Next Lens Advice

[eric_reid]

I realize from spending many weeks at this site that many of you have answered this question before, so I apologize in advance for beating a dead horse. That being said, I could use some advice!

 

<p>

 

I bought a M6TTL earlier this year and with it, a 35mm Summicron. I previously rented and spent time with a M6 with 50mm Summicron. Having come from SLRs, I thought I'd find myself wanting a longer lens to "steal" shots of people from further away. I've come to realize however, that the mood that comes with shots taken up close in midst of the action with a shorter (eg, 35mm) lens are have more "life". This being said, I find myself thinking that the 35mm is just too wide too often. Most of my shooting is candids of people/street, and travel. I also find that I shoot low light at widest aperture fairly often. I definitely want to be able to shoot natural light portraits (but I don't really know how often I'll do this in real practice). Given that my local Leica Day is this week, and the Leica rebate is scheduled to end 12/31, here are the choices that seem to make sense:

 

<p>

 

1. Get a new 90/2.8 (on sale + rebate), for a 35/90 kit.

2. Get a new 50/2 (on sale + rebate), for a 35/50 kit.

3. Dump the 35, and get a new 50 Summilux, for a fast one-lens does most all kit.

 

<p>

 

I like the idea of one lens does it all, but I've had a Contax T2 for years and was never content with a 38mm lens for all uses (putting aside that it's not a M). I know many of you will say that I'll have all three (35/50/90) soon enough, so don't worry about it. You're probably right. Also, I've noticed from the other posts that most everyone has a 90, but most of you seem to only use it 10% or so of the time. Whereas everyone uses their 50 a lot! What would you suggest?

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance, Eric

[sam_smith3]

I have found that almost all of my best candid photos have been taken

with my 50 summicron rather than my 35 cron. My 90 is only used for

portraits. The 50 cron is a great little lens and it feels well

balanced on the M body and is very sharp too. It is also not too

badly priced either in comparison to the other leica lenses.

[bobtodrick]

I would recommend keeping the 35 and getting a 50. Though you may

find the 35 too wide right now, one of the hallmarks (IMO) of M

photography is the sense of space around the subject that many

photographs taken with the M have. The ability to place a person in

their surroundings often makes a more interesting photo than something

more tightly composed. On the other hand I fall into the category you

mention. I had a 90, used it...never...then sold it and used it

towards the purchase of a used R with short zoom........

[godfrey]

I tend to use my lenses in order of preference 35/24/50/15/90. 90

just comes out to be a hair too long for me most of the time.

Were I to do it over again, I would probably choose differently as

a couple years of use with these lenses and two bodies would

lead me to buy four lenses instead ... 21, 35, 50, 75. I don't

generally see the need for faster than f/2 lenses, so I usually

choose to save that extra premium cost.

[jay_.]

One of the things that makes the Leica worth dealing with its quirks

and indiosyncrasies is lens interchangeability. I use a Tri-Elmar

quite often and find my shots evenly split between 28 and 50 with

only the occasional shot taken at 35. I use a 35/1.4ASPH for low-

light because I can handhold it 1 speed slower than a 50/1.4, it has

more DOF, and its performance wide-open is superior. It has nothing

to do with the focal length, which is not a particular favorite. If

I wanted a fast-lens group I would undoubtedly choose the 28/2, 50/2

and 90/2AA. Why not the 50/1.4? Too little DOF and performance not

up to the other 2 lenses. Why not the 35/1.4 in that case? The 28

offers more of a true wide-angle "look", and gives an approximate

doubling of focal lengths.

[hil3]

Eric-

I'm with you - I think the 35 is too wide too often. It is pretty

much my >stick a flash on the camera, shoot the family around a

birthday cake< lens and not much else. Leica heresy, I know.

 

<p>

 

If I had one lens, it would be a 50, and my next a 90. I love my 90

Elmarit. It is great for both the candid portrait and the posed

portrait. I also use it a lot for my kids' sports: baseball, soccer.

I stand near the field of play, pre-focus and wait for the action to

get to me. In a crowd it's a terrific length. You can isolate

elements that you want to shoot without everything else in the

picture. I even like the perspective for landscapes. I often go

shooting with only my 90. Ridiculously sharp, too.

 

<p>

 

A 35/90 is not a bad kit. Add a 50 later.

[iván]

Hi, Eric:

 

<p>

 

I'd also recommend to get the 50 Cron and keep the 35mm just because

of the old saying: never sell anything Leica; you will miss it later.

 

<p>

 

I use a 50 Crom for street shooting and think that its usefulness is

extremely hard to beat because it allows to make images from <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=450627&size=lg">this close</a> to <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/327655">this far

away</a> either to isolate your subject or to put it into a wider

context. I have tried 35mm in the streets but most of the time it

will demand you to get closer than practical/possible (IMHO) in order

to exclude distractors that in the streets abound more than normally

desired.

 

<p>

 

But still keep in mind that the ultimate criterium should be your own

approach to street shooting, of course.

 

<p>

 

Best wishes, Eric !

 

<p>

 

-Iván

[todd_phillips1]

Eric,

 

<p>

 

These quetions have,will, and are debated endlessly over adult beverages among photogs! I think it's all a matter of personal taste. AND the type of photography that you do. I make my living from photography....so it's important that I have all bases covered. I almost never shoot at maximum aperture so I don't need super speed lenses (unless they are for my Nikons for sports or special effects).

 

<p>

 

IMO the Leica was made for lenses 50mm down. I had a 90TE but sold it because I never used it (though now I just purchased a 90 for my Contax G because I felt I was missing that extra pull...it will be interesting to see how much I use it!). The 35 is, I feel, THE lens to use on the Leica (or other RF) as a standard lens. You can make it look wider than it actually is or you can make it look close to a 50 depending on your distance to your subject and the shooting environment.

 

<p>

 

You mentioned that you use your Leica for travel. I really think you should look WIDER not longer. Both the 21 and 24 are extremely useful lenses for travel. I found myself useing the 21 3.4SA most of the time (as I said I love the 35..but couldn't see the frame lines on my M4-2 because I wear glasses).

 

<p>

 

Yes, you will probably end up with the classic 35/50/90 kit...but DO look wider. You might be pleased with the results!

 

<p>

 

Todd

[eric_reid]

Thanks for the posts so far -- I appreciate the advice. Since a new

90 can be had for such agood price with the sale + rebate, and a used

50 'cron could be added in the future for the least amount among the

new version lenses, I'm thinkin' of taking the 90 now. But please,

keep the advice rolling in!

 

<p>

 

Note to Todd -- I completely agree on adding a wider lens. I was

figuring on adding a Voit. 21mm within the coming months...

[tim_gee]

Eric,

 

<p>

 

Your own preference from future experience will provide the answer to

your question, but that does'nt help now. I think 35, 50 & 90 are all

highly desirable, so my advice is keep the 35 and get the 50 & 90 in

whatever is the most cost effective order.

 

<p>

 

I personally use the 50 & 35 more, but would really miss the 90.

That's just me - there's no right or wrong here.

[dennis_couvillion]

Use a 50 Summicron and keep your feet moving. Seriously, you'll

probably wind up owning a collection of lenses, only to discover that

you can do practically anything you want with a 50. My suggestion:

keep a 50 as your main lens and add either a 21 or 24. The super

wides are more fun than a barrel of Alfies. They are great for grab

shots as well as dramatic cityscapes. Good shooting, Dennis

[dan_brown4]

There's a school of thought around this forum that argues one should

never sell a good Leica lens. I believe that's good advice mostly, so

I think keeping the 35mm is a good thing. As for the next lens, its up

to you, but I would definitely get the 50mm next.

[paul_chefurka1]

Here's another vote for getting the 50 Summicron next. I find the 90

to be just too long for general porpoise-shooting, though it's great

for isolating details and pulling faces out of crowds. I'd suggest

hanging on to your 35 - it's the quintessential Leica focal length as

far as I'm concerned. I'd also advise against the 50 Summilux. I had

one, and it was just a lens. The 50 Summicron is a Lens.

 

<p>

 

Don't worry about the order in which you buy your lenses too much.

You'll end up with all the lenses you need eventually (plus a few

extras...) IMO 35/50/90 is the right kit, no matter how you get

there.

[john_c.]

25 years of shooting has reaffirmed my dislike of the 50mm focal

length. For me, the ideal range is 24/35/75/90. I'd get the 90/2.8 now,

while the gettin� is good. You can always find a cheap 50 later on.

[jackflesher]

You wrote: >I'll have all three (35/50/90) soon enough, so don't

worry about it.< You can take this to the bank, as it is almost a

certainty.

 

<p>

 

And I don't think it matters a whole lot which lens you get next,

BUT... you also wrote: >I've come to realize however, that the mood

that comes with shots taken up close in midst of the action with a

shorter (eg, 35mm) lens are have more "life". This being said, I find

myself thinking that the 35mm is just too wide too often.< Due to

your word "just", as in "slightly", this leads me to believe your

next lens should be a 50. And my vote for the 50 is the Summilux.

Many will think me a heretic for this next statement, but I for one

do not care for the Summicron! Yes, it is sharp. But it doesn't give

you anything unique. No character. Bulk wine when compared to an aged

Bordeaux. At least with the 'Lux wide open, you get a little

softness, not unsharp, but a "look" kind of like a Noctilux down-

played. Purchased used, it is not much more expensive than the 'Cron,

and you get an extra stop when you need it. And quite frankly,

regardless of what they say, nobody will be able to tell the

difference between images taken from the 'Lux and the 'Cron from f4

up.

[tse_sung_wu7]

I have the 35/90 combo. Lately, I just bring the 35. It's nice not having to

think about lenses etc. Also, I don't have a good compact system yet for

bringing both lenses and being confident they're well protected. I'm glad to

have the 90 for nice tight protraits, but, as others have mentioned, I too use

it rarely these days.

 

<p>

 

My next lens would either be a 50 or something like the 21. I used to think I

needed the 28 for landscapes. But thus far, 35 has been plenty wide, and 90

good for isolating the subject. Walking about and using the frameline lever,

the 50 seemed like a nice size in the .72 VF. Where did I read it... the

28/50/90 is a great, classic kit. Throw in the 35 when you're doing one lens

only.

[kaiblanke]

Eric,

<p>

what about the 35/75 kit ? This would set you in between the 50 and

90, and if you choose the Voigtlaender, it wouldn't be too expensive.

Otherwise a used 90/4 is available sometimes for about 120$, which is

not too much and lets you try out if this focal length is fine with

you. I bought a cheap one, and until now never hat the 'opportunity'

to wish I wanted a faster lens (and the f4 is more compact, too).

<p>

I'd dump the idea of the 50 'lux, you don't need that extra stop

99.9% of the time, but letting the 35 go lets you miss another 30% of

shots ...

<p>

Kai

[stefan www.randlkofer.co]

get a 50 lux. someone mentionend not enough DOF. jsut as much as a

cron, but you can use selective sharpness fully open to select a

object even in a crowded surrounding. look at ralph gibson's work. i

think the 50 is the most intimate focal lenth, no perspective

distortion at all. before i got my leica i had a stable of lenses

from 16 to 350, but most of the time i used my 50 lens.

now i have the 35 and 50 lux and the 21 voigtländer, and still it is

the 50 that takes the lead. the 50lux is bulky, but as you already

have the 35 you will know.

[karl_georg_wolf]

You said, you like a lens which can do it all. Somebody else has

pointed out further up, that the best lens is a pair of healthy feet.

But when getting older, technical means to overcome distances come

handy. Perfect for outdoor shooting/ travel would be the TRIELMAR IMO.

 

<p>

 

Here you have 3 focal lengths combined: 28, 35, 50 mm which will give

you exellent results comparable to those of the prime lenses. With

your SUMMICRON 35 mm you have already a fairly good available light

lens. I would keep this one for its size and better low light

abilities.

 

<p>

 

Best wishes

[andy_piper2]

Eric: FWIW I have TWO 90's (1 fast, 1 small) and no 50 - and don't miss

it a bit (although the collapsible slow 50's could be fun). I think I

"used up" my 50 sensibility while I was still a starving college

student with nothing BUT a 50 for 3 years. 8^)

 

<p>

 

But that's a very personal kind of decision.

 

<p>

 

If it weren't for the discount deadline I'd recommend waiting until you

reach the point where you know you'll just go CRAZY without a (50/90/

21/whatever) - then you'll know what it is you really need.

 

<p>

 

One hint re: the Leica days/rebate - you'll save more buying the 90

over the 50 'cron, since the 10% is based on a higher original price.

It'll be easier to add a 50 if you need it later (at $900 or whatever)

than a 90 (at $1300).

 

<p>

 

Again FWIW, a lot of the Magnum pros (Manos, Salgado, Webb, Harvey,

Mark, Franklin) have tended to use a 35-centered system, usually 28/35/

50.

 

<p>

 

I mostly use a wider 35-centered system 21/35/90 - with a 28 in reserve

for when I want "as wide as possible" without an accessory finder.

Sometimes I just carry the 28/90 - sometimes the 35/90. With just 1

lens it's the 35 95% of the time.

 

<p>

 

The Summilux 50 is a very pretty lens stopped down - I found it just

not quite sharp enough wide open.

[michael_kastner]

One way or the other, everybody is right here, for the simple reason,

of course, that everybody has his own taste and budget. I first had a

50 'cron and then sold it for a 35 'cron, because I liked 35 more than

50. Still do! I then got a 21. Next lens would be a 90 E. Or maybe a

penultimate 50'cron (if I can find one). Or maybe instead of either

(or both) a 75 'cron or E (if I can wait that long). So my attempt to

answer your question "What would you suggest?" would be: keep the 35

and then get a 50, and then experiment to find out what direction

comes next (i.e. below 35 or above 50).

 

<p>

 

PS: If I could have and keep just <i>one <b>single</b></i> lens it'd

definitely be a 35 (likely a 'cron; a 'lux would do the trick, too).

[jeff voorhees]

Eric-

 

<p>

 

To me, lens choice is as subjective as bokeh. If you're used to a

38mm on your Contax and a 35 seems too wide, then a 50 might seem just

right...

For what it's worth, before I came to Leica I had 2 slr bodies, 1

motor drive a 28, 50, 85 and a 135 and all that crap was heavy. At

some point I figured out that all I ever did was shoot with one body

and the 50. I think that keeping your gear pared down will make you a

better shooter. I don't that I'm a good shooter now, but all I own is

one M6 and 50 Summicron. I don't really have to think about lens

coverage anymore, I just kind of know where to stand to get my shot.

 

<p>

 

I vote for limiting your gear and buying more film...