bryan_loo

August 6, 2010

Well Graham, thank you again. 35mm is my preferred focal length simply because 43mm(or 40mm) is not a usual focal length and I just simply refuse to go and buy a 40mm lens for my SLR that I may never use again. As much as I try to fall in love with what a 50mm can see. I simply detest it, how it crops everything up and is simply too restricted(taking a step back in most of the photo situations I encounter is just simply not possible). I would love to be able to use a 35mm f/1 or something like that, but since there's no such thing in the Leica world. The 35/1.4 will just have to do(not like it's a substitute at all).

August 6, 2010

Tom, I truly appreciate you taking the time to type all this out. But(there's always a but), although I agree that the difference between an M6 and an MP could probably be a lens. I know I won't be satisfied if I don't get something brand-new(although that would probably also make me baby the thing til' I get my first painful scuff on it). And regarding the lens itself, bokeh isn't really what I'm after, at least not with a 35mm focal length, it might be really good but if it's at f/2. I'd rather an f/1.4.

I know rangefinders don't have mirror slap so handholding speeds can be as low as a fourth of a second if you have steady hands, but because I don't, at least not tripod steady like some people I know. I prefer getting the fastest Leica lens money can buy, if it blocks my viewfinder a tad. It's probably something I got to learn to live with. I shoot 35mm f/2 lenses all the time on my SLRs. And even with ISO 400 film, it's not fast enough, many a time when I'm reduced to handholding something at an eighth of a second, I just wished I had a 35mm f/1.4.

August 5, 2010

Daniel, although I originally thought of getting the M3, after really scouring the internet. It seems that a good condition M3 that doesn't still need an extensive not to mention expensive overhaul costs perhaps three-fifths of what a brand new MP would cost. At least the market over here in Singapore is this way. And I have an incident meter but I would much much prefer(I cannot overstate this enough), a built-in light meter. There are times I guess when not physically being able to walk up to a given object would mean no photographs, and although you could guesstimate, I can't profess to being any good with that.

But there is one question I have that has still gone unanswered and I'm really curious about this. Given that I'm short-sighted and always have my glasses on, how does viewfinder magnification work for me? If my main lens and first lens is going to be a 35mm, what viewfinder magnification would serve me the best?

Peter, as much as I appreciate your recommendations. With regards to digital, I admit, occasionally I hanker for it. Not needing to develop my own prints when I'm swamped with work and with a hundred other people hounding me for my much delayed photographs is a welcome relief. But for the most part, I enjoy my darkroom work. I won't say digital is dead to me, but right now I guess the novelty of shooting film in a sea of digital is still very much a joy for me. And the major reason is really because I only get 36 exposures per roll, and I don't carry a whole lot with me anyhow. I got tired of making 1001 exposures out of meaningless events that I cannot be arsed to look at now, and really just want to simplify and have my 36 exposures mean something, chart something in my experiences.

John, I considered the Zeiss Ikon at the very start. But now I'm come to the point where, I know if I buy a Zeiss, I'll be left wondering 'what if?' with the Leica. So I'm saving myself the pain and torment and just getting a Leica MP. For the lens, most definitely a 35mm Summilux ASPH, provided my dealer has them in stock(last I checked, they were all out!).

And Graham,

Thanks very much for such a long and detailed write-up of your experience. I thoroughly appreciate it and am glad that my reasons for getting a Leica aren't exactly whimsical. The thing about shooting with DSLRs though, truth be told, although I do have one. I deplore it's existence immensely. I've never shot with digital save for my point and shoot or my iPhone for that matter. Having to fiddle with white balance and a myriad amount of settings buried in a host of irrelevant menus never really took off with me, not to mention the amount of learning that needs to be done to get into Photoshop or Lightroom(is it Lightroom or Lightbox?). I don't think editing is bad per se, I just prefer not to have to edit anything at all, I know the old masters probably did their own burning and dodging and touching up in their darkrooms(heck, that's what my parents did). And that's all fine, but that's really only necessary when you're a professional or just have a lot of time. I prefer to be out shooting and correcting my technique versus experimenting with Photoshop and taking 6 exposures just to blend it in some HDR or stitching program. Again, no offense directed at the people who do, it's just not what I want to do.

And even when I do shoot with a DSLR or a more modern automated SLR like the F100 or F801s. I prefer to shoot in manual, it takes more time, but I enjoy the process more than if I didn't. Hence the reason why I shoot with an old Spotmatic with it's primitive centre-weighted meter, stopped-down metering, and fully manual settings.

And with what I've researched and seen. I'm probably going with something very close to what you recommended. Black paint MP with old rewind crank and a single 35mm Summilux. In the future I might extend my line-up to either one wider-angle or a modest telephoto like a 90mm for example. All that's left to decide is whether to take the standard 0.72 viewfinder or if I need one of the other two types. If I go with any other, I'd probably pick no engraving, vulcanite and a clean set of framelines for my a la carte options.

Mighty big thanks again to everyone for replying!

August 3, 2010

But P N Chong,

You answered the issue yourself. Your experience is not the same as others. And my experience is quite different. Yes, I might not actually be happy after I acquire my one Leica and one I don't know yet, summilux, summicron, heck even maybe the nokton 35/1.2 that I've been looking at of late.

I will give in, that part of it is the "new purchase, new love" thing that frequently goes on in everyone's heads. From women with shoes to men with cars. I technically don't need a new camera or even a Leica.

But without delving too much into my experiences and perhaps personality. I'll just make it short, I grew up amongst photographers. My father, mother, uncle even grand dad were photographers, and they were professionals. From weddings to advertisements, fine art to modeling. And they never stopped wanting more. First they started with their 35mm equipment, then they upgraded to their medium format, and then even to their large format. And even when they had it all, they still hankered over their next purchase, a better this and that. Granted, I'll almost never be a professional, simply because I don't have my father's talent nor his drive and time. But I've literally seen hundreds of thousands being spent on equipment with no satisfaction in sight.

I myself dislike having a myriad amount of things that do the same thing. I however prefer to have one good thing, regardless of price, that does that one thing the best. My Spotmatic or even my iPhone might be the best camera for me with that "the best camera is the one that's with you" argument. But let's just say I know the Leica is the best camera for the 35mm film format, and there will always be a nagging doubt that I'm not using the best. I don't need to hear the point that my work might not warrant the best, it is human nature is it not, to want the best? By removing everything else that isn't the best in my opinion allows me to concentrate on the end product, bettering my images and composition. Rather than wondering if it's perhaps my ability or the equipment's ability.

Long story short, I do not possess the wisdom yet to understand that I can create fine images with anything at my disposal. So because of my experiences, I deem the next step to improving my photography is to get the best so I can no longer fault my equipment, and instead fault myself and improve from it. Perhaps it is a very immature way to think, but it's how I think.

July 30, 2010

Nomad,

You've successfully sold the idea of the MP to me. I'll get it as soon as September arrives, grumblegrumble miserable university can't be arsed to pay me on time.

And John,

Well that is yet to happen, although the likelihood of it happening is real. However, if my employers continue to not pay me on time, it probably will never happen! And hundreds of thousands with Leica, that would make me a collector no? Even the famed f/0.95 is no more than 12 grand(last I checked). Ahh but I digress. I believe that after getting my MP, I will be happy for life, and if not, then well, a collector I shall be!

July 30, 2010

Somehow, that leads me to think that although it's physically capable of firing at high speeds, it might actually be rather disorienting for the subject regardless of whether the flash is bounced or direct. I've never really heard of this kind of flash, but the description leads me to believe it's some type of strobe? Hope I'm not that far off.

Oh and with the 15 minute exposure thing, it's something to do with the LED being able to dial up to a maximum of 999 seconds for an exposure. I'm not really certain of this, of course it's because I don't own the M7 and am really just hearing all of this from a colleague excited over the prospect of having a Leica "buddy".

July 30, 2010

Nomad,

Forgive me if I may sound insistent in my ignorance if that may be the case, but even Leica states it on their website. So unless it's a gimmick or something along those lines, it's a huge thing for me. My film SLRs can only fire at 1/250, my spur-of-the-moment D70 purchase which after two days turned into the greatest-regret-of-the-year, can only fire at 1/500(though that's plenty, with flash-sync, more is always better no?). If the M7 can truly fire off the flash gun at 1/1000. It's kind of a deal breaker for me, although I understand that the basis of the Leica M system according to Leica aficionados, is available light photography.

But on your second post,

I utterly agree again. Not quite on the cable release plus timer combo, I haven't delved into that type of photography just yet. But I have no qualms using the rewind knob, granted I haven't tried it, but it looks more svelte compared to angled crank. My mind's really all set on the MP, I just need to tell myself that other than the disputed flash-sync, I can do everything else with an MP and stop fussing over the M7.

July 30, 2010

But Michael,

I believe with the Metz flash unit or something like that, the M7 is capable of firing at a maximum of 1/1000th of a second.

July 30, 2010

Nomad and Ty,

While you both have a point. I feel I am being suckered into the whole "I don't use it now, but I just MIGHT, some day down the road" frame of mind. A symptom of my chronic indecisiveness most would say.

While I find the MP more aesthetically pleasing and the joy of owning one in my mind's eye is present. I can't help but wonder about the situations where automatic exposure would be useful, or when long timed exposures up to 15 minutes would be grand(if an M7 toting friend didn't get his facts mixed up), or even when I finally perfect fill-flash and how the 1/1000th sync-speed would work miracles. If I'm going to buy a Leica, I'm going to keep it for life, barring a scummy thief or natural disaster.

July 29, 2010

Thanks a lot for the reply Jay!

I've already narrowed down my choices to either the M7 or the MP. Still conflicted with the 'latest and presumably greatest' argument the M7 has going for it vs. the 'latest and most classic' argument the MP has. I'm all for the black paint or chrome version really. Considering how I'd probably never sell this camera so I'm not concerned with wear and tear.

I do also use a light meter, a little Sekonic 308 I think. I had to use it for my old Nikon F2 which had a broken meter. But though I enjoy deliberately composing a picture and taking my time rather than pointing and snapping. Having to physically walk up to a subject to accurately use an incident meter reading is a little bit of a hassle.

The only real question I have left though, is the viewfinder choice. Being new to the rangefinder scene, I'm not quite certain what viewfinder option to choose(I'm considering the a la carte program since if I buy the M7, it won't come in black paint out of the store). I wear glasses, and am short-sighted. And although I would most certainly expand my lens collection in the future, the first lens I would buy would be a 35mm, followed closely with a 24mm. Would .58x sound about right?

July 26, 2010

Wow, after a night's rest and a day's work and the amount of responses sure is a kicker. First off, I must thank everyone for such great replies and advice!

Regarding my indecision on the focal lengths. It's mainly to do with how stuff looks when the camera is turned vertically. I love the 35mm POV and use it all the time, but there are times when I feel the 50mm would have made a "straighter-lined" picture, instead of the typical slant you get with the 35, but that being said, I'm not aware of any lenses or whether it's even possible that a 35 could give straight lines all the time.

The background behind why the 35 is my choice of "normal" focal length is perhaps quite mundane. But maybe it'll help elaborate. I used to go on shoots with multiple lenses in my bag. Usually a wide 24, normal 35/50, and a tele 85/105. I realised I very rarely used the telephoto, and while I cannot discount their usefulness when the need arose, I still can't say they were exactly useful to me. So I took that out of the equation. Then with the 24, though I love wide-angles and most of my best shots are from wide-angles, I wanted to reduce what I was carrying even further, so out of the 24/35/50 left. I chose the 35, since it was right smack in the middle and could function as both a wide lens and at the very least, an environmental portrait lens. And from then on, I just loved the pictures I got from it.

The reason I'm indecisive about it though is really because I am inexperienced and constantly read and hear everywhere that the 50 is a normal lens, and also perhaps because it's possible to get a 50 f/1 lens where I believe the 35 is only capable of f/1.2(which is still pretty much I know!). So I started to wonder if I was missing anything and if I could grow to love a 50 if I took it out more often.

Also, I'm one to shoot everything manually. As I mentioned with my older cameras(Spotmatic and Nikon F2), there is no option for aperture priority or shutter priority or even full auto. And despite owning a DSLR and several other automated bodies. I tend to shoot on my fully manual cameras most of the time, if anything because I love the look of them.

I think I'll settle for an M7. Brand new of course, it's not that I'm too uppity and refuse to take used products, but if it's my first Leica. I want a nice start to it. And probably a 35mm f/1.4 to go along with it. Haven't quite decided exactly which version yet because while I was talking to a friend who uses the latest one. She did mention that the lens does block the VF a fair bit.

Also, I wish to correct the misconception. I won't sell off everything and then buy the Leica. Rather I'd buy the Leica first and then sell off everything. I'm in no rush to raise funds to buy a Leica, and even if I sell off all of my other gear, there's no way I could even raise a fifth to fund my new Leica and lens. The reason I want to do that is really to just cut down, if all I have is but a single camera and lens. There will be no conundrum every time I leave my house on what camera to bring or which lenses to take along. Like I said, all very personal and hard to word out for everyone's understanding.

I honestly thank everyone for being so helpful and patient, it seems I'm going in the right direction at any rate. The only thing left is to push out the nagging thoughts of buying a Rolleiflex 2.8FX instead, and leave that for when I'm 40.

Edit: I just remembered, I thought of this sometime ago, that I wouldn't mind settling for a 40mm or 43mm lens, instead of the 35 or 50, but never quite got around to finding one and trying it out for myself. That was really because I feel, and know it's widely accepted that the 43mm is what really is "normal".

July 25, 2010

Thanks Michael for the tip, I never actually thought of that!

And thanks Marek, that's the type of answer I needed! Narrows it down a whole bunch! But just one small follow-up question, the 35/1.4 does block the viewfinder does it not? How would I get around that?

July 25, 2010

Ken, First off, you read rather impatient. Did I not mention that I am a first-time buyer into the Leica M system? I was not aware that the self-timer was exclusive to bodies without a meter. And having used SLRs my whole life, I was equally unaware that viewfinder magnification had anything to do with what lenses I wanted to use.

But with that being said, very well. I would prefer a body with TTL metering, since I use a wide variety of B/W colour filters and would prefer not having to mentally factor in the f/stop reduction. I could do with a shutter release cable I guess.

With regards to the focal length, I am still undecided and will be for a while til' I fully flesh out the possibilities with regards to the 50mm focal length. But with that being said, I would probably buy a 28mm lens at some point.

Edit: Forgot to include, yes I wear glasses. Am short-sighted.

July 25, 2010

But Arthur, faced with the M6 and the M7. Is automatic exposure worth the steeper buy-in? I can definitely see where it would be useful. But with nearly everyone recommending the M6, there seems to be a disparity between usefulness and adoration. Don't mind my blasphemy, I'm just trying to iron things out.

Also, is the M7 one of the cameras with the so-called "wrong way" shutter dial? It's not a huge concern for me since it will be my first camera, so whichever way it spins would be the "right way" but I'm just wondering.

July 25, 2010

Michael, yes I have to agree again. By today's standards a 135mm is a short tele. And backing up or moving forward is just not going to work sometimes. I've run into such situations either indoors(a small room) or outdoors(on a bridge for example). But with the application of a telephoto lens, that is something I rarely encounter. I've found, at least in my experience that when it's impossible for me to get a good shot with a lens regardless of where my legs can take me, I'm forced to try a different vantage point. An example of this is when I tried to compose a shot of the grand canal in Venice with a 50mm lens and realising then that a 35mm would be better suited and there was no way I could levitate two metres above and behind the bridge I was standing on. I found a way to get under the bridge via some steps and lean out near the water to get a good shot.

Granted it was not only dangerous but rather foolish, but I came away happy. And it was only a $40 camera I put in harm's way, though I doubt I'd do the same with a Leica. But you get the point I guess.

July 25, 2010

Well Stephen, I'm considering a change because of a number of factors. They're really all just personal and would make little sense to an outsider(which also makes me feel that they're rather nonsensical). But long story short, I just want one camera with one lens plus a wde-angle later on and on certain occasions. Because of this, I would like to get rid of everything else(except maybe my old Spotmatic which I utterly adore and will relegate to a display cabinet). And because I will no longer have more than one camera, well, let's just leave it at how I'll be a much happier person.

And Michael I don't quite understand how ISO speed is related to film and not the camera. If I wanted to shoot a roll of P3200 on my Spotmatic that only goes as far as 1600, how do I rate it at 3200? Also, I've been through that website, but after reading it, I am far more distracted than I was before. Everything seems to be fantastic.

Arthur, I must confess that I'm not very informed about what exposure automation is. But also with your mention of MF. I have thought and considered it for a while now, and to be honest am still debating whether to settle for one of the new Rolleiflex TLR cameras. I would probably get the one with f/2.8 lens. But I was also considering the Mamiya 6 and 7. I would like to shoot MF far more than 35mm, but the slower lens speeds are a problem and a direct contradiction to me wanting to take pictures everywhere. And most of them involve places where a tripod would be more of a hindrance and less of an aid. So that's why I settled on a Leica instead.

And Luis, I totally agree. Regardless of what I'm shooting, I always bring a small digital P&S(I know I exhibit great disdain for digital, but in the case of digital P&Ss, I haven't found a film equivalent that is as small as my little Nikon).

And so again, everyone's mostly for the M6. With a few notable exceptions for the M3 and M4. Oddly though, most websites I seem to get directed to with google searches highly proclaim the M7 or MP as the camera of choice to get into if you're a first-time buyer. Again, it's all highly subjective I know, but perhaps you can now understand my confusion and indecisiveness.

July 25, 2010

Thanks for the responses. You're right on that Didier, I only shoot B&W. Perhaps in another year or so I'll finally be sick of shooting grey that I'll make the jump to shooting colour slides. But I somehow don't see that happening much.

But why no meter if I shoot B/W? I would think it would make it easier since shooting B/W very often requires multiple filter changes depending on light and subject.

Also, I very rarely use a telephoto lens. So the chances of me buying a telephoto lens is rather slim even though they are definitely of use. I just prefer the normal to wide-angle point of view and let my legs scale to fit something in, naturally I can't fit athletes in that well, but I don't like sports much anyway.

So it seems it's 2 votes right now for an M6. What about the M7 or the MP? I'd like more opinions!

Edit; Good gravy! In the time it took me to reply, there's a whole slew of more responses, give me a sec to read through all of them now!

July 25, 2010

Don't close this just yet!

The question I'm going to ask has perhaps been asked a lot of times, but believe me I've read all the replies and feel that my thirst is not quite quenched yet, hence this question.

I intend to sell off all of my other cameras and lenses. My Nikons, and Pentax gear. Although they have given me spectacular images and memories, they have also made me want for more. I don't want any more, and don't want to hanker after any more cameras or lenses. I shoot mostly manual and in black and white film, so the digital era is quite honestly a low point for me, since very little seem to appreciate film these days but a high point also because everything film is mostly cheaper.

I'm young so excuse my ignorance if I happen to say the wrong thing, but I don't quite want to get to the age most people I know get to when they realise that after spending hundreds of thousands on expensive Nikons, Canons and everything else. All they ever really needed was just one camera and one lens. I've realised that now, so to cut things short.

I am absolutely confused on which Leica M camera to buy. Money is no object, but that's not to say I would willingly buy a 50mm Noctilux or an M9(if only because it's a digital camera). I can't seem to decide between an M3, M6, M7, MP or the Zeiss Ikon. Even a singular choice of focal length has me stumped. 35mm or 50mm(on my SLRs, the 35mm f/2 lens regardless of make is always my normal, but I've recently been trying out the 50mm, and since I only want one lens, I can't decide which to get.).

I want to be able to take pictures of everything(people, landscapes, parades, celebrations, weddings, funerals, anything the eye can see!) and anywhere(at home, at work, in broad daylight, in the middle of the night, at a bar, in a cave, on a train, wherever one can go!). I understand that no one camera can fully satisfy every single one of these situations or conditions but I want a camera that can come close. I have reason to believe the Leica M series will do that.

I know all of this sounds whimsical, at least to me. I'm not trying to add to fanaticism or mystique common to the Leica brand, but rather just some opinions. I've shunned digital, regardless of how great it can become, there is something brilliantly grand about developing and printing your own pictures. And I like it and have the time for it so why not?

And of course, what I'd like on the camera. A self-timer(though if I am not mistaken only the M3 has) would be nice, I frequently travel alone and prefer my own company and the freedom to do things on the fly without having to consult anyone so shooting pictures of myself against something ever so often would be a nice touch. Metering would be helpful too, although if there isn't any, I'd finally be able to find a use for my VCII meter. Oh and maybe ASA speeds beyond 1600 so that I could actually try shooting Kodak P3200 at 3200.

So amongst the M3, M6, M7, MP or Zeiss Ikon. Which would you recommend, and keep in mind that it's my first Leica(or non-Leica but with the M mount).

Thanks!

p.s. I know the lens-hankering never really stops regardless of the system you buy. But with mostly fixed focal length lenses to be had, I think I'd be able to curb my addiction fairly well by sticking to one lens and maybe a wide-angle at a later time.

June 25, 2010

Jose and Vince,

Thank you so much for all your helpful replies and your patience. I really appreciate it! I think I'll go with the 35mm because after looking through some of my photos, and thinking back to when I took them. I feel that on many of those occasions, I would be hard pressed to take 2 steps back, and a wider angle would not have helped. In short, given the situations I'm often in. It would be easier to take 2 steps forward than 2 steps back. I can't deny that a 50mm might prove useful in certain given scenarios and the 1 stop difference will probably be missed. But I guess I'll just have to learn to work with it right?

Thanks a million again!

June 25, 2010

Jose,

Yes, I posted earlier on this forum at the bags page asking for recommendations on a bag. I was thinking of bringing the F2, but decided to bring the F801s instead mainly because of metering and AF. I'm going to India, for a month. I'm not a one-lens day person. My original plan was to use the 85 from the manual kit with a fast AF prime on the F801s. But a good deal opened up on the 70-210 zoom so I went for that instead.

I bought a Domke F6, so I don't mind at all carrying around 3 lenses(1 attached to the body) all day long. I'm still undecided on whether to get the 50 or 35, signs of my chronic indecisiveness but I know it varies depending on the person and even the person's mood from time to time.

And ok, with regards to the 35, will portraits look unflattering because of the wide-angle effect?

June 25, 2010

Thanks again Jose!

It could, but it depend`s on everyone`s ability. Many shooters can easily get (reasonably) sharp pictures at 1/15

Yes, I understand that, I forgot to include that that was just an example. I can't get good photos at 1/15 personally. I smoke too much for my own good and my hands are far too shaky as a result. But given that circumstance. If faced with the same amount of light in a situation you happen to have the two. There is no actual difference in having either of them, am I right? Other than of course a shallower DoF with the 50mm. Being able to shoot at a higher shutter speed is negated is it not because of the 50mm focal length(I'm using beginner's tips here), so the 'safe' speed would be 1/60.

I don't have a lot of resources neither do I have a lot of lenses to test stuff on. So I'm just going to wing it here, and because I'm taking this kit for the first time out of the country, I won't have other lenses to fall back on. In your honest opinion, given what I described above as what I would like to shoot.

- 24, 35, 70-210

- 24, 50, 70-210

Which makes the better choice? I know this is all highly subjective person to person and occasion to occasion.

June 24, 2010

Vince,

Thanks for the tip with the black and white film. I do shoot that, quite a bit really, threatens to take over my life to be honest. Heh. But with the difference between f/stops. I hope this doesn't come off as being silly but given this particular scenario and the 1 stop difference between the 50mm f/1.4 and the 35mm f/2. It doesn't really make a difference does it?

I mean, if let's say the safe shooting speed handheld for the 35mm is 1/30 @ f2. That would translate to 1/60 @ f1.4 would it not? Regardless of whatever actual light there is, both of them would perform the same way no? Or am I just terribly confused here.

And lastly, thanks also for the tip about the doubling of lens lengths. Let's say then that I change my 20mm to a 24mm, would that effectively mean that I should be using a 50mm instead? And that the change from a 24mm to a 35mm isn't very large?

Again, mighty appreciate all these comments!

June 23, 2010

Jose,

Thanks for ironing the issues out! Like I said in the original post, the only thing I'm concerned about is the stop difference. But if it's negligible or at least won't dramatically cut down on photo-taking opportunities, then I'm probably sold on the 35.

In all my experiments with either, I've always felt the 50 resembled more of a short tele than an actual standard. But it's probably just my opinion.

Edward,

Thanks for replying, but I'm not too keen on adding yet another zoom to my already heavy(well not that heavy, but I'm no professional so I prefer to carry light) lens collection.

And about the metering, yes I think I forgot to elaborate. No the meter in my F2 is broken, and I would not consider it metering. I use a small Sekonic Twinmate. Perhaps not the best, but it's a nice pocket-sized addition for my 'manual' set-up. And I like the F3 too, a friend of mine uses one, but I'm currently saving up money for an F100 sitting in a shop window that is in pristine condition and the shopkeeper swears on his head he'll save for me.

June 23, 2010

Andrew,

Thanks for the response! While I have thought of making all my lenses compatible with all my cameras. As is and was the idea of Nikon. I personally prefer to separate my kits, 3 lenses for 1 body. Keeps the weight down and stops me hankering after bigger and better things. I'm holding off converting my pre-AI to AI simply because I don't need it right now and don't have a lot of money lying on the side. I intend to clean my lenses and convert them at the same time.

Eric,

Thank you too, but could you define versatility here? I believe there's two kinds of versatility with talk about lenses, light sensitivity and what your lens can or cannot see. I believe you mean the former, and if so, how much more versatile is an f/1.4 lens over an f/2 lens?

Granted I cannot change my ISO when and how I want to, but when people talk of handholding shots in dark places, how dark do they mean? My imagination tells me it's like a dimly-lit back alley. But maybe that's too dark.

June 23, 2010

It's the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 vs 35mm f/2 question, but don't close this just yet! Unlike most of the results I've seen on these forums, I use film. Not DX, so please hear me out.

I keep 2 set-ups. One manual and one AF. The manual I use when I deliberately go out to shoot scenery or people, formal and casual. I'm not a professional so there's really no other reason. I prefer the feel of my F2 over that of my AF F801s(especially the clanking sound the shutter makes). The AF F801s I picked up for a good deal with the 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5D for about $75 altogether and I've started to carry that with me most of the time for the convenience of having matrix metering instead of having to use a light meter(I can't say AF isn't useful either).

The manual;

Nikon F2

20mm f/4

50mm f/1.2

85mm f/1.8

The auto;

Nikon F801s

20mm f/2.8 AF-D

28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D

70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D

So now the question. I'm looking to replace the 28-70mm lens with a fast prime. The lenses I use for my AF kit are pretty slow, and I could use my manual lenses but they are all pre-AI and cannot meter TTL. Even if they could, I lose matrix metering which I really love if only for the convenience.

I know I can't do everything with either lens, but I'd like the lens to do most of the things without requiring a change of lenses. I've tried going from 35mm to 50mm and back, and sometimes I prefer the 35 and yet other times I prefer the 50. In terms of focal length at least. As I said above, because my manual kit is used mostly when I deliberately go out to take pictures, I know the kit will do it's job. But in the case of my AF kit, I want the fast prime to be my primary walkabout lens.

I would like to take pictures;

- in all light, daylight, dim light, available light, etc.

- portraits, in my experience most of them occur in dimly-lit bars and restaurants or at a sunny alfresco cafe.

- perhaps some scenery, the odd farm by the road or the lone tree reflected off a window.

- and the random photos in the street.

Another thing though, is how significant the f/stop difference between f/1.4 and f/2 really is. I am an amateur at best so if I'm not mistaken, that's a 1 stop difference? Which I know is significant but given my possible scenarios, how much difference would 1 stop really make? I also know that because of the focal length, I would be able to handhold a shot at a lower shutter speed with the 35 than with the 50.

So the question here is really. Despite what I've said, based on your experience, which lens do you think is more versatile to fill as many of the roles I mentioned?

After running through both focal lengths myself rather extensively, 2-3 rolls of film each shot on either focal length just to see how I would frame a shot and which I prefer. I still can't decide, a friend said I should just keep the 28-70mm zoom, which I think I will since it's not worth much to sell off third-hand anyway, but I can't live with the horrendously slow speed. I can barely take a photo indoors in the evenings. I can learn to make a lens work for me and learn what's needed to frame a shot with the given focal length but I just need a push in the right direction.

One last thing I realised, while indoors I can never really back up enough to allow for the 50mm to work. Whereas if I were to shoot outdoors with the 35mm, there is a limit also to how much closer I can get to my subject(i.e. waterfall or even interesting bird perched on a fence). I know there's a tradeoff, so now I need more than a second opinion. Although with the 35mm issue, I have my telephoto zoom. But what I'm really concerned about and can't wrap my mind around, is the f/stop difference. And I am not going to just buy both. Either one or the other.

Thanks for reading! Any help will be much appreciated!

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by bryan_loo