What lenses do you use most with the M-240

[chris_tribble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have to admit, when I was waiting to get the M-240 I thought I'd be using a lot of different lenses - and laid out on the odd bit of exotic glass. However, the reality now is that I still mostly use 28, 35, 50mm focal lengths, with the 135 A-T getting next most frequently. 18, 21 and 90 lenses come out rarely (but I'm still very glad I have them when I need them). However, the R 28 PC, R 80-200 f4 and Canon FD 300 f4 haven't been used for anything serious.

 

I'd be interested to know what other people's experience is. The question's also prompted by the thought that I might dump some of the odds and ends and get a 75 cron or summarit - but I then think do I really need that!

 

Ah, dilemmas, dilemmas.

 

Any other experiences?

[stunsworth]

Chris, I don't have an M240, but based on my experience of film Ms I expect my usage to be 35mm, then 50mm, then 28mm - with 35mm being the most used and 28mm the least. Of those three I'd expect 35mm to be used 80-90% of the time.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[chris_tribble]

Moderator - I can sort of see the logic for shifting this to the lenses section - but the query does really relate to the M-240 and the extent to which it has/hasn't changed people's behaviour. I'd be grateful if this could go back to the M-240 section.

Pretty please?

[Echo63]

Im new to M cameras in general, and currently only have one lens for my M240 - a 50 f2.5 summarit, so at the moment it is my most used.

 

Next year i will be buying a 28 and 90 - i expect the 90 to be used a lot, but the 50 will still get most of the use.

After the 28 and 90 i will be upgrading to a 50 summilux - but will keep the tiny little summarit.

[jdlaing]

In the order that i use them the most:

 

50mm f/1.5

MATE

35mm f/1.4

WATE

 

The 50 stays on the camera the bulk of the time.

[01af]

50 mm.

 

But then—I have several 50 mm lenses ...

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Before purchase I expected that I would use the M primarily as a traditional RF camera, i.e., like my film Ms as far as viewing and lenses. My actual experience proved no different, still comfortable with 28/35/50 as core. I wanted a better camera experience, not a different photo style, and that's what I got. Still no lack of suitable subjects.

 

On rare occasion, I'll take time for some tripod-based work, and the 90 will come out. But the RF is so good that the EVF or LV is not a necessity, although nice.

 

Jeff

[250swb]

I'm pretty well using the same lenses as on my MM and M9, but one thing I did want was a 135mm which the M240 made practical as I never got along with the tiny framelines before. To this end I am currently using a 135mm f/2.8 Nikkor Q from the 1960's with an adapter, and using an EVF or Live View. It's a very good lens but with it focusing backwards to a Leica lens I may try a Tele-Elmar, or perhaps even an Olympus OM 135mm f/3.5 with adapter as a smaller and lighter setup.

 

Steve

[pgk]

I have to admit, when I was waiting to get the M-240 I thought I'd be using a lot of different lenses....

Is this because of Live View? Having had Live View on dSLRs I can quite happily state that it has not made me buy any new lenses - although I use an M9, if I were to buy an M-240 I can't see wanting to do so then either. So my lens choice would almost certainly remain the same - 35 most used with 50/75/90 and 21 next and in that order.

[jaapv]

I'm pretty well using the same lenses as on my MM and M9, but one thing I did want was a 135mm which the M240 made practical as I never got along with the tiny framelines before. To this end I am currently using a 135mm f/2.8 Nikkor Q from the 1960's with an adapter, and using an EVF or Live View. It's a very good lens but with it focusing backwards to a Leica lens I may try a Tele-Elmar, or perhaps even an Olympus OM 135mm f/3.5 with adapter as a smaller and lighter setup.

 

Steve

The Zuiko is not in the same league as the Tele-Elmar.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

My M9-P is my walk-around camera with Summilux-M 35 mm f/1.4 ASPH almost permanently attached. Focussing and composition via the rangefinder.

 

The addition of the M-240 with liveview and EVF now allows me to critically compose with my Super-Elmar-M 21mm f/3.4 ASPH for architectural work. Focussing via the rangefinder.

 

The M-240 also allows me to use the classic Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/2.8 Ai-S via an adapter for close work. Focussing via EVF and magnification.

 

The M-240 also allows me to compose and critically focus my Summarit-M 90 mm f/2.5 with consummate ease via EVF and magnification.

Edited April 9, 2014 by KeithL

[250swb]

The Zuiko is not in the same league as the Tele-Elmar.

 

Thank you for the heads up, it wasn't just the prospect of getting a lens and adapter for around £60 , but I'd heard it was pretty good, however I'll cross that one off now.

 

Steve

[furcafe]

Same here. I'm not really doing anything differently w/the M 240 than I did w/the M9, M8, or R-D1, but the addition of live view didn't really affect my decision to buy it in the 1st place. If having TTL focusing ability had been important to me, I would probably have gone w/a mirrorless like the new Sonys.

 

Now that I do have live view available, however, I do use it for those few lenses, like my 1950s 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S in LTM, that can focus closer than the RF (I never used that feature before the M 240) & to mess around w/lenses that I know are too out of spec to use w/the RF on a digital body (quite a few vintage lenses fall into this category).

 

Before purchase I expected that I would use the M primarily as a traditional RF camera, i.e., like my film Ms as far as viewing and lenses. My actual experience proved no different, still comfortable with 28/35/50 as core. I wanted a better camera experience, not a different photo style, and that's what I got. Still no lack of suitable subjects.

 

On rare occasion, I'll take time for some tripod-based work, and the 90 will come out. But the RF is so good that the EVF or LV is not a necessity, although nice.

 

Jeff

Edited April 9, 2014 by furcafe

[LocalHero1953]

LV and the EVF were not the reasons I moved to the M240 from the M: I wanted wider DR and better low light performance; the quiet shutter and better LCD were also attractive. So I wasn't expecting to use different lenses.

 

The main area where the M lets me do something different is close up / macro with the OUFRO - one of the reasons I kept a compact on standby when I had the M9. I don't have the EVF, and I don't miss it - I might get one if I can find a cheap Olympus VF-2 on eBay.

 

My walkabout lenses are the APO-Summicron 75mm and the Elmarit ASPH 28mm; I've not been a 50mm person for quite a while. For portrait sessions, though, I use the APO Summicron 90mm and, more recently, a Hektor 7.3cm f1.9 and a Nikkor-PC 10.5cm f2.5 - that's my entry into a different world !

[Numbers]

35mm Slux for app. 50% of my shooting

 

135 tele elmar app 5%

 

21mm SEM and 75mm Cron, about evenly for rest.

[thighslapper]

Noctilux goes on by default.

 

Use the best with the best ....

[chris_tribble]

Is this because of Live View? Having had Live View on dSLRs I can quite happily state that it has not made me buy any new lenses - although I use an M9, if I were to buy an M-240 I can't see wanting to do so then either. So my lens choice would almost certainly remain the same - 35 most used with 50/75/90 and 21 next and in that order.

 

Hi - I didn't buy the M-240 because of Live View - but I did think, naively, (especially with the EVF) that it offer a way of avoiding using a DSLR and big heavy lenses like the L series Canons. The reality is that while the EVF has been really useful with 21 and 18, I don't find it useful with most lenses - and the improved RF has even made 90 and 135 a pleasure to work with. OK - I do use the EVF from time to time with the 90/135, but longer R or other brand lenses really haven't been a viable alternative.

 

This isn't a PROBLEM - I'm SO pleased with all the other 240 goodness. But it has left me intrigued about how other people are using the camera - and if there are differences with earlier M practice.

[Guest Mr. B]

No M-240, too expensive for me, On my film M. The 35 and then the 50, followed by the 90, and lastly the 135.

Mr. B

[jdlaing]

Hi - I didn't buy the M-240 because of Live View - but I did think, naively, (especially with the EVF) that it offer a way of avoiding using a DSLR and big heavy lenses like the L series Canons. The reality is that while the EVF has been really useful with 21 and 18, I don't find it useful with most lenses - and the improved RF has even made 90 and 135 a pleasure to work with. OK - I do use the EVF from time to time with the 90/135, but longer R or other brand lenses really haven't been a viable alternative.

 

This isn't a PROBLEM - I'm SO pleased with all the other 240 goodness. But it has left me intrigued about how other people are using the camera - and if there are differences with earlier M practice.

 

The one difference, for me, from earlier M cameras is I can use the EVF for the WATE but I still prefer the Frankenfinder.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jared]

When I bought my M(240) I thought I would finally get some good use out of my 90 Cron because of the LiveView. I hoped I would be able to focus more accurately. In still found I didn't use the 90mm much because I still wasn't nailing focus (unless I had more time than I usually do). As a result, I actually sold my 90 Summicron Apo and bought a 75mm Summicron Apo. My most-to-least would now be approximately:

 

35mm Summilux Asph FLE (40%)

75mm Summicron Apo (25%)

50mm Summilux Asph (25%)

28mm Elmarit (10%)

35mm Summicron Asph (0%)

 

I should probably sell the 35 Cron; I originally wanted to hang onto it since it is smaller and lighter than the 35 Lux, but the difference in weight simply doesn't matter in real experience.

 

- Jared