Lens decisions

[waqas]

I want to get a 35mm lense and a 90mm for my SL. But I'm confused as

to which are the best lenses to get. I'd love to get the 90mm

summicron aspherical (since I've heard so many good things about it)

but that's too expensive and out of my price range. I've seen people

argue that the elmarit's are better than the summicron's and vice

versa so I am confused. And adding to the confusion is the different

version of the lenses--s7, e55, etc. So should i get a 35mm elmarit or

summicron, and which version should I get? Same question applies to

the 90mm. Thanks for your help and input.

[jeremy_tok]

Tell us your bank account balance, your credit card limit, and at what terms you mortgaged your house and we'll be better able to advise you.

[waqas]

about a grand or so to spend total on both lenses.

[doug herr]

The best bargain in 35mm R-lenses is the Elmarit, either the Series VII or E55 version. Among the non-APO 90mm lenses you need to decide what you're going to use it for and what kind of optical properites you're intersted in.

[Rob F.]

I think it is really true that the Elmarit performes better than the Summicron. I own the 90mm Elmarit in Leica-M, and the Summicron in Leica-R. I find the Elmarit, as old as mine is--it's the first version--to be better than my Summicron-R, which is the version that takes series 7 filters. As for the 35mm lenses, I own the Summicron-R, and not the Elmarit, so I can't personally report on my results. But it's my understanding, based on reading, that the Elmarit-R is the better lens.

 

So if you don't have to have f/2, I would definitely go for the two Elmarits. I believe that nothing will be lost except f/2, while some additional quality may be gained at f/2.8 and f/4; maybe even f/5.6. Beyond that, there shouldn't be much difference.

 

I've even thought about changing my 90 Summicron-R for a current Elmarit-R, just to get a lighter and possibly better lens.

[peter_yankin]

" I want to get a 35mm lense"

 

I always wondered, do the people who insist on spelling it like that pronouce it "lensy" too, or is their affectation limited to the written word?

[Rob F.]

Easy, Peter. I think "Lense" is the british spelling.

[peter_yankin]

In what century, Shakespeare's? I've got Eastland's and Bowers' and Matheson's Leica books, they are/were all British and they all spell lens l-e-n-s.

[paul_neuthaler]

If you can get two, clean later (55mm) Elmarit R's in both 35mm & 90mm, you'll be a happy & not cash-poor SL camper.

[waqas]

I spelled something wrong peter, big deal. It's a forum and it happens. I'm glad you really contributed something to this discussion. If your trying to show us how smart you are by pointing out people's spelling mistakes, I think a polite and intelligent response (like Douglass Herr & Rob F.) would show it better.

 

 

 

So the 35 and 90 elmarits are better optically than their faster summicron versions?

 

And Rob isn't it unfair to make a comparison between the M and R lens? One is a rangefinder lens and the other is an SLR lens

[andrew robertson]

Lense is just incorrect.

 

Why not tack an extra e on to the end every word that ends with an s?

[waqas]

With the 90mm lens I'll mainly be doing potraits. A large part of what I plan to do is geared towards social documentary stuff. But I'm also very interested in landscapes/architecture. I don't know if that helps in what lenses I shold get or not, I thought it might.

[doug herr]

The 90 Summicron is a classic portrait lens but for maximum detail in architecture and landscape stuff the late 90 Elmarit-R is probably best. I think Paul's advice is pretty close to ideal: late Elmarits in both focal lengths.

[david11]

Waqas, I formerly shot Leica R and used both 90 Elmarit (second formula) and the Summicron. I preferred the Summicron, one of the better people lenses out there. Faster SLR lens are easier to focus because they are brighter, and you are focussing through the lens. I never used a 35 Elmarit, but had a Summicron and it was a fine lens. My favorite R lens was the 60 Macro Elmarit, with the 90 Summicron a close second.

[gubo]

What Doug said. This seems to be a good time to pick up Leica reflex gear. I've always been an M shooter but recently diversified into an SL2 when a great deal on a 60mm Macro-Elmarit (3 cam, 2nd version) came up. I added an E55 late 35mm Elmarit and E55 late 90mm Elmarit, both 3 cam, for well within your stated budget and am well pleased with both of them. I topped it off with a 400mm f6.8 Telyt with shoulder stock -- that one is a 2 cam -- which despite being mint was the least costly of them all (a fun but special-use piece of gear). Good hunting, there are deals to be had out there.

[paul_neuthaler]

Peter, don't venture out with the 400 on your shoulder in today's environment: you'll be shot!

[john_boyle3]

The 35mm Elmarit R is an excellent lens and I've been quite pleased with mine. There was a thread on the topic of the 35mm Elmarit vs. the Summicron on this forum dated 1 May 2004 (id=0088AN). Take a look in the archives. I've used the 90mm Summicron but no longer have mine. Some say the Elmarit is the better of the two lenses. My preference would be a late Wetzlar version of an Elmarit lens that takes E55 filters. Make sure you get the 3-cam version.

[marc_bergman1]

Peter Yankin , jan 03, 2006; 04:35 p.m.

" I want to get a 35mm lense"

I always wondered, do the people who insist on spelling it like that pronouce it "lensy" too, or is their affectation limited to the written word?"

 

How does one "pronouce" something? Is it something I missed from MTV? Is it said like pronounce, but with a lisp?

[Rob F.]

"And Rob isn't it unfair to make a comparison between the M and R lens? One is a rangefinder lens and the other is an SLR lens."

 

Yes, it might be unfair. I said this because I find that my 90mm Elmarit M (early version) is blisteringly sharp by f/5.6. So I tend to think of it as a benchmark for a 90 that doesn't need to be faster than f/2.8. However, checking with Erwin's Compendium, I see that it was not the same formula used in the early Elmarit-R. The M and R versions of the 90/2.8 did not share the same optical formula until a later version, first introduced in 1980 as the Elmarit-R, and subsequently used for the M version as well.

 

Best, rob

[peter_yankin]

"How does one "pronouce" something? Is it something I missed from MTV?"

 

You don't know the difference between a pompous affectation and a simple typo. You're in good company with the rest of the MTV generation.

[andy middleton]

I am probably not qualified to advise on this one , in fact I know I aren't but I am sure either one (elmarit or summicron)will be fine.I only know that for me it has never been the lens that has produced a poor photograph, was always your's truly.In another earlier thread I shared an image from Nepal taken with a near 50 year old 90/4 which gives me what I need.Here another shot from same trip and same lens/fil combination...sharp enough for me but maybe not for all.

What am I getting at.....? get the cheaper one and spend the rest on really important stuff like wine, women and song!

[andy middleton]

Whoops<div></div>

[leica_lover]

Its on topic?

[peter_yankin]

You're welcome, Frank.

[ber1]

Webster's says both forms are ok (at least in the U.S.A; they have

a few English speakers there, I heard). Sometimes arrogance

and ignorance live happily together. Anyway the original is "lens",

f. which means lentil in latin. Pax vobiscum