M9 and one $1000 lens - which one?

[brian_kenimer]

<p>OK if <strong>YOU</strong> were able to buy a <strong>M9</strong> and only had a budget of <strong>ABOUT $1000 for a lens</strong><br>

<strong>which lens would be you pick first </strong> - also I have a few <strong>portrait jobs</strong> lined up so I'm thinking a nice portrait lens would be great - and then take that money and get a <strong>tele-photo</strong> ?<br>

(I have a Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 1,6/3,9-78 T* on my HD Video cam and am SO happy with it)<br>

also if somebody would like to decipher what those numbers on my HDV lens mean - that would be cool since I am a video guy enjoying learning about photography/lens technicalities.<br>

<strong>Thank you</strong> in advance - I know I can get some <strong>GREAT</strong> advice here!</p>

[geoff_r1]

<p>Are portraits the main purpose? If so, you can get a pre-asph 90mm summicron for around $700, for head and shoulders shots. For the remaining $300, you could get a chrome 50mm Summar, which will give you a nice soft vintage look wide open, great for portraits with a bit of the surroundings.</p>

[michael_a._shapiro]

<p>First: I'd buy a 50-lots of choices-Voigtlander 50/1.5, Zeiss 50/2, Leica Summicron pre asph. That should take care of portraits for the main part, although the addition of a Leica 90/2.8 would add some reach.</p>

[scottwallick]

<p>Try and find an old pre-ASPH Summilux 50, either the E46 or E43 version. The E43 has the minimum focus of 1 m, possibly a problem for some users/applications, but I love its rendering, especially in B&W. Very complimentary to skin tones IMHO.</p>

[guido_h]

<p>Zeiss 50/2 ZM - if you wait a few weeks, you'll encounter my 35/2 and 50/2 ZM's on eBay, since I'm about to sell off the rest of my 35mm gear.</p>

<p>I guess that we are going to see the same question from many (most?) new M9 owners here in the months to come... ;-)</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>You didn't provide one important input -- bo you want a brutally honest (sharp) portrait lens, or one that will lose some of the complexion flaws of the subject.<br>

The 50/2.0 Summar, as mentioned before, is one of the soft lenses. So is the 90/4 screwmount Elmar. You could easily buy both and still have change left for something sharp, like a screwmount Canon 50/1.4.</p>

[vic_.]

<p>Buying the M9 and allocating only $1000 for a lens makes no sense to me, but then, I'm not you.</p>

<p>If portraiture is one of your main goals, then a mint late-model M8 with a 50mm pre-Asph AND a 35mm Summilux Asph will give you more photographic versatility as well as low light capability. Or you could substitute a 90mm APO Asph for the 50mm lens, and have a potent combination.</p>

<p>There are other ways of spending $8000 than getting an early M9 and a compromise lens. Just my thoughts.</p>

[brian_kenimer]

<p><strong>Thanks for the quick responses!</strong><br>

<strong>John</strong> - Hmm, well I suppose the question would be is it better to <strong>use a sharp lens and soften it in photoshop</strong> or I guess lightroom (havn't used it yet) it comes with the camera<br>

or use a <strong>soft lens and try to sharpen it in editing? </strong><br>

since these going to be <strong>large framed prints</strong> - this is probably an important factor?</p><div></div>

[shambrick007]

<p>"since I am a video guy enjoying learning about photography/lens technicalities." = don't spend $8000 for a one camera and one lens set up.....IMHO.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>That sounds like good advice. Maybe pick up a 5D/5DII instead with a 135/2 and a second lens. Save money, have a more versatile setup, etc.</p>

<p>If I were going to go with just one lens, I'd get a 50. The Zeiss 50/2 is well respected; I ended up with a Summicron instead. Eventually sold it for a 50/1.4 ASPH which is great, but is above your budget. </p>

<p>I wouldn't want to be without a 28mm lens though so if you got the Zeiss, you could pick up a Cosina Voigtlander 28/3.5 for about $200. You'd be under your $1000 and have two great lenses.</p>

[brian_kenimer]

<p><strong>Thanks</strong> for the advise - <strong>but</strong> , like the <strong>topic</strong> says <strong>M9 and ABOUT $1000 for lens/lenses (portrait)<br /> </strong><br>

If <strong>Canon</strong> or <strong>Sony</strong> made a <strong>FF this small</strong> - my money <strong>might</strong> of gone there (I was <strong>going</strong> to get an a850). <strong>But size is relevant</strong> . I plan to buy as many lenses as I see fit for <strong>different applications</strong> at a <strong>later time</strong> .<br>

<strong>Thanks</strong></p>

[roland_dobbins]

<p>I'd suggest buying an M8.2, the Leica grip, a Luigi/Leicatime custom case, the 28mm f/2.8, the 50mm f/2, and the 90mm f/2, along with a 1.25x viewfinder magnifier, an extra battery, and the Match Technical Thumbs-Up. If you decide you like the Leica, sell the body and get an M9 later, and keep using the same lens kit.<br>

If you're bound and determined to get the M9 and just one lens, consider the Voightlander 50mm f/1.1 - great low-light lens at the price, though it's more like a dSLR lens in size and weight.</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

This may not be what you want to hear, but on the whole, I agree with what Vic said. Spending $7,000 on an M9 and going on-the-cheap on the most important element (the glass) of the system makes no sense.

 

You might be better served by starting off with an M8/8.2 and a 6-bit coded 50mm (or 75mm) Summicron. This is an ideal portrait kit with top-of-the-line glass - all-in at well under your body only budget.

[davebell]

<p>"Buying the M9 and allocating only $1000 for a lens makes no sense to me, but then, I'm not you."</p>

<p>Not all of us are rolling in money. It makes perfect sense for those who cannot afford anything more. In fact it is more or less what I would do if I could afford it, but sadly right now it will have to wait. Nothing wrong with starting somewhere, then slowly working up.</p>

[blakley]

<p>I'm not sure what all the fuss is about; the classic lens for a full-frame M is the 50mm f/2 Summicron, which you can get for about $1,000 at KEH in like new condition.</p>

<p>Easy choice, good choice.</p>

[andy_piper2]

<p>Classic portrait lens - 90mm f/2 Summicron pre-ASPH runs just under $1,000 - on the bleeding edge for focusing, though (and big, even in the compact version). 75mm Voigtlander Color-Skopar f/2.5, would be really cheap, but requires screw-to-M adapter. 50 Summiluxes pre-ASPH that close-focus enough for portraits are still a bit pricey - $1500 or so - 50 'cron (f/2) for $700 would be sharper and more readily available and REALLY small. 75 Summarit f/2.5 used might sneak in at under $1K. 50 Summarit f/2.5 should be $1000 new, used 50 f/2.8 Elmar is 4-element Tessar-style lens (like SLR pancake lenses) that will have a retro look - but DON'T collapse it on the digital Ms! Put tape around barrel to prevent full collapse.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>Several have suggested the 90 f/2 pre-ASPH, which I think is the ultimate. They're a bargain, and have fantastic background separation. I'm not sure why people would advise against lenses that are too sharp as that can always be toned down in PS. Personally I don't find the 50mm length tremendously great for getting really close for portraits--you'd really have to get in their face for a head shot, and you can't get the 3d bokeh like you can with a 90.</p><div></div>

[35mmdelux]

<p>A fast 50mm Summilux pre-asph ($750-1000) would handle any portrait job. If close up is your gig, then the 90mm Summicron pre-asph ($750) gets the nod. These are not compromised glass.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>May I ask why you are constrained to these specs? They seem strange. Personally I'd rather have a 1000 dollar camera and a 7000 dollar lens, what do I know I was eaten by chiggers.</p>

<p>Does anyone remember the movie where these Army guys battled Giant Ants in tunnels with flame throwers? It was breathtaking for a 6 year old me. Until I could see the Cheapness as defined by Zappa, the big ants were fake. But I chose to live the fantasy anyway.</p>

<p>Forget the M9, get an M6, 75/1,4 and buy good wine with the money you save.</p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>The perspective provided by the 90mm lens is better suited to portraiture than that from the 50mm. That said, we all have our preferences. A 90mm Summicron would be a lens of choice but the 75mm would do as well but may be too expensive.<br>

I was just looking through my album of portraits of second-year university girls from 35 years ago taken with my M4 and 90mm Tele Elmarit (fat version). This lens is not as sharp as the Summicron but may be what many want in a portrait lens. It would certainly be within your budget and leave room for a good 50mm. The portraits bring back many good memories.</p>

[brian_kenimer]

<p>So, I'm <strong>definitely</strong> ordering an<strong> M9</strong> - and it looks like I'm looking for a <strong>90, 75 or 50mm for portraits</strong> , maybe pick up a <strong>35 or 28 for landscape</strong> , later?<br>

also, if you want to <strong>send a link</strong> to where I can find a great price - that would be <strong>great!</strong><br>

<strong>Thanks everybody for the great advice on the lenses - I can't wait!</strong><br>

<strong>And John</strong> , funny how your work 35 years ago and what I shot 2 days ago gives us the same feeling! Although she just talked my ear off on the phone for 2 hours! 18mp will allow us more options than the 2mp that we have been using!</p><div></div>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I don't suppose it's worth mentioning the Cosina-Voigtlander lenses? I have two and love them. The CV 35/1.4 is probably the best value lens of that type. It does have light fall-off at the corners at 1.4 though. Which is kind of nice, really. I also have an older Leitz 90/2. Very nice lens, that. Heavy, but nice.</p>

[vahe_sahakian]

<p>I would consider 50/2.8 Elmar M, the latest, if 2.8 is fast enough for you this lens is hard to beat in overall quality.</p>

<p>Vahe</p>

[blakley]

<p>I've been using 50mm (mostly Summilux and Noctilux) for portraits on film Ms and the M8 for a long time; I have no trouble getting head-and-shoulders portraits with it. You do have to be close, but this makes it easier to get the shallow DOF I like. Some recent examples <a href=" , <a href=" , <a href=" , and <a href=" (all with the 50 Summilux on the M8).</p>

<p>If you like the perspective of a 50mm lens on the M8, a 75 on the M9 will feel about right (<a href=" 's a photo I took with it full-frame on the MP). The 75/2 Summicron Asph is an incredibly good lens, but you won't find it for $1,000; it's about $2,500 used.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/home.aspx">KEH</a> is a good place to look for used lenses in good condition; you should also check the <a href="../gc/domain-multi">classifieds</a> here. The Adorama store at Photo.net carries Leica lenses, as do all the better online retailers.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>35 or 50 f2 Summicron. Best balance between value and quality. The Summilux 1.4's are brilliant, but at least you can sell your crons easily if you want to upgrade.<br>

The M's (film or digital, are best in the 35/50/90 range as they were designed to be. Over 90 and its hard to focus and wider than 35 and you might have to use an external viewfinder.<br>

If you are pressed for $$ also consider the Voigtlander lenses. They are very good. The 40 is a nice 1:1 ratio for people shots.</p>