35mm or 28mm

[greg_mason]

I am trying very hard to resist the sirens call and not turn my M into a gear head adventure. I started by using a friends M3 and well you know the rest. I have a old chrome 90 2.8 and a later 50 summicron. I am undecided regarding where to go next for my .72 m6 TTL. as a regular reader of this forum, it appears that some people hold to the traditional 35/50/90 combination, while others tend either to shoot the 50 or the 35 as a primary lens with the other getting significantly less usage. if that is the case then maybe the 28 is a better lens. I would appreciate any thoughts on this.

[james_.1]

Hard question...I think if I were you I'd go for the 28. Personally

I have the 35/75 combo that I like. But, if you use the 50 regularly

as your main lens, the 28 would be a nice wide choice to complement

your system.

[reinier_de_vlaam]

I have 50/2 and 35/2.8 for my R. I love the 35 lens and use it a lot.

But sometimes I wonder if 28 would have been better. From step point

of view 28 matches better to 50 than 35 but than you will always find

that the best shot from your standing point would be inbetween (so

35), just as I find that I have to move away often to make the shot

(and a 28 would have been better) :-). You never have the right lens

for all occasions

[alfred_alfred]

For the 28, it's hard to see the framelines thru' the viewfinder of a

0.72 M6 if you are wearing glasses. And it's more expensive than a 35.

it also depends on what sort of photos you normally take. A 28

framing will bring in more subjects which you may or may not like it.

i normally used the 28 for mass capturing and the 35/50 as my

standard. Usage depends on your actually needs.

[jacques_balthazar1]

reason + passion: keep your M outfit limited to 2 lenses. They should

be "different" enough as to justify the annoyance of carrying both

and swap them in the course of a shooting session. Therefore I do not

think the 35+50 idea is the right solution, for me.

 

<p>

 

I favour the 0.72 compromise, as you do, and see two "perfect sets":

28 'cron + 50 'lux or

35' lux asph and 75 'lux.

 

<p>

 

The first set offers that compacity that attracts so many users to

the M system, and I would say quite enough versatility. The 28 'cron

justifies itself entirely in this perspective, by adding some welcome

drama and environment to your images.

 

<p>

 

The second set is more idiosyncratic, 'cause the 75 is such an exotic

piece and supposes a somewhat skewed love affair to endure weight and

size .

 

<p>

 

I use a 35 'cron + 75 'lux (soooo beautiful!) as provisional couple.

Would be yet happier when I will be capable of trading the 35 'cron

for the 35 'lux. I find 35mm more versatile than 28mm because it

allows close quarter shooting of people with minimal perspective side

effects on face features. The 28mm is harder to use in daly life.

[karl_yik1]

if you already have the 50, id say that a 28 is a better bet. Have

you also considered the 24 elmarit ASPH?

[jim_reed]

Greg:

 

<p>

 

I have a 50/2 and a 90/2.8, and I tend to rely on the 50 as my "base"

lens. I added a 28/2 last year and have been very pleased with it.

The 28 gives me an angle of view that's distinct enough from both the

50 and the 35 that I find it very useful, especially for outdoor

landscape shots, etc. I use the .72 viewfinder (no glasses), and I

don't have any problem seeing the 28 framelines. Obviously, it

depends on how you use the camera, but for me the 28/50/90 kit has

been just about an ideal combination. Wouldn't trade any of them and

don't feel the urge to add anything else.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Wilbur E. (Bill) Garrett, former editor of National Geographic

Magazine once said (& I paraphrase liberally) that all a

photojournalist needs is a Leica with a 28mm and 50mm to do

the job.

I would tend to agree with that. When I travel light I take my Leica

M, a 28 and a 50. I also own two 21s, two 35s and a 90mm so I

do have the choice, btw.

The 28 and the 50 are a wonderful combination.

Good luck.

[john_collier2]

Lens choice is a matter of personal preference and working

style. Consider the following questions:

 

<p>

 

How close do you like to be to your subjects?

 

<p>

 

How close do your subjects like you to be?

 

<p>

 

How much background do you want to include?

 

<p>

 

Do you want to increase or decrease the emphasis on the

background?

 

<p>

 

Too often people think of different focal lengths as having

different angles of view; the old "I can get more into my picture"

way of thinking. As the angle of view increases, the relationship

between subject and background changes dramatically. There

is a big difference between a 28 and 35 lens in subject/

background rendering.

 

<p>

 

I would use your frameline selector to key in the two framelines

manually. Now practice framing your favorite subjects and see

how things look. Do not alternate between framelines as the fact

that the viewfinder magnification does not change can be

misleading. Use one set for a while then switch and use the

other. After awhile, you should be able to answer your own

question.

 

<p>

 

I always enjoy the look on a professional's face when someone

asks them if they should get this or that focal length. It is akin to

asking if one should buy a Volvo station wagon or a Mercedes

SLK. If you do not know how you want to use it, how can we

possibly help you?

[johann_fuller]

Everyone will have their own valid opinion on this one and this is

mine; sell the 90 and buy a 28mm with another body or sell the 50 and

buy a 35 with another body - I hate messing around swopping lenses on

an M - it interferes with my picture taking! I think if you got a 35

you would find it too close to a 50 to be of any advantage. I use

just a 50/f2 on my M6 with the occasional use of a 28mm on my GR1v.

BTW - Check out the new Voigtlander 28mm compact lens that's supposed

to be out soon - if you are on a budget and don't want the bulk of

the 1.9.

[jackflesher]

John Collier has made two important points: 1) there is a big

difference in the "look" of an image created with a 28 and that made

with a 35 and, 2) We cannot answer that question for you unless we

know the specific photographic problem you are trying to solve.

 

<p>

 

As for a two-lens combo, there are times when I think I could do 90%

of what I do in photography with the 35/90. Then I play around with

the 28 and really like the perspectives, so I think about the 28/90

combo. Then I play around with the 21 and I think about the 21/28 or

21/35 combo.

 

<p>

 

Then I realize that on my recent trip to Provence, I shot almost

everything -- say 95% of it -- with the 28 in front of slide film on

one body and the 35 in front of Tri-X on the other body. In fact

this trip made me realize that I could be very happy with just the

28/35 two-body combo, a combo I would have said was ridiculous a year

ago as the focals were too similar. I now feel I really only need a

total of four lenses to do 99.9% of what I want (not even need) to do

<i>with the M</i>; the 21/28/35/90. I don't think I used the 50 more

that one time on the trip, and then I wished I had had the 35

mounted. But, that is for <i>ME</i>...

 

<p>

 

As for the long shots at the bullfights that I did with the 135, I

could have made the 90 do -- as I did with it on the .58 body -- but

I admit that an AF/AE SLR with a 70-200 zoom would have been far more

convenient, although a lot heavier.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[Robin Smith]

Greg

 

<p>

 

This is so personal. For years the 28mm, 50mm, 90mm combo ® was

standard for me and I was happy. Then I rediscovered the M-35mm and

find it amazingly useful. Now I am wondering about wideangles - should

I add a 28mm or a 24mm to the M kit? I do think the 28mm is a

wide-angle lens whereas to me the 35mm is a wide standard. The

perspective with a 28mm is distinctive and that is part of its appeal.

Also you do not need a viewfinder, although in practice if you wear

glasses the 28mm frames on a 0.72 are a bit of a pain. You may like to

consider whether you like the framelines or prefer the separate

viefinder. The 35mm is a useful focal length on the Ms - there is

little or no wide angle distortion and you can get pretty close for

people shots and the frames are very good on the 0.72. I went for a

35mm in your shoes because it is a "classic" M lens has good

framelines and it is indeed cheaper, but I do still wonder...

[Alex_Es]

Dear Greg,

 

<p>

 

Here is the perfect answer. Get a 28 and 35. These are standard

lenses with their own special uses. Owning both is hardly a gearhead

adventure. There are so many variations of these lenses available

that you can get reasonable quality for much less than a king's

ransom. You might go for a fast 35 and slower 28. Or a heavier 35

and a very light 28. Or the other way around.

 

<p>

 

There are worse things to spend money on.

 

<p>

 

Best,

 

<p>

 

Alex

[jay_.]

A lot depends also on if you plan to get a 21 or 24, in which case

the 35 makes more sense. As a one-and-only wideangle the 28 is more

useful.

[fotografz]

GET THEM ALL, and sort it out later. Leica is going to go out of

business with all this minimalist pontificating. Then we won't

have beautiful new toys like the 28/2 ASPH. Seriously, Greg you

can't go wrong. Leica Gear Heady-ness is a wonderful

sickness. Get the 35/1.4 and 75/1.4 to start your tumble to

financial ruin. Then build on it. The illness will truly manifest

itself when you get the hots for a Noctilux and the images it

produces. Right now I'm drooling over the prospect of a 24/2.8

ASPH, but am holding off hoping for an f/2 version from Leica.

But, if you don't buy a boat load of stuff from them, they'll never

develop that lens for me.

[ray_moth]

For just one single focal length lens, to complement your 50mm and

90mm, my own preference would be 28mm for the reasons that others

have already exlained. However, in my case I have a Tri-Elmar

28/35/50 f/4, so I can change quickly between the focal lengths as

the need dictates. For wide angle shots, I find myself using the

28mmm and 35mm focal lengths in about equal proportions. The only

limitation of the 3E, as far as I'm concerned, is in low light but

for outdoor use in daytime it serves very well. With your 50mm

Summicron, you probably already have the answer for low light anyway,

provided that the 45 deg. angle of view suits your needs.

[art__]

This has been an interesting thread. My suggestion is the 21, 24,

28, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135 combo. Though quite costly, something to

aspire to! I have been using a 35/50 combo for years and find the

two "angles of view" very different and equally exciting. I believe

each lens in the M stable, be it it's angle of view or max aperture,

is distinctly different from the other and none mutually exclusive.

I am looking to add one of the telephotos (75, 90 or 135) to my

system now, and can appreciate the dilemma.