Having two M8 bodies for just over a month, and having a long background with Leicas (
http://www.waltodets.com/photo/), I’ve had little problem adapting to the camera itself—it is wonderful, which is just to say an M camera. I am so grateful for this camera.
I have, though, been oddly perplexed by the lens multiplication issue and the change in the design of Leica lenses since I last used them. Well, the solution has ended up being relatively simple, but I took the long way around to get there. I thought I’d just post this experience on the chance that it would be of interest to others. With the film cameras, I used a 35 and 50 Summicron (about 50/50 I’d say) and very occasionally a 90 or 28. It was surprisingly difficult for me to accept that a 35 had become a 50 and a 28 a 35 (I don’t know why, but habits die hard). But, of course, that’s it and the math is pretty simple. I do find that the actual crop factor is more like 1.25. For example, the 28 seems to cover almost exactly what a 35 would cover on a film camera, not the predicted 37 or so. This makes the 35 a 44 or so, and I actually prefer that to a 50. (At one point I had taken to using the 40 Summicron on M4’s and liked it.)
To explain my personal values about a camera and lenses: I shoot only black and white; do “street” photography and “environmental portraits”; value a very compact and maneuverable camera because I carry it almost everywhere; and don’t much like switching lenses (because this confuses the view of the world when the camera is not to the eye). In my film days, I valued a lens for not creating printing problems (e.g. flare, excessive softness in the corners or inadequate contrast). I’m not much interested in “prints” per se, but in photographs, so I like a print to be transparent to the viewer, not an object of attention. I also value an elegant, “legible” grayscale—you know, Leica-like. I think commercial media and advertising has influenced people to use too much contrast.
So what I’ve ended up with as a complete kit is pretty obvious: the Zeiss 21/2.8; both the 28 Summicron and 28 Elmarit ASPH; the 35/2 ASPH and a 35/2 M (IV); and a 90/4 collapsible. It’s working really well. I should say that in arriving at this simple kit of six lenses (really four, functionally), I went through about 12 lenses, unfortunately. My selections were made by just doing diverse, day-to-day photography with the lenses and looking at the results in 13 x 19 inch prints from an Epson 4800.
On the 21 (my M8 26), I tried both the 21 Elmarit and the Zeiss. Though the Elmarit had that Leica sharpness and grayscale on center, the Zeiss was more even corner to corner, more flare resistant and higher in contrast. Since I typically only use a 28 indoors (with window and artificial lights often in the frame), I preferred the Zeiss for the flare resistance and contrast . I also do a lot on the edges of the frame with such a wide lens, and the Zeiss is just better here. The Zeiss also seems more compact (longer but narrower) than the Elmarit, and feels to me to handle more easily and with less bulk. That incredibly stupid lens cap, though, has to go. I’d rather stuff a hard boiled egg in the shade than use the cap. I use a Voigtlander 28 finder (the little metal round one) with the lens and like it a lot.
On the 28 (my M8 35), my favorite lens was actually the older Elmarit for it’s really elegant, natural tonal scale. I went with the two ASPH lenses as a compromise because of the bulk vs. speed issue. I find the 28 Summicron nearly as elegant for grayscale as the old Elmarit and it’s a stop faster with exactly the same weight and bulk. The Summicron is also somewhat better wide open than the older lens. The Elmarit ASPH I got solely for size and on this score it’s hard to beat. I find it an O.K. lens. For me, it is too contrasty and not as sharp as either of the other lenses. It is very resistant to flare though. I find the tonal scale a little harsh and ugly—perhaps rough or aggressive would describe it for my taste. All around, the 28 Summicron is hard to beat given the speed, size, wide open performance, grayscale and reasonable contrast. I use a Voigtlander 35mm finder most of the time with the 28s (also the little round, metal one) because it is more accurate than the M8 lines.
On the 35 (my M8 44, which is a prime lens) I had the most trouble. I tried a Summicron ASPH uncoded, a Summicron ASPH coded, a Voigtlander 35/2.5, a Voigtlander 40/1.4 and the older (IV) Summicron-M. I find the Summicron ASPH too contrasty for general work and, if I had to guess, I’d say it’s a lens for color. It does have the great virtues of being really, really good wide open and of quite remarkably making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear in really flat, murky light and high flare situations, and I don’t dismiss those things lightly. So it definitely has a place for me and I went out and got a coded one for vignetting. I find the coding on the Summicron ASPH quite worthwhile for keeping the corners up, though I wouldn’t spend the money again for that. My answer to the drawbacks of ASPH lens is, of course, the older Summicron. It has that great Leica grayscale and, unlike the ASPH lens, it’s really excellent at F8 or 11. It’s acceptable at 2.0 off center and pretty good at 2.8 and just gets better from there. The ASPH lens deteriorates into a relatively ugly grayscale stopped down—it gets that rough look I don’t like in the 28 Elmarit ASPH. The older Summicron is also the king of compact for Leica lenses and I love that about it. On the two Voigtlanders, I got the 35/2.5 at Sean Reid’s suggestion (I was griping about the contrast of the ASPH Summicron) and like it. It is well-balanced, quite good wide open, nice to carry on the camera and has an elegant, old-fashioned grayscale. It’s not as good wide open as the ASPH. I didn’t like the roughness of the mount putting it on the camera and don’t use it for that reason alone. The 40/1.4 I found beautiful stopped down—the grayscale is just wonderful and it’s very sharp. But you don’t (usually) buy a 1.4 for that reason and wide open this lens can flare terribly in the right conditions—about the worst I recall except maybe the old 50 Summilux of many years ago. So, terrific for the money, and very good in certain ways, I’ve set the Voigtlanders aside for the sake of simplicity. Too many lenses is just too much trouble and distraction for me.
So, that’s my story and, yes, I know that there are a thousand other opinions and observations and ways of doing photography. I would like to thank forum members, Sean Reid and Erwin Puts for much valuable input and direction on all this. It would have cost me even more time and, unfortunately, more money without this help. It’s back to making photographs and spending less money for me.
Good wishes,
Walt
P.S. The first shot below (the portrait) is the 28 Summicron and the second the old 28 Elmarit. These are typical of what I do with cameras. I don’t know about “printing” them for the Internet. I normally view them at Gamma 2.2, 5K and 50 cd/m2 for printing preparation.