M8 will arrive soon - saving 75% on lenses or removing fun and magic?

[KJB]

Originally Posted by blakley

I don't have the CV 50/1.5 or the CV 75, but I do have the 28/1.9 and it is an absolutely FANTASTIC lens. It's not QUITE as good as the Leica 28/2, but it is very, very close especially considering the price difference. The Nokton (50/1.5) seems by all accounts and pictures on the web also a really wonderful lens, and much, much cheaper than the Noctilux. Unless your heart's really set on the Noctilux, in fact, I would definitely recommend either the CV Nokton or the Leica Summilux (ASPH or pre-ASPH) instead - both are cheaper, more compact, and have better bokeh than the current Noctilux.

As far as 75s go, the CV is probably really good, but the Leica 75/2 Summicron ASPH is in my own personal humble opinion the best 35mm-format lens on the planet, so I'd recommend shelling out for it.

Mind sharing more on your experience with the 28 Ultron and 28 Cron? I recently returned the 28 Ultron as it seemed to lack the clarity and sharpness of my other lenses on my M8 which include the 15CV, 21ZM, and Noctilux. May not be fair to compare it to a 50 but the 21? BTW, I tried 2 different copies of the Ultron and was really hoping for it to be a keeper but now I have my sights set on the Cron.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by KJB

Mind sharing more on your experience with the 28 Ultron and 28 Cron? I recently returned the 28 Ultron as it seemed to lack the clarity and sharpness of my other lenses on my M8 which include the 15CV, 21ZM, and Noctilux. May not be fair to compare it to a 50 but the 21? BTW, I tried 2 different copies of the Ultron and was really hoping for it to be a keeper but now I have my sights set on the Cron.

I'm not Bob but the difference with the Ultron isn't clarity or sharpness, its contrast. Lens contrast is, largely, a matter of personal taste. The resolution of the Ultron is very similar to that of the Summicron but the latter is a higher contrast lens (and the Elmarit higher contrast still).

Cheers,

Sean

[rvaubel]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

I'm not Bob but the difference with the Ultron isn't clarity or sharpness, its contrast. Lens contrast is, largely, a matter of personal taste. The resolution of the Ultron is very similar to that of the Summicron but the latter is a higher contrast lens (and the Elmarit higher contrast still).

Cheers,

Sean

Sean

Ultimate lens contrast is less of an important issue with me since going digital. It's so easy to bump contrast a little bit in post processing that sometimes I think a low contrast lens might be a litlle better seeing into the shadows.

Rex

[carstenw]

Sean, I mean whichever Leica 35 code you used for your CV 35s. Apparently the 35/2 IV and 35/2 Asph both show f/1.4 in the EXIF.

[doug_m]

The Leica 50 1.4 ASPH is really superb on the M8. Its about a 66mm on the M8 which makes for a really neat small portrait lens.

The 28 2.0 ASPH is also excellent on the M8 where its equal to about 37mm

The 75 F2 is going to be a better choice than the 75 1.4 (for most of us) when used on the M8

Good luck.

[egibaud]

Originally Posted by doug_m

The 75 F2 is going to be a better choice than the 75 1.4 (for most of us) when used on the M8

After thinking a long time I have ordered the 1.4.... I can still change my order. Why do you think the 2.0 is better than the 1.4? picture quality? weight? size? ...

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by mdfr

I will have my M8 hopefully within next 2 weeks. It´s my first Leica, my first M. So I don´t have any lenses for the M yet.

HI Michael - and welcome - you're in for a lot of fun. I'm a new Leica user too, and it's a wonderful experience.

Lots of different opinions here - I must say I'm finding that what I thought I was going to use, and what I actually use are very different things.

If you buy new lenses (never mind whether they are Leica / ZM / CV) and find you don't use them, then you've made an expensive mistake.

Buying secondhand lenses (especially Leica) is much easier - and you can be sure that you'll get your money back if you find you don't use it. I'd never buy secondhand SLR lenses - they feel like much more fragile objects, but these Leica lenses are made to last.

If you're planning to shoot lots of low light, then it may be worth considering the LUX lenses - if you arent, then the 'crons are smaller, and unlike most 35mm lenses they aren't usually of lower quality (and of course they don't make for a dimmer viewfinder either!).

I've been trying to buy late 90's pre-aspherical lenses, boxed in mint condition where possible, they are much cheaper (about 1/3 of the original cost) and although the extra contrast of the newer lenses was important on film - and shooting in low light perhaps, I think it may even be a slight disadvantage in bright conditions.

I also have a couple of CV lenses, and they certainly don't feel (or shoot) like second class citizens.

For me, the time to shell out on expensive new lenses is when I'm CERTAIN what I want, until then my secondhand lenses can be considered as currency!

Just a final thought - if you aren't doing low light, then don't forget the Tri-Elmar lenses - you don't sacrifice much quality, and you gain a lot of convenience.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by rvaubel

Sean

Ultimate lens contrast is less of an important issue with me since going digital. It's so easy to bump contrast a little bit in post processing that sometimes I think a low contrast lens might be a litlle better seeing into the shadows.

Rex

Hi Rex,

Agreed, as you know, I've been writing about the advantages of lower contrast lenses (in certain lighting) for the past couple of years. The 28s article looks at this in some detail.

Cheers,

Sean

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by carstenw

Sean, I mean whichever Leica 35 code you used for your CV 35s. Apparently the 35/2 IV and 35/2 Asph both show f/1.4 in the EXIF.

I'll check.

Cheers,

Sean

[blakley]

I'm not Bob but the difference with the Ultron isn't clarity or sharpness, its contrast. Lens contrast is, largely, a matter of personal taste. The resolution of the Ultron is very similar to that of the Summicron but the latter is a higher contrast lens (and the Elmarit higher contrast still).

Actually the CV 28/1.9 has pretty high contrast - I like it partly for that reason. It has a little more barrel distortion at the edges, and its resolution at the edges isn't quite as good as the Summicron, but to tell the truth the only one of these attributes I ever notice in real use is the distortion at the edges.

The important differences, from my viewpoint, are these:

1. The Summicron is smaller
2. The Summicron is much better built
3. The Summicron's image is "smoother" especially at wide aperture.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by blakley

I'm not Bob but the difference with the Ultron isn't clarity or sharpness, its contrast. Lens contrast is, largely, a matter of personal taste. The resolution of the Ultron is very similar to that of the Summicron but the latter is a higher contrast lens (and the Elmarit higher contrast still).

Actually the CV 28/1.9 has pretty high contrast.

If you get the opportunity to test then side by side, you'll see that the Ultron has lower contrast than the Summicron Asph. and the Elmarit Asph. has higher contrast than either of them. Careful examples of this are in the 28s review.

Sean

[mdfr]

Thanks again for your replies.

It´s really not easy to decide - buying lenses for Hasselblad is easy, it just depends on your wallet how many of the Zeiss´ you´ll buy (because you need them all of course). After years of expierence with Nikon F it´s also easy: just Nikon lenses and if no need (because of size & weight, not attracting to much interest, or wallet) no cheap zooms.

For M:
If I´d have to buy today I would take: CV Ultron 28, 1.9 plus Summicron 50, 2.0 plus Summicron 75, 2.0 plus maybe the CV Super Wide Heliar 15, 4.5.

I got a good price for the ultralflat and small CV Color Skopar 35, 2.5 @ Euro 350 which could be good enough to test wheather I really need this lenght or if it´s too close to the 28/50mm.

I didn´t consider the size of the lenses in my last posting - but of course I have to since I want to walk around with it. That´s also why I don´t like the Tri-Elmars sooo much. Thanks for the advices!

A Summilux can be added later in any length I found to be good for me and my Leica.

About used ones: I´ll check the dealers for good ones - but to be honest I don´t trust used lenses so much. Let´s see.

Thanks again

Best regards
Michael

[bill vann]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

Actually, it's very easy to code the LTM CVs if one can find the old Leitz adapters. I've hand-coded the following so far for testing:

21/4
25/4
28/3.5
28/1.9
35/2.5
35/1.7

Cheers,

Sean

Ahhh Sean, finding Leitz adapters, therein lies the problem, i've found none and see only one on ebarf.

I would think someone would sort thisout quickly maybe mr Kobayashi? and get them to market quickly. doesn't seem like much of a challenge?

bill

bill

[bill vann]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

If you're planning to shoot lots of low light, then it may be worth considering the LUX lenses - if you arent, then the 'crons are smaller, and unlike most 35mm lenses they aren't usually of lower quality (and of course they don't make for a dimmer viewfinder either!).

I've been trying to buy late 90's pre-aspherical lenses, boxed in mint condition where possible, they are much cheaper (about 1/3 of the original cost) and although the extra contrast of the newer lenses was important on film - and shooting in low light perhaps, I think it may even be a slight disadvantage in bright conditions.

I also have a couple of CV lenses, and they certainly don't feel (or shoot) like second class citizens.

For me, the time to shell out on expensive new lenses is when I'm CERTAIN what I want, until then my secondhand lenses can be considered as currency!

Just a final thought - if you aren't doing low light, then don't forget the Tri-Elmar lenses - you don't sacrifice much quality, and you gain a lot of convenience.

Jono, I agree.

I find myself swapping between the 28, 35 and 50 MUCH more than i would have thought.

You seem to be quite pleased with the the tri. would you swap a 35mm asp cron for the tri elmar? i'd still have CV 28, 35, 50 ultrons and noktons if i needed the speed. got them used at quite a nice price.

bill

[blakley]

Sean, I agree that the CV's contrast isn't as high as the Summicron's. But it's higher than some older Leica and most other third-party lenses, which is what I meant when I said it has pretty high contrast. From a contrast standpoint I can't find much to complain about with either the CV or the Leica 28/2; I haven't tried (or even seen) the 28/2.8. I recommend your review as a good basis for comparing these lenses - especially on the M8 - by the way; I found it very informative.

[blakley]

If I´d have to buy today I would take: CV Ultron 28, 1.9 plus Summicron 50, 2.0 plus Summicron 75, 2.0 plus maybe the CV Super Wide Heliar 15, 4.5.

That would be an outstanding kit.