NODDI Posted October 8, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am new to the Leica system and pondering a second lens for my M7. I have a choice of a Summarit 75mm and an Elmarit 90mm,both new. I cannot make up my mind. Any advice would be much appreciated. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Hi NODDI, Take a look here Advice. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
giordano Posted October 9, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 9, 2009 They are both very good lenses and you should make the choice entirely on the basis of which focal length you prefer. If your first lens is a 50mm, the 90mm is probably the better choice because the step between 50 and 75 is quite small. If you currently have a 28 or 35 mm lens, 75mm becomes more attractive - but speaking for myself I'd still choose 90mm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 9, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 9, 2009 This is a question that only you can answer -- bcause only you know how YOU see the world, approach the world -- and deal with the world. That is key, because a Leica M is not an instrument where the photographer interacts with the camera, but where he/she interacts with the world. There is fortunately help close at hand. It is the little frame preview lever on the camera front. Use it to key in the focal lengths that you are interested in, walk around with them, aim, focus, shoot -- no need to waste film! Just get the feeling. Do this consistently for some time, and you will have an answer. The old man from the Age of the Standard Lens Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted October 9, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 9, 2009 .........,both new. .............. Why this limitation? Buy used, try it out, and if you do not like what you bought, sell it. You will get your money back. Sometimes a bit more, sometimes a little bit less. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 9, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 9, 2009 There is really little difference in FOV ... and depends also on which is your current lens set... as a lasting investiment (Leica lenses can be seen also like this - luckily) probably the Elmarit is a better choice; Summarit are excellent lenses (I've just the 75) but probably "history" will consider them "the tentative-cheap Leica lenses" (right or not this can be... "history" identified Summar 50 of the '30s as "the worst 50 from Leitz" even if, for instance, is better than the Hektor 2,5 at same apertures, and comparable with Elmar, which "history" identifies as "the legendary Elmar"). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enboe Posted October 9, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 9, 2009 New 75, used 90. You seem to be a user who takes the time to learn and enjoy each addition to your kit. That means relatively no pressure to complete a set of lenses. The 75 is difficult to find used, the 90 is quite common. A 35/75 kit is wonderfully flexible and light. So is a 28/50/90. Most of all, enjoy! Eric Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mym6is12 Posted October 9, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) One thing to bear in mind is that the 75mm frames lines, which only really mark the corners, are rather difficult to see. That was the main reason I sold my 75mm and now stick to the 90mm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 10, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) Here is a thought (meaning, this is slightly off-thread ... but we were discussing 35 and 50mm lenses, no?) The classical definition of 'standard lens' used to be 'a lens with a focal length equal to the diagonal of the picture format'. This was the case for the old 6x9cm (nominal) roll film format, where the standard lens was 10.5cm. Also 7.5cm for 6x6, as in Rolleiflex, 13.5cm for 9x12cm, and so forth. By that reckoning, the standard lens for the 35mm format would be 43mm. The first lens that Oskar Barnack mounted on his Ur-Leica in 1913 was -- 42mm! And indeed many think that lenses around 40mm are the most universally useful with 35mm. I agree; I do still fondly remember my Rollei 35 with its 40mm Tessar. Why 50mm on the Leica? The reason was not that "our eyes see that way" as was fondly maintained when I was young, but simply that a 50mm lens was easier to correct for aberrations, and Oskar and Max (and Ludwig too) knew that picture quality was essential if the new 'Barnack camera' would swim. But here it is. This focal length is nine millimeters longer than the theoretical standard lens, because nearly all Leitz/Leica '50mm lenses' have actually been around 52mm. The current Summarit is the only exception that I know of. Now subtract an about equal amount from 43mm and what do we get? 35mm. Yes, the Leica has in reality not one but TWO standard lenses, a long one at 52mm and a short one at 35. The 35 is not really a wide angle lens; it is wide only in comparison with the long '50'. This does explain much of the enduring popularity (since 1932, in fact) of the '35'. It does feel very natural. The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar Edited October 10, 2009 by lars_bergquist 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 10, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) Just to go on with Lars' considerations on "normal focal(s)" (is a rainy afternoon, here... ) ... I have a theory of my own about: the "face in vertical - full negative/sensor" : under this unscientific theory, lens is "normal" when you see "right" such a picture, i.e., without the typical "wideangle effect" (reciprocal proportions of nose/eyes/ears) : I made some trials with 35/40/50/65 years ago (before digital era... I should have to make printer scans to show the results, boring for me, and maybe for readers too... ) ... was a rather precise test... with measurements taken on the prints, on the model; of course... not conclusive: I decided that 50 or some more should be the right "normal" in this sense, but then thought also that human vision (and psychology of) is a complex question... we can measure a model... but the way in which we PERCEIVE the relative dimensions as we stand more or less close to the subject is another question... you have to come close a lot for having a face to "fill" your view...so I'll ended up my study and simply decided that for me, 50 is "the normal on 24x36": pity that at that times neither forums nor Internet still existed (it was '79/'80) , it could have been a funny discussion thread... Edited October 10, 2009 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 10, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 10, 2009 Luigi, geometrical pespective, i.e. in your example the size relationships of nose versus ears etc., is entirely dependent on camera position. Make a picture of the most divinely beautiful lady from a distance of three meters with a 18mm lens -- and from that image you can crop out the total equivalent of a 90mm, not only as to field of view but as to nose and ear size, and she will still be divinely beautiful (through probably somewhat fuzzier, and grainier too, if you used film). The reason why people imagine that different focal lengths have different 'perspectives' is that (a) they confuse 'perspective' -- the internal geometry of the image -- with cropping, its peripheral delimitation, and ( wide lenses makes some less informed people come up closer with the camera, in order to make the subject "big enough". It is the reduced subject-camera distance that makes for funny perspectives. The old man from the Age of the Renaissance Perspective (learned about it in school, not in quattrocento Firenze!) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 10, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 10, 2009 Luigi, geometrical pespective, i.e. in your example the size relationships of nose versus ears etc., is entirely dependent on camera position. Make a picture of the most divinely beautiful lady from a distance of three meters with a 18mm lens -- and from that image you can crop out the total equivalent of a 90mm, not only as to field of view but as to nose and ear size, and she will still be divinely beautiful (through probably somewhat fuzzier, and grainier too, if you used film). The reason why people imagine that different focal lengths have different 'perspectives' is that (a) they confuse 'perspective' -- the internal geometry of the image -- with cropping, its peripheral delimitation, and ( wide lenses makes some less informed people come up closer with the camera, in order to make the subject "big enough". It is the reduced subject-camera distance that makes for funny perspectives. The old man from the Age of the Renaissance Perspective (learned about it in school, not in quattrocento Firenze!) I am (and was, at that time) aware of the question, Lars, and in fact my "test on normal" was based on filling (about) a vertical frame with the same subject (a face) with different focal lengths, that's to say, at different distances, so perspective was indeed different from one to each other. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 11, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 11, 2009 Right, Luigi. It is just that I have very recently encountered here people who show this ancient and tedious confusion. Being Italian, you are of course not perspectivally challenged The old man from the Rocking Chair Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 11, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 11, 2009 Right, Luigi. It is just that I have very recently encountered here people who show this ancient and tedious confusion. Being Italian, you are of course not perspectivally challenged The old man from the Rocking Chair You mean, suppose, that for some Dutch members it can be different... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/99533-advice/?do=findComment&comment=1070251'>More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 11, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 11, 2009 Walking around with your head under the sea level may of course be detrimental to your perspectival health. The old man at 50m above sea level Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.