david11

I began using Olympus OM equipment in the early 70's (I

still occasionally shoot the OM equipment when I need an SLR) and

started using Leica R in the mid 80's. I began using medium format

(Hasselblad) in the late 80's. I have gone to the rangefinder

predominantly because I like the mechanical/manual 35mm system of high

quality and small size. I can honestly say that the Leica equipment

provides superior results to the other 35mm equipment of my experience

over 30 years as a photographer. I do not shoot macro or long tele

lenses, so the rangefinder is what I prefer. I am at a point in my

life where I can afford Leica and am satisfied with the equipment and

the results. You pays your money and you makes your choice.

Kristian, I use both the 90 SAA and the 75 Summilux. I really love

the 75 for head and shoulders portraiture. Although I rarely shoot at

maximum aperture, the often mentioned "creaminess" of the rendition is

unique and desirable. Both lenses are difficult to focus up close at

maximum aperture. I do not object to the size of either and have no

problem with the focusing helicals of either lens. I find myself

using the 75 more and really like the focal length. Why not get both?

Greg, I frequently carry the 35/75 2 lens combo. That being said, I

often travel with a single lens; this mandates an exercise in

composition with one focal length only. The benefits of doing so are

well worth the loss of other focal lengths because it strengthens my

ability to "see". I would recommend this exercise regardless of what

focal lengths you purchase.

I agree with John. My Winder M works quite well. I do not use it

all the time, but it balances quite well with the 75 and 90 lenses.

Sounds like your winder is in need of adjustment.

James, I have other lenses, but frequently I will carry the 35 and 75

for a 2 lens outfit; and it meets the majority of my needs very well.

These lenses are extraordinary. My advice is to shoot, shoot, and

shoot some more. Chromes, Prints, B&W; shoot them all. Then come

back and tell us in 6 months what you think of your purchases.

I use the 75 Summilux (German) as well as the 90 SAA. Both lenses

have a tighter focusing action compared to the smaller lenses of wider

focal length. I don't find this at all objectionable; they neither

skip nor jerk. It does take a degree of familiarity.

I don't think that you can fault the lens quality of the 21 Biogon for

the Contax G. The main question is the system: do you want to use an

auto focus camera? Perhaps with a wide angle of 21mm focal length,

the question is not so important. I chose to purchase the Leica 21

because I do not want to carry multiple systems with me. I want lens

interchangability, and prefer manual focus. The Leica ASPH lens is

wonderful, taking a backseat to no lens in its focal length.

Bob, I have the 21 ASPH, 35 Summicron ASPH, and the 90 SAA lenses.

All are quality performers. The 35 is a great lens, but you already

have two 35's; if it was my choice, I would go for a different focal

length - probably the 24. Unless there are qualities with your

present lenses that you wish to improve. JMHO You pays your money,

and you makes your choice.

Chris, the home webpage for the site you seek is as follows:

 

<p>

 

http://www.shinozuka-family.com/

Michael, I have learned the hard way that it is better to not wipe at

all. Air or a sable brush is probably best. I keep mc UV filters on

my lenses (B+W and Heliopan), preferring to clean the filters. In 30

years of photography I can count on one hand the number of times that

I have had to clean the rear element; a rear lens cap or camera is

always affixed. A product that you might be interested in is

Opticlean, used to clean expensive telescope objectives as well as

other lenses. Opticlean is applied to the lens, allowed to "set"

(where it may stay for protection of the element), and then removed.

Opticlean is said to lift all dirt and grit from the lens down to the

molecular level without harming any coating. I have NO vested

interest in this product. You may contact Opticlean supplier

Dantronix in the US at their website:

 

<p>

 

http://www.dantronix.com/oppolsec.html

I adamantly disagree with Robin's post. I travel all over North

America in my professional career and have travelled in many

major cities throughout the world. I would never be characterized as

a "stupid tourist" and take great umbrage at the assertion. Italy IS

a troublespot despite the dismissal by several posters on this forum.

Don, I had all of my luggage stolen from my rental auto (hatchback)in

Milano last year. I am a large guy and finding suitable replacement

clothes in Northern Italy was IMPOSSIBLE. My wife was devastated by

the loss of her outfits and accessories. No camera equipment was

stolen. I did not have any problems with pick pockets, but was on the

lookout. Theft is quite a problem in Italy. Be especially aware of

packing valuables in suitcases; several travelers that we met had

their suitcases pilfered at the airport. Places of high tourist

traffic are the areas of primary concern.

Rob, I envy you that your wife would buy you a Noctilux. I do however

use both the 90 SAA and the 75 Summilux. Both are terrific lenses.

Some of the posters on this board feel both of these lenses are too

large for the Leica M, but since you have the "big lady", you should

not have a problem with either. I occasionally use these lenses at

maximum aperture, but the primary reason that I bought them was for

their optical excellence. I place little stock in lens "tests"; and

will tell you that these lenses have slightly differing

characteristics. Obviously, the 90 is an F2 and the 75 a 1.4.

Close-up at maximum aperture, both have approximately the same DOF.

The 90 SAA is as sharp/contrasty as you could ever want wide open (and

every other stop). The 75 perhaps less, but it may be a superior

portrait lens. I like my results from both lenses. If I do my part

they certainly do theirs. I would recommend that you give each a try.

Hey, I like all the Leica lenses that I have ever used.

David, Opticlean is expensive (even though the smaller quantity will

last for a long time), but I know of no other lens cleaning substance

as effective. FYI, lenses may be stored with the Opticlean polymer

applied to the lens surface for additional protection. It is used by

universities and government agencies as well as amateur photograpers.

Paul, I keep UV (Heliopan and B+W multicoated) filters on my lenses;

contrary to the protestations, they do not degrade the image to a

visible level. I clean the filters and lenses rarely, but a

microfibre cloth is invaluable, as is a sable brush. A product that

is relatively new to the US (has been in the UK for some time now) is

Opticlean, which will clean lenses down to the molecular level without

damaging coatings. It is used on very expensive telescope objectives

and other optics. Dantronix is the US distributor for Opticlean. I

supply this information without any vested interest in Opticlean or

Dantronix.

 

<p>

 

http://www.dantronix.com/oppolsec.html

Sven, both of the new ASPH lenses are truly superb. The 4th version

Pre-ASPH Summicron is a legendary performer that should be considered

for its diminutive size and economy. I use the 35 ASPH Summicron but

you really cannot go wrong with any of them.

Tom, I use a 90 Elmarit (1961) that is a very good performer, just

doesn't have the same contrast as the newer lenses at the first 2

stops. It is a fine lens; as Bud has stated it is considered by those

who have used all of the 90's to be eclipsed only the SAA and the new

Elmarit lenses. It is light, although longish - not as dimunitive as

the thin Tele-Elmarit. You should be able to purchase a mint to mint-

example of this lens for $500 or less. I only bought my SAA lens

because I wanted F2 (and it is GREAT at F2). My 41 year old Elmarit

has flawless glass and mechanicals; shows use on the barrel - but,

hey, I USE it! Don't be afraid of buying this lens.

I second Godfrey; buy one lens and get to know it for a period of

time before purchasing other lenses. Most would recommend either the

35mm or 50mm focal lengths to start. If I could only have one lens it

would be my 50 Summicron, so I suggest that you start with it. Others

would prefer the 35, it depends upon you. Good luck and happy

shooting!

Dr. Knapp, my suggestion is to place a Leica UV filter and B+W

and/or Heliopan UV filter side by side and examine the difference in

light transmission. The Leica filter is obviously NOT multi-coated;

reflections abound. Not so the B+W or Heliopan. Leica is free to

charge what it wishes for its products. You are the customer, so

decide.

I am not trying to be HCB, Kertesz, Bailey, Sieff, etc; I am just

trying to be me - enjoying photography. I will never forget the

thrill of my first B&W print as the image became visible in the

developer. I enjoy the process as well as the results. My

photography is as original as I am; my work is for me and no one else.

If others enjoy it, OK; if not, so what?

I often use a lens that is not mentioned that often on this board -

the 90mm Elmarit (11129) which preceded the current Elmarit (11807).

(I also use the 90 SAA and 75 Summilux.) The benefit of the older

Elmarit is size and economy in addition to its optical properties.

The older Elmarit does not have quite the contrast of the newer lens

at its widest two stops; but in portraiture this is not usually of

paramount importance. This older 90 Elmarit is more than the optical

equal to the 90 Tele-Elmarit, and is available for $400-500 for mint

examples on the used market. Unless size is of primary importance, I

suggest that you borrow an older 90 Elmarit for trial. Every

Leitz/Leica lens that I have ever used has been a good experience,

each possessing its own wonderful optical properties.

Ralph, I have used the 21mm focal length for some years now,

preferring it for its foreground emphasis. I have used both R and M

versions of this focal length and can tell you that the 21 ASPH lens

is a tremendous performer. That being said, if you are not accustomed

to using this focal length, perhaps a 24 would be more user friendly.

The 24 gives a more normal appearance, while being wide at the same

time. That, plus it is the best 24 ever made. I recommend that you

borrow/rent both to compare them. I am planning to purchase the 24,

finding it different enough from the 21 to justify the expense.

Are you a newcomer to photography as well? Comparing the Leica and

the Mamiya 645 is not comparing apples to apples. Leica (M or R) is a

system for 35mm (24x36mm)film. The Mamiya 645 produces a 6x4.5 cm

image on 120/220 medium format film. As a general rule, the larger the

film size, the greater the "clarity". I have experience with medium

format equipment (Hasselblad) and yes, there is more information

contained in the larger format, but the tradeoff is size, weight, and

expense. I returned to 35mm for the majority of my work because of

ease of use and quality of the result from Leica. If your need is

producing large prints (although with careful use, the Leica

negative/positive can be enlarged to 20x30 inches with amazing

clarity), or doing a lot of fill flash, medium format should be

considered.

Travis, I guess that you should have used faster film (or push the

film you used), unless using flash is acceptable. You could have used

1/15 shutter speed and f2.8; depending upon your ability to hold it

steady. You need to understand the trade-offs involved with exposure,

decide in advance what is of primary importance to achieve your

photographic objective, and then take the appropriate action

necessary.

I have read that the 40 mm lenses produced for the CL and CLE were very good performers. What can you tell me about these lenses? Were the Leitz and Minolta lenses comparable? Were the Minolta inscribed lenses produced by Leitz or vice-versa? Thanks for any information.