Which leica 3 lens set?

[alex_p._schorsch]

I have a Mamiya 6 outfit (whose 50mm and 75mm act just like leica 28

and 50) so that's why I know the 28mm and 50mm lens combination can

be a straightforward, honest and simple way to work. My problem is

with the 150mm Mamiya (in 35mm would be a 90mm equivalent) which is a

real pain in the neck to compose and focus. I think that I may find

the leica 90mm to be troublesome in these respects, that's why I was

hoping someone would come out in favor of the 75mm. I've seen some

really fine work done with this lens, why doesn't anybody seem to be

recomending it??

 

<p>

 

Thanks for all of your scounsels I really appreciate it.

[ilkka]

Good question, and close to everyoone's mind based on the large

number of replies. Here is my opinion:

 

<p>

 

As you want a small and light travel package that rules out some of

the biggest lenses in my opinion. I would get the 2/35 because it is

just about the smallest Leica lens, and a good general purpose one.

 

<p>

 

After that, 50 or 28 are a bit too close for me so I would get a

wider one, 24 or 21 would be good. It depends a bit what you want to

do.

 

<p>

 

On the longer end, the 2.8/90 would be a small and reasonably priced

lens. If you want more speed, the size will also increase but then I

might go for the 75 lux. Not that much bigger than the 2/90 and

another stop more speed. Another good and small 75 alternative would

be the Voigtlander 2.5 lens.

 

<p>

 

In the end, the choice comes to what is best for you. I use 35 most

of the time, so I would start with 35 and go for 21 and 75. But if

you mostly use 50 then that would be a better starting point for you,

and probably lead to the 28/90 path.

 

<p>

 

It is surely true that some people actually do use their lenses at 1

or 1.4. But I do believe most of the time 2 is fast enough (or 2.8 in

the longer/wider end). And it saves a lot in cost and weight. It is

enough for me, and if it is for you, I strongly urge you to consider

the speed you actually need before buying. Afterall, getting a Leica

and three lenses costs a lot no matter what lenses you decide to get.

 

<p>

 

Ilkka

[kristian dowling]

Sometimes I don't understand the logic when people talk about

buying f/2 lenses instead of f/1.4 for travelling. When travelling,

don't you ever require the f/1.4 f-stop? Is it that there is more light

when travelling (well in Australia there may be)?

 

<p>

 

Sure the Summicrons are a little smaller and lighter, but not by

much and the Leica M system is small enough as it is. I say that

when I travel, I'll bring my best system that is the most versatile

in helping me get virtually any shot, in any light. That's why I

prefer having as fast lenses as possible. And if that means

bringing a Noct to get those shots, then so be it.

 

<p>

 

Why? When you are out travlleing, there is not second chance.

You can't say, "I'll go home and get my Noct/Lux and come back

later". Well not always.

 

<p>

 

So for me, the right lenses for travelling are fast lenses and as

fast as possible. Also as much as a Tri-Elmar is useful for its

three-in-one-lens setup, it is also too slow for anything but

outdoor/bright sun shooting. And if you own two Summicrons like

me (50/90SAA), the 35 Lux is essential!!

 

<p>

 

but I'd say that the best 3 lens combination is the 28mm f/2,

50/1.4 and 90/2, OR 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4 and 75/1.4, or even

combination of both combinations.

[andy_piper2]

As a published travel photographer I can tell you that a 20/21 has been

my main money-maker and portfolio-builder for 20 years. People,

architecture, landscape - even the occasional ferret... 8^) The 21 gets

'em all.

 

<p>

 

Out of your preferred selections, therefore, I would choose the 21/35/

75.

 

<p>

 

Personally I don't like the 75s currently available, so I substitute

the 90mm Tele-Elmarit, and use it almost as much as the 21. If someone

comes out with an APO 75 f/2 under 425g and with 46-49mm filters I

might jump at it, but on the whole I have found no need for anything

between the 35 and 90. The 50, for me, is just not interesting enough

to spend money/bag space on.

 

<p>

 

I have a 28 f/2.8, but haven't carried it in a while - most of the time

any shot the 28 could make the 21 or 35 can make as well or better. But

on rare occasions the 28 allows me to shoot as wide as possible without

having to carry the 21 accessory finder. And it's nice to have as a

'chnage of pace'. But it's the first item I take out when I'm

lightening the camera bag.

 

<p>

 

That's my experience. But there really are a lot of three lens combos

that work: in the past I've used ALL of the following and gotten good

results (some with SLRs): 28/50/105, 28/35/85, 24/35/85, etc.

 

<p>

 

I have noticed, however, that I've usually done my most boring

photography when I had perfectly spaced lenses (e.g. 16/20/28/50/105/

200) - and done my most interesting work when I had 'syncopated' lens

spacing (i.e. skipping uneven numbers of lenses: 20 - no 24 - 28 - 35 -

no 50 - 85 - no 105 no 135 no 180 - 200, etc.)

 

<p>

 

Don't really know why - the uneven spacing just seems to add an

'edginess' to my shooting. Sort of like 11/8 time in jazz.

 

<p>

 

but there it is....

[steve_barnett2]

The 75 'Lux is a vast chunk of glass, and very heavy, the 21mm less

so, but still big. I wouldn't take them on a trip unless I needed

them specifically. The 21mm could be repleaced with a Voigtlander

21, which is very small and light. It also comes with a finder. The

90mm I would recommend a current Elmarit for its size. For focusing

it with whichever body you have, get a magnifier with your change

from not getting a a 75 Lux. That leaves the middle 28, 35, and 50.

All these could be dealt with in one lens, the Tri Elmar, and maybe

use a faster film if necessary. But if you want single primes, ask

yourself what do you use most and get a 'cron or 'Lux. The Tri Elmar

is not a gimmicky lens though, gives as good results as the primes,

and using a rear lens cap and body cap combo, effectively three

lenses and a body can fit in two pockets!

[karl_yik1]

I wouldnt say that Leica is 'light', infact I think they are

extremely heavy for the size, but its true that they are very compact.

[nesrani]

I would advise a two lens set, with a body for each lens. That way

you'll be more likely to use each one to the extent required by the

situation, rather than be blocked by the pain of changing lenses. I

currently have four lenses but two of them never get used because I

hate changing lenses. So I'm probably going to get rid of one and get

another body instead. This is lazy, yes, but also realistic, since

the moment can be long gone by the time you've changed the lens on a

camera. Also, having a body for each lens means you have the

potential to photograph any situation in a wide range of focal

lengths, which is useful, it's not just a matter of changing the lens

for the shot in question. Why should you be limited to shooting a 24

landscape shot if you can also do a 50 portrait of the same

situation? Changing lenses is going to mean that inevitably something

is going to be lost.

 

<p>

 

As for choices, that, of course, is too personal an issue for anyone

else to resolve for you. Personally I use 24 and 35. It works for me.

 

<p>

 

To recap - two lenses = two bodies, three lenses = three bodies.

Don't underestimate the value of having your range of focal lengths

always available for use.

[michael_kastner]

Old question  -->  old answer.

<ol TYPE=A>

<li>

On the one hand, one lens might mean e.g. 35 or 50, two lenses meaning

35 plus [75 or 90], three meaning [21 or 24 or even 28] plus [35 or

50]

plus [75 or 90 or even 135]. A sort of opening up your

arsenal-array.</li>

 

<p>

 

<li>

OTOH, you might some day like some of us (and HCB, too, I hear) end up

-- no matter how many lenses you own -- still shooting 95% of

everything using "only" both your 35 and 50. So everything else is

secondary. Work with 35 and/or 50 first, before you worry about who

has to come next!</li>

</ol>

If you're into the lightweight quality of it all, stick to 35 and 50

'crons and 90 Elmarit. Saves money too. Buy more film instead.

[steve_barnett2]

Rob wrote:

'To recap - two lenses = two bodies, three lenses = three bodies.

Don't underestimate the value of having your range of focal lengths

always available for use.'

A good idea Rob, next time I buy a lens I'll buy a body to go with

it. Also a nice lightweight setup for street photography, perhaps if

you were in downtown Saigon in the seventies. Do you really carry

three bodies around if you want to use three lenses? Does that

double up if you are using colour and B&W?

[boris_brecelj]

It all depends on the type of shooting you do. My main combo is 35 and 50. Depending on what I will photograph I take 35 'chron or 'lux and 50 'chron or 'nocti. The 90 doesn't see much mileage with me and using Tri-Elmar makes me wonder why I don't get a P&S.

 

<p>

 

As somebody above said 'chrons might be fast enough for you - again depending on the shooting you do. If you shoot people and other moving subjects then 1.4 won't do you much good (shallow DOF). Personally if I go out at night and I know I will be photographing people in bars and clubs I usually take the 'chrons because 'lux @1.4 has too shallow DOF. If I go somewhere that I know subjects will hold reasonable still the nocti of 'lux come into play...

 

<p>

 

I like to shoot tight so 35 is more than wide enough for ME! If I were in your place I would start with 35/1.4 and 50/2 (or even 50/2.8) and after using them for a year or so decide weather to go wider or longer.

 

<p>

 

From my personal experience: I started with 90/2 and 35/2, later got the 50/2.8 and Tri-Elmar. From this set the most used were 50 and 35. 90 saw the occasional use and Tri-Elmar was collecting dust. Later I got the 50/1 and 50/2. And this year I treated myself to 35/1.4.

 

<p>

 

The lenses I _like_ most are 35 and 50 ?chron. The lenses I _use_ most are 35 ?lux and 50 ?chron. Nocti gets used from time to time but due to its size and weight I wouldn't dream of taking it on any extended travel (backpacking), if your idea of travel is flying and driving to and from resorts then the weight argument loses it's value...

 

<p>

 

I was really sorry for Tri-Elmar, on the paper it seemed such a wonderful lens and I was absolutely sure and positive it would be my main lens, it was a lens I just had to have. Once I got it and started using it, I found that it is way to big and way to slow for my liking.

 

<p>

 

Wider than 35mm (maybe 28??) ? well I just don?t like the perspective anymore and I used to love wide angle, on Nikon 20/2.8 was my favorite lens. With Leica my taste began to shift ? could be that the constant looking trough the 0.85 viewfinder does that to a person :)

 

<p>

 

best regards,

[alex_p._schorsch]

A heartfelt Thank You to all on this thread, I learned a lot from

your comments. I can say that I can feel the real love that you guys

have for your cameras and lenses. This must really be coming from the

high quality of the images being produced.Makes me want to own a

leica even more than ever.

 

<p>

 

I think I'll go with a 35mm lens as a starter, Thanks again to all.

[james_kuhn]

It appears we have a variation on a theme with these threads. As

stated in my thread below, I own the 35 'cron, 50 'cron, and 90

Elmarit. I recently purchased a second M6 "classic" body which allows

me to keep either my 35 or 50 'chron on one body and my 90 Elmarit on

the other. Since one body is chrome and the other black I can easily

keep my favorite black and white film in one and color in the other

and never get mixed-up. All of this resides in a Lowepro NOVA 2 bag.

It's a very compact and sturdy little case and very well padded. It

will easily hold both bodies with 35mm and 50mm lenses attached, 90

Elmarit safely snugged inside, a light meter, lens shade, film and

other odds and ends. I have to say this is my "dream" Leica kit.

However, as time marches on, my 'Leica dream' has become a little

more jaded. One day, I would also like to own a Noctulux and maybe a

21mm or 24mm wide-angle. The Noctulux would allow me more opportunity

to work in available darkness. Many years ago I owned the Canon 50mm

f/1.2 and was bitten by the "available darkness" bug. The 50 Nocto'

would be my only foray into the large, heavy glass choices. With

those additional lenses in my kit I could die a happy man. Well,

maybe an M7 with. . .

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

 

<p>

 

J.

[steve_b.2]

EVERYTHING within the Leica M system is light-weight, compared to

carrying around similar focal length lenses (and camera bodies)with a

professional SLR system. Since I bailed out of the Nikon auto-focus

SLR system, now only my Gitzo tripod and Foba ball head are the

heaviest peices of photographic gear I own, rather than my old N90s,

motor drive, SB-26 flash, 12 AA batteries to run everything, and lens.

 

<p>

 

I own and use the 28mm f/2 ASPH, the 50mm f/2 and the 90mm f2.8

Elmarit and consider this range to be ideal for me. The 90mm is just

long enough for those portrait shots I want, and the 28mm is wide

enough - without being too wide. I've owned a host of SLR wide angle

lenses, from the Sigma 14mm rectilinear, throught the entire Nikon

range of the 20, 24, 28 and 35 lenses. I found that the 28mm wide

angle fits most uses the best, for my style of M photography. Regards.

[nesrani]

Steve, I'm not old enough to have been in Saigon in the Seventies,

and as I said, I only have the two bodies, but certainly, if I had a

third body I'd carry it around with a third lens (probably a 50) on

it. Where's the problem? It's just a matter of being ready for the

opportunities. I don't use BW, so doubling up isn't a problem for me.

 

<p>

 

There are plenty of "which lens next" threads on this forum, but I

think people often underestimate the value of having a couple of

bodies, that's all.

[vic_.]

<< I only have the two bodies, but certainly, if I had a third body

I'd carry it around with a third lens (probably a 50) on it. Where's

the problem? [etc.] -- rob appleby >>

 

<p>

 

Rob,

 

<p>

 

Let me second you on the 2 body, 2 lens philosophy. I have a 0.58

with the 35mm and a 0.72 with the 50mm, and it is a lovely

combination *for me* at the moment. Locked and loaded 24/7. I'd

like to spend some time with it and see where it takes me. It might

take me nowhere because I just want to have fun, and if it isn't fun

then I'm ok with that too. Following someone else's lens set up is a

recipe for regret IMO, but it sure is fun theorizing about it. Some

people load up on more lenses than they know what to do with, and as

a Leica beginner that is a trap for many. Lens lust is a terminal

disease. I got the second body because I wanted a backup manual

body, and am very happy with my choice. Lenses are always available,

and since I'm not a professional, I want to take my time. Just my

$0.02.

[steve_barnett2]

Vikram and Rob

While I would normally agree with you that two bodies (three has to

be overkill!)is a good idea, I think looking at the original

question may shed some light on the answers required. 'Lightweight'

and more importantly 'three lens' travel and street photography,

should gain your attention. How you blend in for 'street'

photography with three or more cameras around your neck needs

explaining, as does a lightweight setup for travel. I think Alex was

asking primarily about 'lenses'. Shoot me down if I'm wrong.

[pete_su]

This is getting off the original question, but ...

 

<p>

 

FWIW, a Nikon N80 and 50/1.4 lens is probably lighter than the

equivalent Leica kit by 5-10 ounces. And the N80 is nearly the

same size as the Leica as well...

 

<p>

 

You can quibble about build quality and all that, but it's not that

hard to find very small, very light SLR kits these days.

 

<p>

 

My personal feeling is that one uses a Leica for different

reasons than the fact that the body is smaller than an F5 or EOS

3. Most cameras are smaller than the bigger pro bodies.

 

<p>

 

Just MHO.

[pete_su]

Oh yeah. Carrying one body per lens is not unprecedented.

Gene Smith used to write that he would carry 5 bodies, all of

different types, so he never had to change lenses in the field.

[joe_lee3]

75mm lux is heavy but I just can't live without... The quality of

this lens is simply beyond class and to me, the best Leica lens. At

the moment my tri-combo is 35mm Summicron ASPH, 75mm Summilux and

135mm Tele-Elmar. Saving up for the 24mm ASPH.

 

<p>

 

My ideal travelling kit is two 0.85 M6TTL body. One with the 1.25X

magnifier (for 75mm and 135mm) and one without (go with 35mm and

24mm).

[lex_bosman1]

It depends also on the body you use. Some lenses go better with some

bodies. I worked for years with an M3 with 50, and 90, and later

added a 35. Now with an M6 (0.58) I use a 28, which is wonderful. I

wouldn't leave out the 90 mm, because it gives you a really different

view than the others.

[andy_piper2]

"Gene Smith used to write that he would carry 5 bodies, all of

different types, so he never had to change lenses in the field."

 

<p>

 

There's even a picture of him draped in cameras during the Pittsburgh

essay, although I can't find a copy right now to link to.

 

<p>

 

However he was using Canon screw-mount RFs at the time - which were a)

a lot lighter per camera, and b) much more of a PITA to change lenses

with, so he was trading off a whole lot on inconvenience against a

weight load not that much larger.

 

<p>

 

5 Canon screw-mount RFs with lenses weigh about the same as 2 Leica R8s

with lenses.

[ray_moth]

Based on my short experience of Leica M, I would go along with Jay

and others in suggesting:

 

<p>

 

* Tri-Elmar 28-35-50mm f/4 for general outdoor use

 

<p>

 

* either 35mm or 50mm Summilux, depending on your preference for

indoors/low light use

 

<p>

 

* 90mm Elmarit for portraits and other use requiring a long lens.