what is your ideal two lens out fit?

[greg_mason]

What is your ideal two lens set up? I am planning to pick up an m6 this year and in contrast to my previous camera purchases I would like to keep this as a simple two lens outfit and work with what I have. I am considering a 28/50, 35/75 or 35/90. My choice will not only help determine the body (.85 or .72) but also which lens gets purchased first either the 50 or 35. I have found that on slr's I lean from normal to telephoto lenses but in rangefinders I lean from normal to wide.

 

<p>

 

Thank you in advance.

[james_.1]

35/75 or 35/90. I myself haven't figured this one out completely.

I am thinking the 35/90 and maybe adding a 50 summicron later if

needed. The ranges seem better matched with the 35/75, and the

speed is nice, but a lot of users here seem to go for the 35/50/90

combo. And maybe add a Voigtlander wide as well. But alas, seems

like a spiral into a big outfit.

 

<p>

 

I am sure a lot of people will say what do you shoot? How about

getting the M6 and 35 first, and do the frameline preview in the

viewfinder whilst walking around mocking photos? I have the 35 lux,

and am considering the 75 or 90. You could compare the ranges

then. Good luck with your choices...

[giles_poilu]

My current two lens outfit is the 35 Summicron and a 15mm

Voigtlander - odd outfit some may say but it suits me and MY type of

shooting, you need to tailor the outfit to YOUR type of shooting.

 

<p>

 

I do plan to add the 75mm Voigtlander, which for me will provide the

perfect spread.

[ralph_barker]

I'd go for the 35/75 combo if you believe you can actually stick to

your two-lens objective. Having similar objectives at first, I did the

35/90 combo, but found the difference a bit much. Then I added a 75

(still my only 1.4). Then a 50, then a used 50DR, then a 24.

 

<p>

 

Will power? I have lots of will power. Won't power is what I'm short

of. ;-)

[godfrey]

In decreasing order...

 

<p>

 

21+35

15+50

35+75

35+90

35+50

[nesrani]

24/35 indoors, 35/50 outdoors.

[tony_brookes]

M6 with 50mm Summicron and 135mm F4 Tele Elmar

[jackflesher]

The 35 is just so darn usefull, that I would have to opt for the

35/90 first. The 35 is great for most subjects, and the 90 is great

for portraits of people or the environment. The 28/50 is also a

reasonable choice, but I find the 28 significantly wider than the 35,

hence less usefull, and the 50 not really long enough for head-and-

shoulder portraits or long enough to pull in environmental details. I

personally find the 75 is a big, akward lens to use, and hence would

not consider it in a two lens set.

 

<p>

 

:-),

[mark_kaminsky1]

when i carry two lense they are the 28/2.8 & 60/2,8 along with my

SL....

[alfie wang]

If I had a choice I would be shooting with a 15mm and 35mm lens

outfit. However 50mm for me is inductive enough to shoot plus

sometimes 75mm is useful too. There were some times when I want to

shoot 200mm on the R4 as well. But I would stick to 15mm (Voigtlander

not Hologon) and 35mm (trying to get either the Summilux-M or Tri-

Elmar in addition to an Ultron in the near future, all 3 are nice).

[wilhelm]

My Leica AF-C1, with 40mm/f:2.8 and 80mm/f:5.6 (built-in 2x tele

converter) has proved to be nigh perfect for street shooting. An

excellent high-eyepoint finder allows the entire finder to be

visualized even with glasses, and with the 80mm it is life-size. It

gets more use than my other 7 Leicas combined. Other than the AF-C1,

I'd say a CL with 40mm Summicron and 90mm tele.

[michael_darnton1]

When I walk I usually take a Voigtlander 25mm and Summicron 50mm. The

ideal for me would be a 25/2, but lacking that, I'm thinking about a

28/1.9 Voigtlander, instead. The nice thing about the 25, though, is

that I hardly notice it in my pocket. My third favorite lens is 85-

90mm, but in truth, I rarely use it, so I don't carry it when I'm

going light.

[bobtodrick]

IIIg with 35 Summicron Asph and 50mm Summicron.

[budc]

Many years ago I carried an M2 w/35 Summaron and an M3 w/90 Elmar.

This combo served me very well even with very slow Kodachrome. Today

I'd want an M6 Classic w/28, 50 and 90 Summicrons. I couldn't

imagine being without a 50.

[Rob F.]

". I have found that on slr's I lean from normal to telephoto lenses

but in rangefinders I lean from normal to wide."

 

<p>

 

---No one else endorsed your contemplated 28/50 combo. But based on

what you said, It might be right for you. There's enough distance

between these that it will always be obvious which one you need for a

shot, without trial and error. And you could use the 28 on a 0.72 or

0.58 body with no accessory finder needed.

[jay_.]

Tri-Elmar and 90 or 135.

[Alex_Es]

With an M6: 35/1.4 ASH and 28/2.ASH Rational. The 35 is my virtual

standard lens. If I were simplifying I'd want a wide lens that didn't

require a separate viewfinder.

 

<p>

 

I generally think of a "two lens setup" as two lenses beside the

standard 50mm. If I had a "two beside" choice, I'd go for my trust

Summicron 50/2 (with separate shade and focusing tab), the 35/1.4 ASH

and maybe the 24/2.8 ASH. or 21/2.8 ASH

 

<p>

 

With this limited setup price and weight would be less on an issue

than with my present set up.

 

<p>

 

Maybe if I could only have to lenses they would be a 50/1.4 and the

28/2.

 

<p>

 

Naw-- 35/1.4 and 28/2.

 

<p>

 

I'll be up all night thinking about this...

[john_layton]

My favorite two-lens combo is 28 and 50mm. I find this combo

especially usefull when working with two (.72) M-6's in fast-

moving situations, where I often find that using each lens at

equal subject distances can offer visual possibilities which are

complimentary. Each of these lenses has just a bit of

"off-neutral" character (as opposed to "neutral" 35), which keeps

me on my toes visually, and yet this character is subtle enough

to allow for flexibility in point of view, so that the 28, for example,

can also be used more like a 35 or a 24, and the 50 can also be

used almost like a 90, particularly for head and shoulders with a

wide open aperture. I also like the compactness of these

lenses, and the fact that as a combo they offer perhaps the most

efficient use of the .72's finder, although if I wore glasses things

might be different, and I might opt for a .58 and .72 body combo.

I use the 90 when things are a bit less dynamic and I have time

for a more "studied" photo, and I use the 15 only rarely, mostly for

interiors or to add a "jolt" to perspective. The 15 can also be

really fun to use in crowds. I do miss having a 21 and 35,

although I find that for many situations I can replace both with a

single 28, perhaps compromising a bit on perspective but not

missing a photo by having to fiddle with two lenses. When using

the 28-50 combo with two bodies, I typically use the 28 about

70% and the 50 about 30% of the time. 21, 35, and 90mm

lenses are often wonderful for the singular qualities that they

offer, but as a combo, IMHO, you can't beat the 28+50. Having

said all of this, if I had to rely on one camera and one lens, that

lens would be a 35. I'm intrigued by the rumors of a possible

35/1.2, although unless Leica can somehow make this more

compact than the current 1.4 and tighten up on the wide-open

MTF test-pattern a bit, I can't see the reasoning behind it. One

thing I will say about the rumor-mill is that its fabulously

entertaining! But I ramble on too much - my apologies! Cheers!

[jim_wong1]

My answer would depend on whether or not you're going to add a third

lens at a later date. If you're not going to add that 3rd lens then

a 24/50 combo on a .72 body or a 28/50 combo on a .52 body would be

my choice. If a 3rd lens is in the future, then I'd go with a 21/35

combo on a .72 body to start out with and later add the 75. If you

don't wear glasses, you might want to consider going with the .85

body as it'll help with the 75lux.

 

<p>

 

Have fun and try 'em all.

[tse_sung_wu7]

I have the combo. Jack mentioned, 35 'Cron/90 'Rit with a .72. I also came

from SLR overload and don't want to repeat it with this (not to mention $$).

But I find that I have a hankering for a 50.

 

<p>

 

Thing is, the finder makes a bigger different, IMO. I always loved the

perspective on the 28, and the 50 was my first, on the SLR. If I shot a .58,

would that work better? Not sure. While on the one hand you can use the

preview lever to see what the framelines look like (which has led me to think

that a 50 is coming my way in future), it's hard to visualize what the different

finder magnifications will do for you. If I had the 35/50, I'd be using both

more equally. Currently, the 90 seems a little more like a specialized focal

length- for certain scenics, and portraits.

 

<p>

 

Keeping it simple- a good aspiration, IMO.

[albert_smith]

On my SLRs (Nikon), an 85mm or 105mm lens is on my camera almost 70%

of the time. I think the manual focus SLR is at its best at this

focal length range, with just the right selectivity and ease of

focus. Any advantage of a rangefinder system starts to degrade in my

opinion at this distance from the standard lens. Additionally, in

opposition to many here, I do like the SLRs representation of the

depth of field with medium telephoto lenses better. Regardless of

the arguments about how the SLR doesn't give a true rendition, it is

more true that the hyper-focused RF window. This is just my personal

opinion, please don't flame me. If you can use a telephoto on a

Leica M with the ease of an SLR, then great. I am jealous of you for

this.

 

<p>

 

With that said, I tried to like the 90mm lens on my Leicas, but it is

the least used lens for that system. So for me, it is a 35mm and

50mm Summicron set that accounts for most of my Leica shots. It is

funny, but on my Nikons, I would never carry a 35mm and 50mm lens,

but on the M6 this combination works for me. I suspect that if I had

a 24mm lens, it would be right up there, but I use what I have.

 

<p>

 

If I were to start over, the money saved by not buying a 90mm M lens

would go towards the 24mm, but I couldn't say which of the other two

lenses (35mm or 50mm) would be given up. Are you sure that a three

lens kit is not allowed in answer to your question?

[ron_dixon]

IMHO I would opt for the 35/90 Summicron set. Even better I would opt

for the 35/50/90 Summicron set I personally think that conmbination

with an M6 is a marriage made in heaven. I currently try cover all

bases with an M6 and fourth version non-asph 35/2 Summicron, Leica

RE with a 75-200/4.5 Vario Elmar and a Hasselbald with 80/2.8 Planar.

I use the M6 as my indoor and travel camera, the RE for outdoor

sports, nature,close up, etc, and the Hassy for BW fine art. But I am

also seriously considering adding the 50/90 Summicron set to the M6.

Good Luck with your decision.

[michael_kastner]

Small things like people and doorways 2/35A and 2/50. Big things like

the whole crowd or the whole building 2/35A and 2.8/21A

[frank_horn]

For a two-lens outfit, if money doesn't matter, I'd opt for the 28

Cron and 75 Lux. The latest Ms have the 28 finder. This would be

for indoor shooting. Some flashes won't cover more than the 28's

field of view, Leica shooters owe themselves at least one very fast

lens. They are known for their abilities at full aperature. That is

where the 75 lux comes in. Those who make the 50 their longest focal

length haven't tried to photograph coiled rattlesnakes or a mare with

a new foal. 90% of the time, I can get a bit farther back from the

subject, but it can be difficult to get closer. And if I only have

one camera, it would be the .72.

[virgil]

35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4.

 

<p>

 

I work with a photographer who has always used Leica M,he has a rule.

 

<p>

 

NEVER,EVER take your lenses off.When he buys a new lens he buys a

body to go with it.He currently uses 24mm,28mm,75mm all with an M4-p

attached and 35mm,50mm and 90mm all matched with M6 classics.

 

<p>

 

If only we could all afford to do that!