My Next Lens?

[William D. Lester]

I own a Leica M6 with a new 50mm f2.8 Elmar. I purchased this camera and lens

because I am growing tired of lugging my hasselblad camera equipment around in

my travels. The Leica has been the most liberating thing I've done in years.

It is extremely comfortable to carry while wandering around and I have found

that I am quite content with the 50mm lens for most of what I do. I will be

spending a week in Havana at the end of February and it has occured to me that

a wide angle might be useful in the narrow streets in the Old Havana area.

Going from a 50mm down, the next logical lens might be a 28mm but I can't see

the entire viewfinder area with my glasses on. I can see the 35mm frame lines

comfortably and I'm looking for opinions from people as to the usefulness of a

35mm as a second lens to a 50mm.

[35mmdelux]

I think there is usefulness because of the 35s semi-wide aspect - but just barely. You could always get an external VF for the 28mm.

[jeffery_pool]

I just bought an M6 to compliment my hasselblad, with a 50mm lens. I am also looking for a wide angle, a 28mm because that is my favorite focal length from SLR's. I wear either contact lenses and glasses depending on how I feel and I find that with a 0.72 finder on the m6 and wearing glasses you need to move your eye around a bit to see the entire 28mm frame. I've shot 28mm enough that I have a good feel for what the frame will look like before I even look through the camera, so this isn't a big disadvantage to me, but I'd still prefer wearing contact lenses when shooting with it.

[jtdnyc]

I own both a 50 and a 35 and use them about equally. However, when I want a distinct wide-angle look, or want to take a portrait showing a great deal of the environment, or want to take a shot of a building without tilting a camera...I reach for the 24.

 

The 24 is easy to zone-focus yet, when used judiciously, is not so wide as to scream "wide-angle." It can be used to highlight a foreground element or, with everything at a distance, can still yield pictures with a natural look.

 

Going on a trip with a single lens, I might choose the 35. But, carrying an entire kit, I find the 24-50-90 to be nicely spaced.

[gwebster]

Hi Bill

<p>

I find the 35mm to be only wide angle-ish at best, by comparison with my 50mm. I purchased a used 28/2.8 which definitely produces a more dramatic wide-angle effect than a 35mm lens. Even with the 0.85 VF on my M6, I find I can use the entire VF for composition although I also purchased a used Voigtlander 28mm VF for ~$100 and it definitely makes composition easier than with the M6 VF (I also use eyeglasses). The point is that you can use the camera VF pretty effectively if you don't want to have to use the external VF.

<p>

I also purchased a used Voigtlander 15mm (with VF) on this very forum and I'm thrilled with it. Here's an example image I took while experimenting with it recently ...

<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5420123-md.jpg">

<p>

The wide-angle Voigtlander lenses are definitely a great buy. You get a huge bang for your buck and in my opinion, the Voigtlander VFs are actually clearer and brighter than their far more expensive Leica equivalents.

<p>

I hope this is helpful

<p>

Gordon

[SolaresLarrave]

Old Havana... would be the place to have a 28mm lens.

 

About the usefulness of a 35mm... it's absolute and total. If you resist a 28mm because of the framelines, ANY 35mm will do. In fact, it's the ideal focal length for RF cameras. But then, so is almost any wide-angle lens.

 

But definitely, a 35mm is necessary. To me the 35mm focal length makes the 50mm feel like a small telephoto.

[vinay_patel]

I can't tell you what lens to get because I'm not a seasoned photographer, but National Geo photographer David Alan Harvey shot a famous book of photos of Havana, and his 2 lenses were a 28 and a 35. You might want to take a look at the book and see if his style is in keeping with yours.

[david k.]

A M6 is always my choice for travel. Last May I visited NYC and as usual took a 35 Cron as my main lens. Was debating what to take a second lens for longer shooting and decided on the 50 Cron.

 

Really surprised myself when I found them to be very complimentary for cityscape shooting. For landscape work a 35 & 90 combo works well, so a 50 seems an odd choice.....but I liked it!

 

I find a 35 & 24 combo works well, the 28 never seems right to me - YMMV.

[ronald_moravec1]

I use a 25/35/50/90. 28 is a little wider than a 35 whereas 35 is 50% wider than 50. That is why is use a 25CV.

 

I am with you reguarding the glasses. Not seeing the whole frame makes life difficult.

 

28 starts getting into the area where you need foreground objects to make a good composition. I have Leica 28 and 21 and end up using the 25CV as a substitute.

 

My pick would be the 35 2.0 ASPH if new, or a used version 3 or 4 35 2.0.

[jimsimmons]

I predict that once you get used to a 35mm Summicron, it will become your standard lens. You'll use the 50mm as that "mild telephoto" that another poster mentioned. Having to slide around the VF to see all of the 28 VF lines slows things down, but being able to see the whole 35mm frame quickly is what RF work is all about. It's a great focal length for Leica RF work and to the discerning eye is very different from the 50mm feel.

[anthony_brookes5]

Many people are more comfortable with a 35mm because it packs more into the pucture. A wideangle also removes some of the need to focus accurately but it is in effect a mild distortion lens. Used sparingly I think it is very useful but as a standard lens I am not keen on it because of its slight distortion.

[bengt_rehn]

After reading hundreds of similar questions and answers, I can say that people swear on their 21,24,28,35mm etc lenses. It is up to your vision and style which combination will suit you better.

 

What two lens combination do you like best for your HB? If you prefer either 80 or 100mm and the 60mm, you would likely be more happy with 50 and 35mm for your Leica.

 

But if you prefer the 50mm distagon for HB, then you would likely want the 28mm lens for Leica.

[35mmdelux]

I've been amazed at how little distortion of the 35mm Summicron.

[frederick_muller]

I find enough of a difference between the 35mm and the 50mm to warrant having and using both. If I already had a 50, the 28 and the 35 would offer similar utility. If I already had a 35, then I would buy a 50 before a 28. Same thing if I started out with a 28. I would next buy a 50 rather than a 35.

[david11]

I used Hasselblad for years. My most used lenses were the 60 Distagon and the 120 Makro-Planar; very useful focal lengths. Somehow, the 35 is one of my least used Leica lenses; I prefer the 28 and 50 in 135.

[mark_amos]

As Frederick said, the choice may have to do with what you already have. You have a 50, so a 28 is a natural next step, however, there are other aspects than focal length to consider. The 50 2.8 elmar is very compact collapsed, and 2.8 may be fast enough, but you will not find an extremely small 28 2.8 except the newest aspherical one. You certainly won't find a truly compact 28 f2. The Leica is medium sized and expensive, and the VC 1.9 is rather large. As much as I have contemplated getting, for example, a VC 28 3.5 for certain things, I don't know if I'd want to be traveling and in a little night club with a 3.5 when a shot materialized with iso 64 to 400 film from earlier day shooting. While using mainly a 35 and a 50 cron does not place the highest priority on focal length difference, these two lenses do give a "different" perspective in quite small quite fast packages.

 

Also think of it this way: You can respond and take advantage of the way the two lenses are different, but they are similar enough that you are less likely to find yourself wishing you had the other one on the camera when the shot occurs. When you work with just the two, they really do feel like an environmental wide and a short portrait lens.

 

Finally, I still think a 28 makes some sense for you because I also have a 15 VC and a very compact 90, if you can live with the selection of 28s with respect to size and speed and cost as your only second lens. BEST OF LUCK WITH THIS FUN STUFF!

[simonpg]

Bill, I was in the same situation a couple of years ago - shoot Hasselblad V series; then acquired a Leica M (M7). Just like you I found Leica M a remarkably liberating and compelling experience. I began with one lens too.

 

Of course the 35mm rangefinder and 6x6 SLR are not really substitutable.... but....

 

35mm or 28mm?

I went for the 35mm for a few reasons that just fit for me:

- 35mm is a significantly different "look" to 50mm - worth having;

- 35mm fits the "walk-about" characteristics of a rangefinder very nicely IMHO - will get used a lot;

- I tried one for a weekend and realised I would use it a LOT - I liked the results and the "natural" perspective;

- 35mm framelines work well enough with my M7's 0.72 viewfinder, so there was no downside.

 

But I did consider 28mm for a few minutes thinking it would be a more desirable / bigger difference to 50mm. BUT, I did not like the fact I had to be much more careful when aiming the camera to avoid distortion (a specific factor that may be unique to me - but that was how I felt). I did not feel the "look" was a "natural" to my eyes. AND then the framelines were too tight (I wear glasses) and I did not want to have to add a viewfinder specifically for the lens as I knew that would make me leave the lens in the bag!

 

So, like I did, why not borrow a 35mm and take the 2 lenses for a "walk" and see how you feel.

 

PS: I bought the ASPH version which I am very happy with and it has become my most used Leica M lens.

[michael s.]

Consider also: Voigtlander 25mm f/4, a zone focused lens (not rf coupled) that is sold with it's own finder. <p>

 

I literally cannot recall ever having read a truly negative comment about this lens, which sells new for a fraction of the price you'd pay for a Leica lens used.<p>

 

Ronald mentioned above that he uses one, but he didn't elaborate. If you don't require a fast wide lens, the 25mm might be worth a look.<p>

 

If you do want an rf coupled Voigtlander lens, there are 21's, 28's, and 35's and 40's as well. Many are ltm mount, requiring an adaptor in order to be mounted on your M6. And many are faster than f/4 -- some are much faster. More details are <a href=http://cameraquest.com/inventor.htm>at Cameraquest</a>.<p>

 

If you're already familiar with all of this I apologize.<p>

 

Incidentally, I have no connection to Cameraquest, nor to <a href=http://www.photovillage.com/html/voigtlander.html>Photo Village</a>, another US-based Voigtlander dealer.

[michael s.]

In answer to your actual question, Bill, I also think that 35mm is a considerably different 'look' than 50mm. (I got a comparatively inexpensive Canon 35/1.8 ltm, and I've enjoyed it.)

 

Significant difference to my eye in the photos from 35mm vs. 50mm.

 

In my first paragraph in the post above, "it's" should be "its."

[lol1]

Like almost everyone else I agree that a 35mm is different enough from a 50mm to justify owning one. Once you get a 35mm you will most likely end up using it 80% of the time simply because most subjects can be covered with this lens and photos taken with a 35mm tend to look very natural, unlike the 28mm which usually has something of a 'wide angle' look. Another reason is that the maximum aperture of a 35mm is usually as stop or two wider than a 28mm, which can sometimes be useful. If you want a 28mm too you could consider the 28mm f3.5 Voigtlander Color-Skopar -- it's great for the occasional situation where the 35mm isn't wide enough; it has very good optical and build quality, is reasonably priced and it's so small and light you will hardly notice you are carrying it.

[pierre_cantin]

Hi Bill

Leica forum is great to have very nice answer !

 

I believe that you shoud buy a 35 mm like many people wrote .

it's the lens i put on my camera , most of the time . I also have a 50 lens but i rarely used it .

 

Now you will see, if you will still need a 28 mm .

 

If you ready to make the choose . You may look for faster lens .

 

35 f 2 , 35 1.4 asph or not?! ?

 

In my opinion 35 1.4 asph is to big .

 

Let us know which lens you will choose

Regards

[SCL]

I used a 35 and a 90 as my only primes for a number of years, and filled in with the 50 only after about 10 years. I still use the 50 mostly only for special situations. Although I've used the 24 (and VC15) on occasion, I really prefer 35 as my main user. In SLRs I tended to use a 28 as my main lens. I guess its a matter of what focal length floats your boat.

[Rob F.]

Bill, you've gotten answers ranging all the way from "get a 15 instead" to "get a 28 even though you think you want a 35" to "35mm is a good choice, go for it."

 

I use 'em all: 21, 24, 28, 35. I'm going to encourage you to follow your intuition and get the 35. It's a mild wide-angle that is easy to compose with, and is also small and unobtrusive. The angle of view is such that you can easily know how much width it will cover, before you even raise the camera to your eye. How? It covers a width that is equal to your distance from the subject. Simple. You are 12 feet from the subject. The lens will take in 12 feet of width.

 

The true normal lens for a 35mm camera is a 43mm (that's the film diagonal measurement from corner to corner). Not a 50. Most Leica 50's are actually 51mm or a bit longer. So a "50" is actually 8mm longer than true normal. Now how much shorter than 43mm is a 35? What do you know--it's 8mm shorter. The point being that a 35 is just as much a normal lens as a 50 is. It's just a "wide normal" where the 50 is a "long normal."

 

As such, it does not alter the relationship between near and far in an obvious way. As others said, it has a natural look, and does not cover an excessive amount of foreground that you have to figure out what to do with--an exercise that costs time when shooting.

 

Also note: If you later add a 24, you will have three lenses that are ideally spaced, with no "hole in the middle." Equally spaced, because the 35 covers exactly twice the image area of a 50; and a 24 covers twice that of the 35.

 

As several others said: 35 is essential. And you'll be able to see what you are doing, like you said in the first place!

[r22eng]

Bill,

 

The VC 28mm metal viewfinder works great with the 28mm lens. Great field of view compared to the M6 finder for those of us who wear glasses. The 50 and 28 mm combination is great for walking around. I find the 28mm with the shade a bit big for my jacket pocket.

 

The 35mm f/2 is smaller than the 28mm f/2.8 and works great for street shots too. As a matter of personal preference I like the following two lens combinations for street shots if I am traveling light without a camera bag:

 

28 and 50mm collapsible

21 and 50mm collapsible

35 and 90mm

 

You may want to consider the VC 21/f4 (~$344) as your next lens for use in the narrow streets of Old Havana. It is small like the 35/f2 lens and provides nice DOF.

 

Good luck.

 

Ricky

[geoffrey goldberg]

Years ago I shot with only an M2 and a 35 mm. The 35 just fit what my eye saw - and with

the M8 now, the 28 does that function. The 50 for me was always limiting, and had an

unnatural feel. So I'd vote forthe 35 in a heartbeat.

 

If you want wide angle more strongly, the 24 is a great size - has good drama, but can

begin to picku distortion in the foreground. The 28 would seem like a good in-between,

but I never found that to be a comfortable size. So my votes are 35, then 24.

 

On the other hand, years ago, there was always another group of people who liked 50's

and 28's. Things seems to split up like that. So there is a logic there too...

 

Geoff