35's and 90's which ones to get?

[geddert]

Okay, i give up. I'm getting an M system. I know it will cost a fortune, but as you know, once you have fondled one you don't want to let go.

<p>

So, here are my options for my first 3 lenses (one will be a 50/2). I am having trouble deciding between the other two, either a 35/1.4 and 90/2.8 or a 35/2 and a 90/2. I am a big fan of available light photography, but loose a stop with either combo. The Noctilux will be added in the future. Which option do you think I should go for?

 

Thanks for your suggestions.

[eric_grigorian]

This is good question...maybe one i should of asked myself a couple

days ago. I just bought a 90 2.0 off Ebay couples days ago. It's the

version prior to the current one. From what i've heard the 90 2.8 is a

sharper lens than the 2.0. I opted to get the 2.0 mainly because of the

extra stop and also because i found a used one in mint condition for

$690. i think that's a good price, no?!?

The good thing about the 2.8 is it is also very small and light.

I guess i don't really have an answer for you, but both seem to be good

choices. Which 90 2.0 are you thinking of getting? The new version is

VERY expensive.

[matt_veld1]

I would recommend that you get the 35/2 asph for your first lens and a

90/2.8 for your second lens and add the 50/2 later on. I have a 90/2

APO which is great, however I bought it at cost or close to it. If I

had to pay retail I would buy the 90/2.8. The 35/2 asph is a

fantastic lens and really suits an M6, and I find it so easy to use

with it's great depth of field. That's not to say the 50/2

is not a superb lens also. However personally I have found the 35/2

asph to be amazingly sharp with superb contrast and to have the edge

over the 50/2; at least optically. I would also buy a mint condition

used M6 from one of the Leica dealers and save perhaps $300 on the

purchase. You could even look at doing the same with your lens

purchases.

[mark_johnson3]

Matthew: I own the 2nd version of the 90 f:2.0 and it is very sharp,

but I prefer the 90 f:4.0 elmar for the weight. I would consider the

90 f:2.8 thin elmarit made a few years ago if weight is a

consideration, otherwise I would buy the newer 90 f:2.0 as the 2.0

and 2.8 are close on weight. I enjoy available light and a 35 f:2.0

works well depending on your film and how steady you are with the

camera.

 

<p>

 

Mark J.

[bill_lee2]

Deciding on which of these lenses to buy must be a great place to

be. Can I live vicariously through you and have some fun for a

minute?

 

<p>

 

Option 1. 50/2, 35/2, 90/2 equals $4,485 retail at B&H.

2. 50/2, 35/1.4, 90/2.8 equals $4,785.

 

<p>

 

consider 3. 50/1.4, 35/1.4, 90/2.8 equals $5,685.

 

<p>

 

Option 3 seems like more money but you can save money on filters.

All of the lenses in option 3 use 46's which is handy. So there's a

reason to just go for it if you needed one. I'm the little red devil

on your shoulder saying, "Do it." You've already decided to invest

in some great equipment so you might as well go a little bit more.

Hehe. Have fun.

[geddert]

Wow, I didn't expect so many responses this quickly. This discussion

board really is alive. To bill, yes, you are being the little devil

on my shoulder... however, since I really want the noctilux some day,

i don't think it would make sense to get the 50/1.4... but it sure

would be nice (mental note, lock up credit cards)...

 

<p>

 

Just so you know I am going to buy new from Delta International (most

likely). The prices I will be dealing with are as follows (much less

than B&H - but still bloddy expensive).

 

<p>

 

Leica M-6 "TTL" black 10436 high mag-$1548.00

 

<p>

 

Leica M-6 TTL (0.58) black 10475-$1548.00

 

<p>

 

Leica 35 1.4 M 11874 asph. (black)-$1685.00

 

<p>

 

Leica 35 f/2 M 11879 asph. (black)-$1113.00

 

<p>

 

Leica 50 f/2 M 11826 (black)-$742.00

 

<p>

 

Leica 50 1.0 M 11822 -$2014.00

 

<p>

 

Leica 50 1.4 M 11868-$1378.00

 

<p>

 

Leica 90 f/2 M 11884 asph.-$1445.00

 

<p>

 

Leica 90 2.8 M 11807 -$927.00

 

<p>

 

 

So, a 35/2 and 90/2 are $2558, and a 35/1.4 and 90/2.8 costs $2612 -

which is quite similar in price. As a side note, i have a Ricoh GR-1

which has a superb 28mm/2.8 and will be getting a minilux with a

40mm/2.4... just in case this would have any bearing on your

recommendations. This camera will be traveling around the world with

me (well okay, 'only' to central america, africa and europe) when I

leave in a little less than a month (yes i will run film through this

camera before hand - at least 20-30 rolls worth).

[nesrani]

If by available light photography you mean mainly indoors, then you

will probably need the extra stop more at the wide angle end of the

scale, so my advice (which reflects what I have myself) would be the

35/1.4 asph and the 90/2.8.

 

<p>

 

Rob.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

I agree with Rob, specialy when you know wich focal distance you

prefere, and that something you may can´t decide yet, since is your

first time with this camera, but if your choice is to have several

lenses for the less money, a 35/2 pre-asph is great, a 35/1.4 non-

asph is a great lens if you know it´s propieties, the 90/2 is not so

much large and i think can be sheaper than a 90/2.8, and for $350 or

so an Elmar 90/4 is a great piece of glass.

Think in what you want to do with it and the lenses you have used,

think if you can chosse on diferent magnifications finders.Good

luck.

[john_stockdale]

I agree with a recent pre-ASPH 35/2. It's small and compact, which is

something that some users (incl. me) like very much. The ASPH would

of course be sharper at full aperture away from the centre of the

image. But if you need f1.4 you might be better avoiding the non-

aspheric f1.4 if you like great sharpness.

 

<p>

 

The 90/2.8 is not very small and is surprisingly heavy. But it's a

very sharp lens.

 

<p>

 

If you really need the extra stop of aperture, maybe buy one at a

time if you can't come at the total price right now. I think the

comment above about filter sizes is very much worth considering. All

of my Leica lenses have the same size filter, and it does make life

easier.

[paul_nelson3]

If you can get your hands on a used Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8, in the thin

version, made around '85 or there abouts, get it. Then put that with

a new 35/2 Asph and you have a bag full. Remember, you can still

walk toward and away from the subject. And you can get there in time

to get enough light. And a 50/2 on a tripod is a better shot than a

Nocti will ever be. So get a small table top pod, and a couple of six-

packs with all the money you save. My 2 cents worth.

[john_collier]

Lens choice is a personal matter so what I like you may well not.

Both the options you have presented will produce great results

optically therefore it comes down to YOUR needs not someone

else's. I purchased a 35/1.4A because I use this focal length

more often than not. It replaced an Summicron that I found

myself running out of light with. I am very happy with the switch. If

you do not have much experience and are unsure of what is your

perferred field of view, buy one lens at a time and get to know it

before adding more. Sometimes too many choices results in

fewer opportunities.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[jay_.]

I find it odd you pair the 35/1.4 + 90/2.8 or 35/2 and 90/2. If you

shoot a lot of very low light, you want both of the faster lenses; if

not, then the 2 slower ones. If weight and size aren't the primary

concern I'd certainly want the 2 faster lenses. The new 90 APO-ASPH

is a much-improved lens from its predecessor. The 90/2.8 was a clear

winner then, but now the 90/2 seems more useful and the preponderance

of 90/2.8's on the used market at low prices seems to bear this out.

I would not bother with a 50/2 or the Minilux, instead I would get a

mint 1st version Tri-Elmar. Get 2 bodies for sure, either an 0.58 or

Konica Hexar RF (the Tri-Elmar will live on it)and an 0.72 (get the

M6 Classic if you buy a Hexar, the shutter dials turn the same

direction). I say forget the 0.85. The 90/135 frames aren't that

much bigger than the 0.72, but the 35 frame is. So big that even if

you don't wear glasses it's impossible to see the whole view in one

glance. I would also be looking to pick up a 135 lens (they're all

good even wide open, and all but the APO-Telyt and last E46 Tele-

Elmar can be bought for under $500, sometimes much less). 135mm is

50% longer than a 90, a significant addition for travel use, and the

135mm frames aren't as small and useless as people would lead you to

believe. I even use the 135 frames on my 0.6 Hexar with no problem.

[lux1]

buy f2 or f2.8, use faster film 400 or 3200 - save your money f1.4,

f1 is nice but so much more for another stop and heavier and

bulky lens defeat the purpose.

[paul_chefurka]

I'd opt for the 35/1.4 and the 90/2.8. My reasoning is that you can

really use the extra stop you get on the 35 for available light work,

but a super-fast long lens isn't as generally useful as a super-fast

short lens. I find that unless I'm shooting specific things like

theater that I don't use the 2.0 aperture of my 90 all that much. At

more normal apertures the current Elmarit is the effective equal of

the Summicron, while being lighter, cheaper and better balanced.

[geddert]

Thanks to everybody for your replies. I think I am going to build

this system one lens at a time as some of you have suggested doing.

Without electro everything zoom lenses (i.e. SLR's) I am going to

have to really learn how to "see" pictures with a Leica.

 

<p>

 

This way I will also know if i need the speed or perfer lighter

weight for new purchases. I think I will start with the lens my heart

longs for most, the 50 Summilux. I know this doesn't make much

logical sense (because I will probably end up getting the Noctilux in

the future - but then again, paying for a leica doesn't make that

much sense in the first place). I really like low light shooting, and

a 50 is my favorite perspective, plus I simply want one... plus if i

wait to buy maybe I can afford the fastest lenses in all of these

lengths =)

 

<p>

 

Thanks again for your responses.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

I think Matthew you´re making the rigth choice, if 50 is your lens

and low ligth your place the 1.4 is your best choice, you may think

now in the 1, I don´t think of it as a comfortable lens to work,

unless you live in the darkness, the best of luck with your new

equipment.

[iván]

Matthew:

Just for you to consider. I own a decades old Elmar 90mm, f4 which is

joy to use. Extremely light, easy to focus, sharp and with a

lovely "bokhe" (spelling..?).

I only make available light fotography and that's my point: about 5 %

of what I shoot hand held are less than satisfactory images because

of slight blurr. Most often indoors under dim household bulbs light.

My film of choice is Ilford 400 XP2.

Oh, I'm 53 now which could well be part of the explanation too and

perhaps not only the lens speed should be blamed for it.