The films from both will, in all probability, end up in the same 1 hour minilab where all qualitative differences will be reduced to nought by a 17 year old student working at weekends or posting 511 pixel wide snapshots of 'our new baby' on a leica owner's website. Will be sold as soon as first dentist bills for new baby arrive and a Stylus Epic purchased. The owner will still maintain his shots are all Leica and no-one will know the difference.

 

(I do not mean a word of it of course and would jump at the chance to use such a fabulous camera. Just my strange humour.)

[mattalofs]

<center>

<img src="http://www.1point4photography.com/images/00710002.jpg"><br>35mm shot <br>

<img src="http://www.1point4photography.com/images/00910007.jpg"><br>50mm shot</center><br>

<br>

Just for the sake of comparison, here's the difference between a 50 at .7 meters and a 35 at .7 meters. The 35 and the 50 are different lenses, but can be used for much the same things. Buy whichever you can afford or is available to you. Eventually you can buy both and decide which you like. I actually shoot with a 35 on one body (Hexar AF built in) and 50 on the other (Hexar RF with 50 hexanon). It works well for me. And yes, a .58 body is better suited to a 35 than it is to a 50, but I'm not having any trouble using a 50 on my hexar and it has a .6 viewfinder. It might make a difference with a really fast lens, but it's kind of nice to have the extra space around the frame lines.<br><br>

 

Congrats on the camera BTW. Put it to good use.

[jtdnyc]

Woodward and John, I think the issue of the "naturalness" of the 50mm lens is best stated as follows: An uncropped 8x10 print from a negative taken with a 50mm lens (on 135 format film), when held at normal reading distance, will have natural perspective.

 

I think it's right to say, as John pointed out, that it isn't the field of view, but rather the perspective of view, that makes a 50mm lens normal. But this is true only for certain combinations of print size and viewing distance. It's possible to achieve natural perspective in a print, held at normal viewing distance, if the print is larger than 8x10 and the taking lens was a wide-angle, or if the print is smaller than 8x10 and the taking lens was longer than normal.

 

Natural perspective can also be achieved if the print size is held constant but the viewing distance is changed.

 

A more general way to put this relationship is that the print will have natural perspective if it subtends the same angle of view as the lens on which it was taken. At normal reading distance (15") and for normal-sized prints (8x10), that means a 50.

[ike k]

Thanks Folks!!!, I've been searching and seems it is 35/2 cron is more expensive than the

50/2 cron (all latest model) and I think I would give a try the 35 cron first. If money

allowed I would look upon a good deal on the 50. I pretty much have the budget for 35

cron and just have to be patient on the wait list here and the evil "BAy". One more question

folks, do you think the new 75/2 cron would be an awesome performance? how much is

the price? based on erwin puts that Vic gave the link above I think my camera should be

fine with the focal length. Thanks again I'm beginning impatient to start posting pictures

here :).

 

iKe

[andy_aitken]

"As for the 40mm, it doesn't match any of the M6's framelines."

 

Ah, but it does. It matches the M6 "35mm" framelines. The lenses that DON'T match the M6 framelines are as follows: 28mm, 35mm and 50mm ;-)

 

Seriously, if you're undecided why not split the difference and get a 40mm Summicron, file a bit of metal off the mount (details can be found hereabouts) and you'll have a great lens for a great price.