Deciding on my lens kit

[Abram]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone,

 

As I anxiously await the delivery of my M240 I am trying to make plans for the kit I want to use. I would love to be able to use native Leica glass but right now I just can't afford it. I chose to go with the M240 because I was able to buy it from Tamarkin and have a warranty, and its feature-set is a little more in line with my needs. (Sidenote: I just sold my whole Canon kit to fund this kit purchase)

 

Anyways, I have tracked down a Zeiss 35mm f/2 as 35mm is overall my favorite focal length, followed very closely by 50mm.

 

I plan to buy the ZM Planar 50mm soon, but I was trying to decide on a wide angle, I may explore the possibility of an older 90mm in the future, but right now it isn't a high priority. I don't want to have too many lenses to be honest for this kit.

 

As far as focal lengths I am very comfortable with, 21, 24/25 and 28 are all right up there, with 28mm being arguably the most comfortable, followed by 21 and then 24/25 for me. I know some would say that 28/35/50 is way too close, and others would say it's perfect.

 

If for now I wanted to just have one wide angle (this doesn't mean forever), which of the ZM wides would you go with? I do shoot landscape work often, and architecture, but I probably won't be doing much commercial architecture work anymore as I'm shifting my photography priorities.

[bocaburger]

Most of the improvements in the latest generation of Leica lenses have been at the couple widest apertures and in the close range, neither of which apply much to shooting landscapes. So if you really want "native" Leica glass then there's a world of used ones out there that you won't tell the difference from the latest ones. Another advantage to them over buying new ZM's is used Leica lenses don't depreciate, so buy from a reputable source like KEH with a decent return policy and a warranty, and re-sell privately, and you'll lose next to nothing.

Edited November 22, 2014 by bocaburger

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr. Thompson]

I would also recommend slightly experienced Leica glass. If you are just feeling your way into the world of M glass you should be able to trade lenses without a financial hit. When I purchased my M9 new Leica lenses were not available. Having already purchased several Voigtländer lenses, I ran across a forum known for it's gear sales. I ended up meeting a wonderful fellow with a large collection of Leica glass. 28, 35, 50 & 90 Chrons at a reasonable cost were the result. Explore your options.

 

On the flip side, if you like the rendering of Zeiss lenses (I love the 21 f2.8 and GAS is tugging at a 50 Sonnar...) go for it. Slightly experienced even better.

[MarkP]

I agree with the comments above about the Leica lenses. However, if you are looking at Zeiss then the 2.8/25 ZM Biogon is a fantastic lens.

[NZDavid]

The Leica 2.8/24 Elmarit-Asph is one of my most used lenses. Accessory finder doesn't bother me. Great for cities and interiors.

[enchong]

i have the 28 2.8 elmarit asph for wide and as a carry lens as it is the lightest...i feel like carrying an X2. i also have the 50 Nocti for serious photo trips and portrait shoots

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Who says Leica lenses don't depreciate? Haven't you heard of the current lens discount?

[edwardkaraa]

Hi everyone,

 

As I anxiously await the delivery of my M240 I am trying to make plans for the kit I want to use. I would love to be able to use native Leica glass but right now I just can't afford it. I chose to go with the M240 because I was able to buy it from Tamarkin and have a warranty, and its feature-set is a little more in line with my needs. (Sidenote: I just sold my whole Canon kit to fund this kit purchase)

 

Anyways, I have tracked down a Zeiss 35mm f/2 as 35mm is overall my favorite focal length, followed very closely by 50mm.

 

I plan to buy the ZM Planar 50mm soon, but I was trying to decide on a wide angle, I may explore the possibility of an older 90mm in the future, but right now it isn't a high priority. I don't want to have too many lenses to be honest for this kit.

 

As far as focal lengths I am very comfortable with, 21, 24/25 and 28 are all right up there, with 28mm being arguably the most comfortable, followed by 21 and then 24/25 for me. I know some would say that 28/35/50 is way too close, and others would say it's perfect.

 

If for now I wanted to just have one wide angle (this doesn't mean forever), which of the ZM wides would you go with? I do shoot landscape work often, and architecture, but I probably won't be doing much commercial architecture work anymore as I'm shifting my photography priorities.

 

ZM 35/2 and 50/2 are a must. 28/2.8 not so great, but the 25/2.8 is fantastic. It is actually closer to 26mmm. The 18/4 is also excellent.

[Abram]

Thank you for the insight Edward, It's nice to see you over here as well (in addition to FM).

 

I now have the ZM 35 in hand and a ZM 50mm en-route from Portugal. I'll sit tight with those for now until I decide which wide lens is best suited to my needs. I know the 18mm would be too wide for what I would use most often, but a 21mm is feasible, as would be the 25mm.

[edwardkaraa]

Nice to see you here too Abram!

 

Definitely the 35 and 50 are to me the RF classics. Both are unavoidable imho.

 

As for the 21 vs 25, my experience is that the 25 is more clinical with a flat MTF graph. No exceptional central resolution but with great borders and corners. The 21 has a more normal behavior with fantastic center resolution but somewhat weaker borders and corners, that sharpen up nicely from f/5.6. I chose the 25 because I'm not into ultra wides, but I could have bought the 21 all the same. I have the Voigtlander plastic finder that has frames for 21/25, and the difference in AOV isn't dramatic.

[Abram]

I do also have the Ricoh GR with it's excellent built in 28mm (though it's APS-C) and I even use the surprisingly good GW-3 adapter so I effectively have 21/28mm with this little setup.

 

I appreciate the information though!

[madNbad]

If you're thinking of adding a 21 consider the little f4.0 Voigtlander. A nice little lens, weighs next to nothing and you can find them second hand in M mount at bargin prices. It's a good introduction to the focal length without a huge investment.

[bocaburger]

I have an Elmarit I love, but I travel mostly with the CV. I used (still own) the LTM version, and picked up a used M version a while ago. I've heard mention of sample variation in these lenses but mine are both identical and well-centered and do not vignette objectionably. I have them coded as the pre-ASPH Elmarit, which I find is the one best suited to the CV.

[gberger]

I sold my Leica 35 Summilux (pre-asph) and replaced it with the Zeiss 35/2. Not Sorry. You might want to see Steve Huff's review of the 50/2.

[michaelwj]

Welcome to the forum Abram!

 

I think 35/50 is the perfect RF combo (its what I currently have), and it looks like they're both settled on.

 

Going wider, with only one more lens is trickier.

 

I see 28 as a complement to a 50 in a two lens set up. As in, I'd take ether a 35 or a 50/28, but I can't see myself ever taking a 28 and 35 together. I do take both a 50/35 together though. So in my current setup I have no need for a 28.

 

24/25 are obviously wider, and have the benefit of pairing well with a 50 and/or a 35. But they require an external viewfinder. And if I'm going to carry an external viewfinder, I might as well go to 21.

 

If 18 is too wide (Its also bigger), then I'd settle on a 21. In fact, it's my next purchase on the list. If I were you, I'd go for the Zeiss (2.8 as you say you're not doing architecture - the 4.5 I've heard has less distortion, but has colour fringing on digital). I'd go for Zeiss to keep the handling the same, 1/3 clicks on the aperture, same focus nub, colour rendition, etc.

 

Cheers,

Michael

[Rick in CO]

Welcome to the forum Abram!

 

I think 35/50 is the perfect RF combo (its what I currently have), and it looks like they're both settled on.

 

Going wider, with only one more lens is trickier.

 

I see 28 as a complement to a 50 in a two lens set up. As in, I'd take ether a 35 or a 50/28, but I can't see myself ever taking a 28 and 35 together. I do take both a 50/35 together though. So in my current setup I have no need for a 28.

 

24/25 are obviously wider, and have the benefit of pairing well with a 50 and/or a 35. But they require an external viewfinder. And if I'm going to carry an external viewfinder, I might as well go to 21.

 

If 18 is too wide (Its also bigger), then I'd settle on a 21. In fact, it's my next purchase on the list. If I were you, I'd go for the Zeiss (2.8 as you say you're not doing architecture - the 4.5 I've heard has less distortion, but has colour fringing on digital). I'd go for Zeiss to keep the handling the same, 1/3 clicks on the aperture, same focus nub, colour rendition, etc.

 

Cheers,

Michael

 

Mostly agree, I have the 25/35/50/85 setup for my M9. 28 & 35 is too close, the 25 is a great lens which I use far more than I anticipated. I don't use an external finder, the whole field of view of the finder works quite well. With a 21 or wider, the external finder is a must-have.

[Abram]

Thanks for the input everyone, I do have experience with rangefinders in general, and over the years I have been fortunate enough to sample many different focal lengths on my slr systems and I know what lengths tend to work for me,

 

For me personally. 35 and 50mm lenses are must haves, but when it comes to wides I often like to go WIDE and close. I became very comfortable with 20mm on my slrs. And my most used zoom recently was a 16-35mm. I really like 28mm for street photography or moving fast, but my Ricoh GR is literally perfect for this application.

 

I'm in no rush to find an ideal wide for me but I'm glad to know I have some options.

[michaelwj]

but when it comes to wides I often like to go WIDE and close. I became very comfortable with 20mm on my slrs.

 

The close bit is the hard one with a rangefinder, you're really looking at 0.7 or 0.5 m, which is not SLR close. Maybe an SLR for the wide and close? Or a wide R mount lens on an adapter with live view? Different cameras are good at different things after all.

 

Cheers,

Michael

[bocaburger]

Stopping down a 15 or 20 can put things in acceptable focus that are much closer than the lens' official minimum focusing distance.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Abram]

Yes this is very true and I am aware of the limitations I'm facing. I'm not going to be going back to SLRs, but I can take stills with my GH4 system though I am really only using that for video.

 

I don't think I want to go extremely wide (which rules out 12-18mm lenses) but a 21mm could still work well.

 

I'm not really in a rush as I mentioned and I will do my research. I do have the option of using the EVF on my M240 if need be (which I figured I might get if I ever get a 90mm summicron)