Which is more economical?

[aplumpton]

<p>Bryan,</p>

<p>As one M lens user, I cannot answer that, as I have only used the Summicron (f2) and Voigtlander-Cosina Nokton (f1.5) lenses and the Leica 50mm Elmar-M f2.8. But Mr. Erwin Puts has compared many of these lenses and I quote him as follows, with my bold lettering (The full free test report is via http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page57.html)</p>

<p><strong>"General conclusion.</strong><br /><br /> The new <strong>Summilux</strong>-M 1:1.4/50mm <strong>ASPH</strong> is the best high-speed general-purpose lens in the Leica range. Its wide open performance is outstandingly good (in some respects like flare even better than the Sumicron at f/2). Stopped down it is better than the <strong>Summicron</strong> 2/50mm. It can be used as the universal standard lens and can be deployed without any restrictions in image quality at all apertures and over the whole image field. If you want only one lens for your M camera, this one should be the prime choice. I still have the opinion that the focal length of 50mm is the best single lens for the M (I am an old fashioned M3 user with 50, 90 and 135mm as the prime lenses) and offers a wide range of possibilities for picture taking.<br /><br /> Handling is superbly smooth and the size of the lens fits in well with the camera and the finger controls of the average user. The screwed finger grip allows for one finger fast focussing and the telescopic lens hood has a lock to prevent accidental moving. This is nice to have but not essential. The smoothness of the focussing mount is the most important aspect. Using the prototypes, you could notice some rough spots, but in the production versions, these are gone. The finish is of a very high standard and the aperture click stops match the quality of the rest of the lens.<br /><br /> This lens has optical qualities second to none and is a triumph of optical and mechanical engineering mastery. It even adds some new pictorial tools in the plasticity of the reproduction and the fine colour rendition in dim light and shadow areas.<br /> <br /><strong>Comparisons</strong><br /><br /> The <strong>previous Summilux-M</strong> is clearly outclassed on all counts. As the <strong>Nokton</strong> is a small improvement on the older Summilux-M, this one too is not a serious competitor to the new Summilux-M 1:1.4/50mm ASPH, except on the matter of price. More interesting is the comparison to the current Summicron-M. The <strong>close up performance </strong>of the <strong>Summicron</strong> is definitely better than that of the new Summilux and if you do not need the high speed, it still has its virtues. The <strong>Noctilux-M</strong> is more difficult to profile. If you look at the objectified performance criteria, the Noctilux at the wider apertures is no match for the new Summilux-M. But then we have the more subjective considerations. Here the Summilux offers the real life dimension, where the Noctilux is more dreamlike and painterly in its reproduction of the scenes. The Nokton colour rendition is leaning to the pastel colours where the Summilux is more saturated. The drawing of the Noctilux is with a thick pencil where the Summilux uses a very thin tipped point. It is up to every photographer to make the choice. I can only try to describe the differences, objective as well as subjective,<br /><br /> What about the <strong>Elmar-M 1:2.8/50mm</strong>? This could be the perfect companion to the new Summilux-M: it offers excellent close up imagery even at full aperture, it is <strong>very compact</strong> and has excellent overall performance.<br /><br /> I often get questions like this: if you only had to use one lens, which one would you choose. The answer was not that easy. But now it is: the Summilux-M 1:1.4/50mm ASPH." <em>(end of quote from Erwin article)</em></p>

<p>Bryan, all I can possibly say to add to this opinion of Mr. Puts (a fairly objective tester I believe, and one with lots of in-house and out-of-house Leica experience) is that in regard to VF blocking (an important consideration to my mind, often neglected), the Elmar-M doesn't block the viewfinder with filter and lens hood attached (except an extremely tiny bit and only at closest focus). My Nokton f1.5 does, however, and a fair amount (almost halfway from bottom right corner to centre), and that <strong>without</strong> its lens hood. The Summicron is probably somewhere between these two in that regard (I no longer have mine, drats!) and I guess the Summilux ASPH is similar to the Nokton, or maybe a bit more obstrusive on the viewed subject. Someone else may know, more precisely.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Bryan,</p>

<p>The fastest lenses, and invariably the most expensive, are generally not the best performers as far as image quality is concerned, especially shot wide open. They are a terrific tool for journalists who need to be able to capture the moment and bring back that-once-in-a-lifetime image, in spite of impossible lighting and other challenging conditions. In this regard, fast lenses are invaluable. For most of us, such a specialized capability is not a necessity, and in fact, superior image quality is more important.</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>Bryan,</p>

<p>You should ask yourself why you are willing to make this investment in the first place. What is it that you wish to photograph that you think will do a better job with a rangefinder like a Leica M as opposed to a digital SLR? Let me play devil's advocate here and note that while I have purchased some Leica equipment new - especially years ago when prices were far more reasonable than now - I have bought most of it used. Moreover, even though I have lenses like the 28mm f2 Summicron, 35mm f2 Summicron (ASPH and Canadian non-ASPH) and 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH, I am more likely now to use my Zeiss ZM lenses in the 25mm, 35mm and 50mm focal length ranges. For example my 25mm Biogon lens is now my favorite wide angle lens, is better than my 24mm Elmarit ASPH with respect to contrast and resolution, and is much cheaper used or brand new than the 24mm Leica lens. Both it and the 50mm f2 Planar ZM (which is better than any 50mm Summicron I have used or handled with respect to contrast and resolution) lenses are two of the best lenses in my Leica kit.</p>

[david_s16]

<p>You should probably just go on flickr and look at images shot with various lenses to see what you like. <br>

Personally, I've yet to see a photograph taken with the 50 Lux ASPH that made me say "I have to get this lens". I own the 35 and 75 2.0 ASPH lenses and love them, but the Summilux lenses do nothing for me. <br>

I also agree with John Kwok about Zeiss. If it's pure sharpness you're after, the Zeiss are the best. <br>

This guy uses the ZM 50 2.0: <br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andretakeda/sets/72157603751784619/<br>

This guy makes beautiful photos with a classic DR Summicron, which is considered by many Japanese collectors to be the best of all 50 cron versions:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fingerprinz/sets/72157622073641680/<br>

This guy uses a 35mm Cron ASPH exclusively:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/emmanuel_smague/sets/72157594412763400/<br>

This guy uses a 50mm Summilux: <br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37556068@N06/<br>

And this guy seems to use mostly Nikon and Hasselblad, with a little Leica thrown in:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/micmojo/<br>

If I shuffled their photos, you'd never be able to tell me which lens was used for what. </p>

 

[red_buckner]

<p>If you like b&w photography, you can use film very cheaply. Buy the film in bulk, and develop it yourself. Then hit the darkroom with the best shots---or scan the best shots and hit the computer. I used to shoot huge amounts of b&w; developing it cost pennies and was fun. And mono film is cheaper than color, especially when bought in bulk. </p>

[nomad_.]

<p>Bryan, you seem to be of the view that there is a universal ultimate that simply needs to be identified and purchased. Like the notion of a 'best lens that money can buy'. Best by what criteria? There are many people who like what older, supposedly flawed lenses produce. There is no best lens, only lenses that suit particular uses, subjects, emulsions, conditions, and photographers.</p>

<p>Same goes for your question about the extra size and weight of a lux compared to a stop less speed in a cron - nobody can answer this for you. You're the one that's going to carry the camera, look through the finder, shoot in a certain level of low light, with a given proficiency in camera handling technique, and with a certain speed of film. It's not a question of best, it's a question of preference - and nobody can tell you what you prefer.</p>

 

[john_kwok]

<p>Bryan,</p>

<p>Here's some recent work taken with the 50mm Planar and the 25 Biogon lenses. The first was a few days ago at a public art gallery reception, taken with a 50mm Planar lens, Leica M4 rangefinder camera and Fuji Neopan 400 film. Exposures ranged from 1/30 to 1/60 second @ f2:<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=83449&id=1045985586&l=5d62d8bf6d">http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=83449&id=1045985586&l=5d62d8bf6d</a><br>

And, for comparison, pictures taken with a 25 Biogon, Leica M6 rangefinder camera and Kodak TMAX 400 film outdoors. Exposures ranged from 1/60 to 1/125 second @ f8 - f16:<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=83038&id=1045985586&l=593da94b94" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=83038&id=1045985586&l=593da94b94</a></p>

[bryan_loo]

 

<p>Thanks Arthur,</p>

<p>And yes, I've already scoured Mr. Erwin Puts's website long before I started pondering which Leica and which lens, I just haven't quite figured it out yet.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>I actually agree with you, a friend used the Zeiss 50/2 before switching to the 50/1.5. And I loved the look of his pictures far more than those made with a 50 'cron. Of course 'look' depends also on the film, but he used very fine grain B/W film. So the grain was actually rather negligible. The problem I guess I face is with buying a Leica body and using Zeiss lenses. I know it's strictly in my head, but I hope someone can sympathise with me on this.</p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>Thanks for the flickr stuff, although I am just curious how you know Andre Takeda shoots with a ZM 50/2, because he doesn't seem to mention it anywhere. Still, it was an excellent browse through images taken with those lenses. And to be honest, I dislike the 'busy bokeh' of the 50 'cron. And am very hesitant to buy it, if I wasn't dissatisfied. I'd probably not be asking questions now with the 'lux vs 'cron in my heading.</p>

 

<p>Red,</p>

<p>I do shoot B/W, I do develop at home, and I do buy it in bulk. Thanks for the tip!</p>

<p>Nomad,</p>

<p>Thanks for the civility, you seem somewhat exasperated by my naivety or something like that. I can't blame you though, I do make somewhat silly statements from time to time. You are right in that I have a "best lens for everything or best compromise" running through my head. I can't help it, it's part of my wish to simplify everything. But as for the extra size/weight with the 'lux part. Well, I detest viewfinder blockage, detest with a passion and would rather not have it. I tried a friend's Nocti on an M4, and I wasn't at all happy with it. But in my head, the compromise of being able to shoot in most types of low light, was worth the obstruction. I shoot mainly with 400CN film when I want low grain, and Ilford 3200 rated at 1600 when I want high grain. I'm not asking you now to make a decision for me based on my preferences, but I just want to tell you that.</p>

<p>I guess the question now is, go with what is more aesthetically pleasing to me. Heh, either the Zeiss Ikon with ZM lenses or a Leica a la carte(yes I'm still stubborn, but I'm stubborn because I don't quite have a choice if I want a .58/.85 magnification finder with a black paint MP body).</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>Bryan,<br />I have no problems at all in using Zeiss lenses on my Leicas, a point which I have made repeatedly to friends and acquaintances who work for Leica Camera USA (I even tested my 35mm Biogon on a Leica M9 at last year's Photo Plus East trade show and the image was perfectly exposed, even without the Leica coded dot technology needed for optimal work with the Leica M8 cameras.). Nor do others posting here have had any problems working with the cheaper, but still quite good, Voigtlander lenses (Virtually all the Zeiss lenses are manufactured at the same Cosina plant in Japan which manufactures the Voigtlander lenses - the only exceptions are the 15mm Distagon and 85mm f2 Sonnar which are manufactured at Zeiss's Oberkochen, Germany facility - but the Zeiss lenses are manufactured with much higher tolerances and quality control overseen by on-site Zeiss personnel.). Again, as I noted earlier, I think my 25mm Biogon is a better lens than the 24mm Elmarit ASPH which I own, but now, hardly ever use. Why spend the extra money simply to own a Leica product when you have not only comparable choices in the Zeiss ZM lens line, but at least three lenses - the 50mm Planar, 25mm Biogon and the 21mm f4.5 Biogon-C - outperforming their Leica equivalents. Again this is all a matter of taste and you should ask yourself whether acquring a Leica M-mount rangefinder camera (including the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder which IMHO is as well built as current Leica M cameras) is especially suited to your photographic style. If you think you're going to be photographing mostly in film, I would think seriously of picking up a used Leica M6, MP (current model, not the rare 1950s version) or M7 before investing in a Leica M9.</p>

[bryan_loo]

<p>John,</p>

<p>Thanks for the reassurance, and I am considering Zeiss lenses now. I must confess though, I was already considering a Voigtlander, specifically the 21/4. And part of this is perhaps another inane issue I have with choosing lenses. Filter size. In my mind, the reason why the 'lux vs. 'cron issue was so tough, was simply because they use different filter sizes. For example, I was looking at the 'cron, simply because then I could get the VC 21/4 and perhaps a 90mm in the future. And they would all take the same filter size, if I got the 'lux, I'd take either the Leica 24/3.8 or the Biogon 25/2.8.</p>

<p>Yes I know it sounds silly considering I'm willing to spend so much money and yet I care about filter sizes. But because I shoot B/W mostly, I want just one set of filters I could switch around with(i.e. yellow-green, red, ND and graduated ND), I detest the idea of having to carry multiple filters or even splitting up my filters, like orange for the wide and 2 sets of the same ND for two lenses.</p>

<p>Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't the 50/2 Planar take 43mm filters? And what are your views then on the 50/1.5 Sonnar?</p>

[david_s16]

Bryan,

 

Andre tags his photos, indicating which lenses he uses. He uses the 50 2.0

right now, but he's used the ZM 50 1.5, the 50 cron, & the 35 cron IV.

Interestingly, some of his most memorable shots are with the Summarit 50

1.5, which is a vintage lens that predates the 50 Lux. Most consider it to be

quite soft, but it's got a classic look that's very flattering for portraits, as Andre's pictures show.

 

Markus Busch also seems to have used a variety of lenses including the 50

Lux Asph before deciding on the 50 DR. I've recently been looking at

Markus photos to compare the developers he uses -- I find it useful to compare lenses and developers used by the same photographers.

 

As for your initial question, I think you should probably just get a Leica lens for your first lens. Otherwise you'll find yourself wishing you'd bought the Leica, not because it's better, but because everyone seems to have to own a Leica lens at some point. If you like the Summilux ASPH, get it. You can always sell it later if you decide you like something else better.

 

It also should be noted that the ZM 1.5 has focus shift issues as a result of its design.

[john_kwok]

<p>Bryan,<br />I'd have to disagree with David S. here. The 50mm Planar is a much newer design than the 50mm Summicron and is not only optically superior, but it is more than half the price of a current version (Those dating from 1980 till now) used or new. The 21mm f4 Voigtlander has had a lot of favorable praise, but those who have compared it with the 21mm f4.5 Zeiss Biogon-C have noted that it is much better than the Voigtlander with regards to contrast and resolution. If you're thinking of going 24mm/25mm, I would still contend that the 25mm Biogon would still be first choice, based on both its optical performance and cheaper pricing.<br>

Here's some more work I have done with both the 50mm Planar and 35mm Biogon lenses:<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=58471&id=1045985586&l=7bd3a85b7e">http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=58471&id=1045985586&l=7bd3a85b7e</a><br>

And here's another series I did using only the 25mm Biogon:<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=55680&id=1045985586&l=7286cd7865">http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=55680&id=1045985586&l=7286cd7865</a> I</p>

<p>f you were building a kit, I would recommend considering the following lenses:<br>

Zeiss 50mm Planar, Zeiss 35mm Biogon f2 (not the slower f2.8 version), Leica 28mm Summicron ASPH (the best 28mm lens for M-mount lenses), Zeiss 25mm Biogon, Zeiss 21mm Biogon-C f4.5, and Leica 90mm Elmarit-M. You would still have enough money (Assuming you bought the 28mm Summicron used; if you opted to get a slower lens, then I'd recommend the Zeiss 28mm Biogon over its Leica equivalent for reasons of performance and pricing.) for a Leica M6 and a Zeiss Ikon rangefinder (or two Leica M6s), and probably still save money if you opted to buy a brand new Leica M9 with a current version 50mm Summicron.</p>

 

[john_kwok]

<p>Paul,<br>

I wouldn't base my lens choices on the filter thread sizes of the lenses in question, but instead, on their performance characteristics. Both the Zeiss 50mm Planar and the Zeiss 35mm Biogon accept 43mm filters. All of the other lenses I have mentioned, including the two Leica lenses, accept 46mm filters.</p>

 

[john_kwok]

<p>Paul,<br>

Again I would have to stress that you need to ask yourself why you are willing to invest in a Leica M-mount rangefinder kit. The lenses I have suggested would allow you to get the most out of your equipment if you don't intend to devote a lot of time photographing in low light. On the other hand, if you are, then you will need to acquire the 35mm f1.4 Summilux-M ASPH (If you are photographing fairly close, then it might be worth investing the extra money and purchase the newly updated 35mm f1.4 Summilux-M ASPH, which, unlike its predecessor, has a floating element.) and the 50mm f1.4 Summilux-M ASPH. Under no circumstances would I recommend the 50mm f1 or f0.95 Noctilux lenses.</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>Bryan,<br>

Sorry about that, I had referred to you as Paul in my last three prior posts. My apologies.</p>

 

[john_kwok]

<p>Bryan,<br>

Sorry about that, I had referred to you as Paul in my last three prior posts. My apologies.</p>

<div></div>

[john_kwok]

<p>Bryan,<br />Here's one more, and a personal favorite, taken with my 25mm Biogon.</p>

[nomad_.]

<p>Bryan, my point is simply that there is no such thing as best. Camera gear at this level is like expensive hi-fi or expensive sports cars. All have capabilities way beyond what the more run of the mill versions can do, and, compared to those, any of the expensive ones could be seen as 'the best'. But, once you leap into the stratosphere and actually try to home in on 'the best', one finds that there are subtle differences that make one 'best' not quite as good as another 'best' in certain areas - and vice versa in others. The conclusion has to be that there is only a 'best for me' (or a 'best compromise' as you point out). At a certain point, the questions have to be directed more at oneself - asking others will only elicit information about what is 'best for them'. The measurements, the specs, the reviews and lab reports, the anecdotal comparisons by others, all of these can only take you so far towards making a choice.</p>

<p>On a slight tangent, I was wondering about your reason for wanting to buy new gear. I think you said something about it would feel good to have done so. I can understand that, but would also question it. If the gear depreciated by, say, $3000 after 6 months, that strikes me as a rather expensive way to get a feel good factor for a while. At the same time, given your desire to understand the differences in the equipment in detail, such that the right choice is made (not to mention the subject of this thread), it would seem that we are not talking about a bottomless pit of money. A nice pile of cash to spend on camera gear, but not so large that you can go to the mega Leica shop and buy one of everything. There's an argument that says it is indeed better to buy excellent-to-mint used equipment, not to save money as such, but to try out at minimal depreciation. Why buy a new lux or cron when you can get a used one for a half to two-thirds of the cost - and then sell it on for almost the same money if you don't like it? Some careful purchases, and sales if need be, will tell you loads about the equipment and whether it's really what you're looking for. Then, if it absolutely has to be brand new, you sell off the used gear and get your new kit with a wealth of knowledge and experience behind the decision.</p>

 

[bryan_loo]

<p>John,</p>

<p>Thanks for all the information along with samples of your personal choices. Truly, I appreciate it. Anything to help me along the 'lens-choosing-road' is very good for me. I would have sympathised with David a while ago, I was rather hell bent on getting the best Leica glass money could buy. Part of that can be blamed on KRW I guess. I know he has mostly a hit-and-miss reputation on several photo forums. But one thing in particular he mentioned was how one shouldn't cheap out on Leica glass if one was buying a Leica camera. I know it's really my money and choices, but that still got to me I really should admit. I wouldn't say I'm impressionable, but I'll give you another example. Steve Huff is rather highly regarded I'm guessing, and I asked him the question. 50 'lux, 'cron or ZM Planar. And he said 'cron. Without the smidgen of doubt. And I was seriously questioning that, because I hate the way the 'cron, the latest one at least renders. And much prefer either the 'lux or ZM Planar.</p>

<p>But I digress, it's really the "cheap-out" statement by KRW that got to me. But I'm slowly turning that around. And with regards to why it is that I want to invest in Leica-M equipment. Well, there's quite a bit to that. But I'll just make it short. I want a 35mm film camera that is still made today and that I don't have to buy used, it has to be small(this immediately discounts the Nikon F6), it has to be well-built and preferably made of metal and not bits of plastic. And on top of it, it has to travel well. M-mount lenses are significantly smaller than most of their SLR cousins if I'm not mistaken. The thought of buying the M9 was just a thought, of how there could actually be 'savings' to be had, if I didn't shoot film although I absolutely love the look of film, and high grain that I cannot see digital replicating as of yet.</p>

<p>Why I'm hesitant in buying used gear at least in the form of a camera body. Used lenses are fine, but the body, oh I don't know. Call me crazy or unstable. But that's just something I have to buy new. And like I said, I want certain specifications not available off the shelf or even on the used market. Sure, if I wait long enough, a black paint MP without that much wear and a nice .85x VF is bound to come along. But I have no idea how long I have to wait. At least with the a la carte, they give me a date or I can set one. </p>

<p>Nomad,</p>

<p>I understand that advise can only lead you to a choice, but you still have to choose. But that's what I'm trying to do, get views and choose. I will probably buy a used 'lux to try for a couple of months or so. If only because I am still unsure of whether I'll like it. VF blockage is a big factor for me, and although I contend that I will have to put up with it to some degree with most lenses. I just can't quite sit with something that blocks a quarter of the VF. And plus, I have no idea just how long I have to wait on it. Since there's a worldwide shortage now.</p>

<p>And the other thing is, the need for f/1.4. I recently went to India and brought one Spotmatic with one 35/2 SMC Takumar lens. Most of my shots are usable, while others are blurred to an artistic degree if there even is such a thing(in my opinion, they're not all that great). But very often I would shoot at dusk, in a cafe or a restaurant. And very rarely would I get good photos, free of shake. I guess in part that can be blamed on my poor technique, or presence of mirror slap(which is pretty hefty in a camera this old). A lot of times, I wanted that extra stop or needed it one could say. Despite my earlier love of the 35mm POV/FL, I realised that more often than not, I wanted a 50 and a wider 24 or 21. Basically, I found the 35 to be either too wide or too long. Again, the 35's only redeeming factor for me during the trip was being at the ideal FL for environmental portraits.</p>

<p>So I'm back to choosing a set of lenses. A longer FL will come in time I guess. But for now, a 50 and a 24/25 or 21 will suffice.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>50 and 21 would be my choice. I always found the 24/25/28 to be "kind of" wide, and not really separate enough from 35mm to make the hassle of lens changing worth it.</p>

[david_s16]

<p>"But very often I would shoot at dusk (with a 35mm 2.0), in a cafe or a restaurant. And very rarely would I get good photos, free of shake... A lot of times, I wanted that extra stop or needed it one could say."</p>

<p>It should be noted that a 50mm lens will show more camera shake than a 35mm lens. The longer the focal length, the more steady your hands have to be.<br /> <br /> The rule of thumb is that you can only expect to hand-hold a lens at a shutter speed equivalent to its focal length. A 50mm should be held at at least 1/50, a 35mm at 1/30ish.<br>

<br /> Some people claim to be able to do better, but the math still applies: the stop you gain in using a 1.4 lens is offset by the stop you lose by using a 50mm. As far as camera shake goes, a 50 1.4 wide-open is going to be the same as a 35 2.0. All in all, a 50mm 1.4 would not have solved your camera-shake problem in India.<br /> <br /> And then there's another question: do really you want to bring $8000 worth of camera and lens into the streets of India?<br /> <br /> You don't owe anybody any rationalizations for wanting a brand-new MP a la carte and Summilux. Nobody "needs" either -- they are luxury goods with luxury prices. If you desire them, and you can afford them, get them. If at some point the thrill of owning them wears off, you can sell them at a modest loss. Leica gear holds its value fairly well.</p>

[david_yang2]

<p><a href="http://kenrockwell.com/leica/recommended-lenses.htm">http://kenrockwell.com/leica/recommended-lenses.htm</a> has some good suggestions.<br>

I have a M6, a M9, and about a dozen lenses (in fact I own all but two of the current Leica lenses). I love camera euipment and I take about 200-1,000 pictures a week on average (mostly on weekends). Aside from my M9, all my lenses were purchased used (though I purchased only lens that came with the original box, foam, etc.). It's a lot of money, but I have also sold many lenses I have owned in the past once I determined I absolutely would never use them. And you know what? I have never sold a lens for less than what I actually paid for (that includes even Nikon lenses); in fact on balance I have made money buying, using, and then selling my lenses. The fact is camera lenses (and film cameras) will hold values IF you purchase them used; they are very good hedge against inflation. Digital cameras will depreciate, but good lenses will always be worth the purchase.</p>

[david_yang2]

<p>Oh and to follow up, I rarely take more than two lenses with me on any given trip, and never over three lenses. And a little known fact -- the silver/chrome Leica lenses weigh more than the black counterparts!</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>Bryan,<br>

I recommend you look at Erwin Puts's analysis of the Zeiss M-mount lenses. He thinks that the Planar is slightly better than the Summicron wide open, especially with regards to curvature of field (see Part 2 ):<br>

<a href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/page65.html">http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/page65.html</a><br>

Economically it would make more sense to acquire the 50mm Planar over the 50mm Summicron and save the money instead toward acquring a 28mm Summicron, or the Zeiss 25mm Biogon or 21mm f4.5 Biogon.<br>

We are living literally in a true renaissance of the Leica M-mount rangefinder camera, and frankly, you should realize that it's not a sin to have most of your Leica M kit comprised of Zeiss lenses. Nor should you consider only the Leica M rangefinder camera as your only viable choice. I have met photographers - including professional photographers - who swear by their Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[bryan_loo]

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>Thanks for your input! Mighty appreciate an opinion. While I wouldn't discount it entirely, I feel the 28 doesn't quite cut wide angle, but the 24 is ideal for me. The 21/20 is slightly more specialised already in my opinion. But we'll see.</p>

<p>And Mr. S,</p>

<p>While I don't want to bring $8000 worth of equipment to a place like India. That was just a statement about wanting the extra stop, although I doubt people would look twice at an MP without it's engravings, people who know Leica know it. But people who don't would think it's even more an old dinky camera like my Spotmatic was(and that Spotty is in pristine condition). I am also aware that the FL does effectively negate the gain in one stop of speed but then it would seem only normal that I buy a lens that equals the old one at least in speed no? This was why I toyed with the idea of a Noctilux for a while. And why I originally wanted to get the 35 'lux, since it's one of the faster 35's still made today(the only one faster is the Nokton 35/1.2 right?).</p>

<p>This is also a reason why I'm hesistant in considering the 50/2 lenses. Regardless of Zeiss or Leica. Because of the FL, they equate a 35/2.8 don't they? And this is terribly slow in my opinion, but perhaps I need to work on steadying my hands more instead of worrying about lens speeds. Speed is also one factor for me since I shoot film, and I've mentioned this countless times. I can't just "bump up" my ISO in the evenings.</p>

<p>Mr. Yang,</p>

<p>Yes, I agree, I'd only ever take 2 lenses with me on any given trip. 3 if I was going for a long long time, but then again that doesn't quite make sense since I'd have to carry them for a long long time. But about buying equipment used, as much as it makes financial sense. I could see myself buying used Leica lenses, certain lenses I'm sure I can only buy used anyway(like a black paint 35 'cron). But if I decide to buy ZM lenses, I'll probably buy them new, they're not a whole lot more expensive anyway. For the price of a 50 'lux ASPH, I could probably buy a ZM 50/2 and a ZM 25/2.8 I think.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>Thank you again. Indeed, I am considering the ZM lenses a whole lot more now. But I'd have to decide on which speed is preferable before I make a choice. I guess another one of my idiosyncrasies is having to tell myself that if I buy something(in this case, an M-mount lens), I'm buying it because I like it. And not that it's a compromise, for example in the case of the 50 'lux ASPH, where long waiting times and potential VF blockage might make me feel that the 50/2 Planar is a better choice because I don't have to wait and it won't block my VF that much. Hope you understand.</p>

<p>And about the Zeiss Ikon, I considered it before. But decided that if I'm going M-mount, I'm buying a Leica body at least.</p>