28/2 or 35/2 as Second Lens

[dan_brown4]

An M6TTL 0.58 and 50/2 is my entry into Leica photography, and

seems perfect for the kind ogf people photography I like best. I

do notice times when something wider would be useful, like for

architecture and event photography.

 

<p>

 

The 35 Summicron ASPH seemed like the obvious choice, but

the new 28/2 has me wondering. Just as fast, but a bit further in

perspective from the 50.

 

<p>

 

Any thoughts from Leica users would be helpful.

[paul_chefurka]

Have you used either of these focal lengths on an SLR? While they do

feel a bit different on an RF, that may give you some guidance.

 

<p>

 

It's a difficult question to answer - either lens will do such a good

job. My preference would probably be for the 28 at this point. It

works so nicely on the .58, and provides a dramatically different

perspective from the 50. Until I got my .58 I didn't use the 28

focal length very much, because it was too hard to see the frame

lines. That has now changed, and I expect to be using it a lot more

(and the 24 a lot less).

 

<p>

 

That said, the 35 has an awful lot to recommend it - it's smaller,

and the angle of view is such that it can be used more like a normal

lens while still including a dollop of context in the image. It's

also a gem to use wide open (as is the new 28)and is a fair bit less

expensive than the 28.

 

<p>

 

All things considered, if I was building a two-lens kit around a .58

I'd likely go 28/50.

[wilhelm]

The cost of either of these lenses is too obscene to buy if you're

not sure you need it.

[kens]

In my opinion, the 35 and 50 perspectives are pretty close together -

I'm sure some others would disagree. I find I use one or the other,

but rarely both together. Therefore given the 50, I would opt for the

28. Down the road you can round out your outfit with a 90 for a very

flexible, capable, and light weight set. Dan - only you know how much

you can afford and what it's worth to you. That's your business

alone.

[andrew_schank]

The funny thing about the 24mm to 28mm range is that I never think

I'll need that wide of an angle for most of my shooting, but when I

have that focal length with me, I take a lot of shots with it. I have

the 24 to 120 Nikon zoom for my SLR outfit, and it seems like I spend

a lot of time at the wide end. I'm still waiting for the Voigtlander

28mm f1.9 to become available, as my Minolta CLE is also a .58 finder

magnification with very easy to see 28mm lines. Since you got the .58

finder, a nice 28mm may be the way to go, but as others have said,

whether it is an angle of view that fits your eye, only you can say.

[godfrey]

35mm is my normal. I just bought a 50 for a short tele (have a 90 as

well). 28 never really appeals to me, I have 24 and 15 for wider views.

 

<p>

 

It all depends upon your eye and what you want out of your photos. I

like wider when want wide, and modest when I want tele with only very

rare exception. 90mm seems like such a long lens to me now.

 

<p>

 

godfrey

[jackflesher]

The good news is that there really aren't any bad choice here, just

personal ones! I think in large part, the type of subject matter you

want to shoot will drive the choice. If you are shooting mainly

people, you will need to get a little closer with the 28 than you

would with the 35, and this may invade their space a bit. On the

other hand, if you are shooting primarily architecture, you might

have to step back a little further with the 35 to get everything in,

and you don't always have that option inside of a building.

 

<p>

 

Personally, I do not currently own a 28. I have owned them in the

past with a Nikon system, but ended up preferring the versatility of

a 24/35 combo. I love the perspective my 35 generates and will never

give it up. For wider shots or exaggerated perspectives I like the

24.

[godfrey]

I forgot to add that the one very nice thing about a 28mm is that it's

the widest lens you can fit to an M6 without needing an auxiliary

viewfinder. The 28mm framelines are difficult to see with the .72x VF

if you wear glasses (the .58x solves that issue), but anything wider

requires an external viewfinder to obtain a full view of what you are

framing.

 

<p>

 

Not that I use the viewfinder much, but it can make a difference. The

person I bought my 24 from didn't use it because he doesn't like to use

an external VF ... he prefers his SLR when he goes wider than the M6

viewfinder can cover.

[Rob F.]

Dan, to the insightful and accurate comments already given, I can add

only the following:

 

<p>

 

There are so many of us who think highly of the 35mm focal length,

that if you tried one, you might join us in thinking so, in which

case the 50mm might become your second lens;

 

<p>

 

Both of the lenses you mention could either be rewarding, or could be

expensive miostakes if you don't like them. I love my 28mm on my M6,

but if you're not sure, why not start with a used 28 f/2.8 for a

while to see how you like it? You could always trade up. If you

don't like it, you could trade for a 35. If you do like it but find

there's a gap between 28 & 50, you could add a 35 later.

 

<p>

 

Best Wishes,

[andrew_schank]

Here's a new 28 f2.0 for sale on ebay from Germany. The dollar must

be even stronger there right now than I thought.

<a href="

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?

ViewItem&item=1219674013">28mm f2.0 on ebay no reserve</a>

[dan_brown4]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I was playing with the

frameline selector on my M to get a feel for the perspectives.

One thing I noticed is how much easier it is to see the 35mm

frame lines. I wear glasses and I have to scan the finder to see

all the 28mm frame lines. Also, there isn't a second set of frame

lines when 35 is selected, there is when 28 is selected. Of

course, these points have little to do with image perspective, but

they are a factor.

 

<p>

 

I am thinking a used lens makes sense, so if I don't make the

better choice first, I can trade later with little lost investment.

[jay_.]

My 28/2.8, 35/2 ASPH and 50/2 have all been sitting on the shelf

along with my M6's since I bought a Tri-Elmar, which lives on a

Konica Hexar RF body. That combination had been intended mainly as

backup for the M6's and fixed lenses, but the performance and

convenience is just so intoxicating that the reverse has happened.

[paul_chefurka]

Jay, I have the same setup (Hexar and Tri-Elmar) and I think just as

highly of it as you do. While there is a performance shortfall at

28mm compared to either the Elmarit or the Summicron, it pales in

comparison to being able to change lenses by just twisting that

ring. The motor adds a fluidity to shooting that I really value as

well. All in all it's a wonderful travel/street shooting setup.

 

<p>

 

One of the things that using the Tri-Elmar demonstrated to me is that

none of the three focal lengths are interchangeable - they all have

distinct characters and applications.

[dan_brown4]

Interesting about the Tri-Elmar. BTW, the old version can be

had for $1600 new, while they last. I guess the new version is

about $2000. What's the difference?

 

<p>

 

My problem with the 3E [:-)] is the 4.0 maximum aperture. I do a

lot of shooting at 2.8 and 2.0, and frankly I long for 1.4 pretty

regularly (and I have standardized on Delta 400). Maybe I should

be thinking about a 35mm Summilux?

[kens]

Dan - that sucking sound you hear ringing in your ears is called

"M-affliction". It may drive you nuts, as it has many others. There is

no right answer, just lots of different answers. Ultimately probably

the best advice is "Go shoot pictures with what you've got. When the

well-defined requirement for another lens manifests itself, go get

it."

[jay_.]

Owning a Tri-Elmar does create somewhat of a paradigm shift re: the

other lenses to own. It seems silly for me to hang onto my 28/2.8

being that it's only 1 stop faster. Since I would rarely if ever

carry both a 35 and a 50, I have been seriously considering e-baying

the 28/2.8, 35/2 ASPH and 50/2 and purchasing a 35/1.4 ASPH as

my "low light lens".

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Dear Dan: I don´t know how long you have been with a M leica, for me

is a camera that only needs one lens, or to be better said one angle

of vision, it is not a zoom cannon that can make you reach any thing,

more than that an M is an extension of our eyes, in wich you work

with a frame in your maind, where you size what you see, for me that

is Leica M photography, we are part of that camera, our feet are part

of it too, for me it is not a camera in wich you have a lot of

options, more that that is a camera in wich you learn to squess the

little options it gives to you, little options full of fredom I would

say.

I have come to use diferent lenses as my principal ones, and it has

been through years, with a 21, a 50, even for a wile I was stock to a

90 Elmar, for some reason that I don´t know, I´ve been with a 35 the

last eigth years, and Ive become a little flexible last year by

adding a 28, for me a great combination of lenses in almost the same

prespective, working with this two is not thinking in any in

particular, just going a little wider when needed, but keeping

prespective, for me a very important thing, of course if you add a 50

or a 90 (I´m not sure yet) you´re done, the important thing may be

not losing the prespective.Best

[dan_brown4]

Ah yes, I believe I do hear a sucking sound. Only six weeks an

M-user, and perhaps 20 films, and I have been bitten. The

camera and lens are such a delight to have and to hold, and the

images so crisp and refreshing. It urges me to use it and

expose more film. (Does this feeling go away?) I believe I could

rationalize buying another M with another 50mm Summicron!

That one would be different, silver next time ;-)

[andrew_schank]

I have noticed a 6 month or so "honeymoon" period whenever I pick up

a major photographic purchase. Becasue of the fact that so much

quality, as new equipment changes hands on e-bay, I have a feeling

that initial excitment of new ownership leads many of us to buy more

than we need.(also of course, many folks find they can't get used to

Leica rangefinders) I have had a bad habit of sometimes "collecting

focal lengths" instead of buying and using what suits my needs.

Every so often the "Voigtlander 15mm bug" still flares up and I fight

the urge to purchase that fasinating little lens. I owned a 20mm for

my Nikon, however, and hardly ever used it, and I think my style of

shooting has little need for the 15 either. When I find myself

becoming obsessed with equipment and future purchases, I usually

stick one lens on a camera and shoot a couple of rolls with it to

remind myself less can be more.

[albert_smith]

I live in Daytona Beach, and we have several annual events including

a twice a year motorcycle gathering, which we are having the first

one now, Bike Week 2001. If there is ever a mental block for picture

taking, these events offer such an over load of subjects that you are

forced to slow down, or risk burning too much film. This event is

about 10 days long, so I decided to go out the first day with only a

single M6 and a 50mm lens. Normally I agonize over what to bring,

and have gone through several basic outfits over the years consisting

of combinations of Nikons and Leicas, with lenses ranging from 20mm

to 300mm. I was surprised that I shot 5 rolls of film with this non-

serious gear, I wasn't really hoping for much.

 

<p>

 

I just got my rolls back from that first day, and I was shocked. I

have several thousand shots from previous events, but those 50mm

shots are as good as any shot with the arsenal of gear I dragged

around until my shoulder throbbed with pain. The best shots were on

the last couple of rolls, when my "50mm eye" was fully awake and took

over on auto pilot. The first few shots were weak because I was

standing in the same spot I would have stood with my 105 or 135, but

soon I was finding myself walking right up to the correct spot for

the lens. The lack of a second, third or fourth, optical variation

meant that I was working faster and more certain. For every shot I

missed by not having the "correct" lens, I believe I got 10 more by

not second guessing the composition. I made the camera in my hand

work for the shot, and was successful quite often.

 

<p>

 

Whether you get the 28 or 35, or just live with your 50 a bit longer,

I think it doesn't really matter. If you are staying in the moderate

focal length range, you can be successful with any lens. I also

believe that any single lens completely understood and mastered will

be better than a "bag o' glass" injecting more decisions into your

process. If you forgo the choice for a while longer, the selection

might become more clear, or you might realize that you haven't max'ed

out the lens on your camera yet. After 30 years and thousands of

Dollars, I am using 50mm lens most of all on my Leicas. Had I simply

knew that in advance, I'd have more money in the bank, and would be a

better photographer.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Absolutely agree with you Al, I´m for certain happier with ten rolls

of film with one lens, than the same with an arsenal of equipment,

ten rolls in a day is a good day.

[david_cunningham2]

Dan...

 

<p>

 

I started out with a new 50/2 with an M6-TTL last November. A month

or so ago I purchased a used pre-ASPH 35/2 and fell in love with it.

After a short bit of time I sold the 50/2 and picked up a used

90/2.8. For me it is the perfect combination.

[Rob F.]

I used a 35/90 combination for the first several years as an economy

measure, but eventually added a 50 because I was experiencing too

large a gap between them. The 50 is just right for some shots.

[iván]

Al:

Thanks for sharing your experience. I agree that it is not gear what

will make us better photographers but feeling, practice and knowledge.

I have tried a lot of gear myself and thanks to my M3s have come to

your same conclusions in the last years. In fact, for the first time

in my years as an entusiastic amateur I don't feel like needing to

search for some new additional piece of equipment that would

magically improve my photography. Which actually began improving all

of a sudden since I got a R4 with a 50 mm only. Simple camera and

excelent lens. Then was when I began feeling that going the simple

way could be rewarding and entered the M world and began being happy

going around just holding one of the M3s in my bare hands and trying

to get to the right place at the right moment to do the right simple

adjustments that will render right what I intended to get on film.

I still have much to improve. In fact I'll always will. But doing it

this way is a real joy.

Now to Dan´s question which is supossed to be the real matter here:

from my SLR experience I got the idea that a 35 mm will be useful in

far more opportunities than a 28 mm would. My feeling is that the 35

mm is the widest lens that still allows a "natural" perspective (or

almost) in most situations. The 28 mm tends to render too "lensy"

images for my taste. But still, sometimes it happens to be right what

you need. How often it will, will depend only upon the images you

want to make, I guess.

Unfortunately, this being a very personal decision aimed to satisfy

your own taste only, I think that there is no way for you to make a

sound decision other than making pictures with both lenses (which I

did) or (far less expensive) study and compare other photographers'

images made with them. Photo magazines and books could help in this

respect.

I wish I could be of more help but I have no means to present you

with 28 mm and 35 mm images here for you to compare. I hope someone

else could ...

Regards, Dan, and good luck.

 

<p>

 

-Ivan