yet another lens choice question

[Clive Murray-White]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Background: I currently have just one lens for my M8 - Summicron 50 v4 and am perfectly happy with it.

 

What I'm looking for is a lens that is good but draws/renders well but quite differently to the cron.

 

For the work I do real wide angle is not an option. Since I could get anyone of these for roughly the same price which would you choose and why.

 

CV Nokton 35/1.2 draws in a different way to cron gives me some useful speed, size not a problem.

 

Zeiss ZM 35/2 draws beautifully and dfferently to cron, no speed advantage but its not a major issue

 

Elmarit 28/2.8 v3 maybe a little wider than I should go but pictures I've seen taken with it appeal.

 

Thanks - Clive

[don_panko]

There is a thread here concerning older Leica lenses on an M8 and how they provide special rendering. You may find that an older Summicron is what you are looking for so I wouldn't rule them out. My 35 Summicron from the mid 70s creates pictures that have a special appeal to me.

 

Just a thought for your consideration.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

My favorite lens on the M8 (.2), besides the 50 Summilux asph, is the 28 Summicron asph. The latter is somewhat less contrasty than the current Elmarit (also a nice little lens) and renders beautifully (IMO). With the crop factor, the 28 lens' FOV is approximately 37mm, not exactly wide, but a nice complement to your 50 (about 67mm equivalent FOV).

 

You might consider subscribing to Sean's site...Welcome to ReidReviews... to gain a broader perspective on these and many other options, including CV, Zeiss, etc.

 

Best bet, though, is to try some out at your local dealer. Personal preference thing.

 

Jeff

[Clive Murray-White]

Thanks for that - any opinions on the 3 lenses I've mentioned - only one of them is in the "old glass" category, Reid seems to like both Nokton and the Zeiss (once he got it to work).

[carstenw]

Over on FM there is a long thread, mostly populated with M9 shots:

 

Leica M8/M9/X1 Picture Thread - FM Forums

 

If you start at the back and go towards the front, you will find a fair number of ZM35/2 shots. It is a capable little lens, but not nearly as nice as the ZF/ZE versions. Close up it is a bit lacking.

 

I have seen many shots with the CV35/1.2 which looked somewhat flat and not too sharp, but in the hands of a good photographer, it can deliver some nice results.

 

I have heard good things about the 28 Elmarit pre-ASPH, but have seen few results from it.

 

This is all hear-say, so take it with a grain of salt.

[ramosa]

Clive:

 

The Cron 50 is, indeed, a fine lens. (I recently sold it as I had gotten a Lux 50. But that was a matter of relative preference for me.)

 

I have not used the Nokton or Zeiss, but do own the Elmarit 28mm ASPH. I, too, use an M8--and my first two lenses were the Cron 50 and Elmarit 28. On the M8, I would strongly prefer a 28 and 50 over a 35 and 50. (Personally, I like that spacing of focal lengths.)

 

So my recommendation would be that you consider the Elmarit 28 or another 28 (as others have suggested the Cron 28). That would lead to a consideration of the Elmarit's clean and sharp rendering versus the rendering (and higher price) of the Cron.

 

R

Edited December 18, 2010 by ramosa

[Clive Murray-White]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I should come clean about my reasons for an alternative lens, my bread and butter photography is taking pictures of my own sculptures, very recent one shown here, taken with M8 50 cron v 4. As you see I don't subscribe to the usual clinical, perfectly lit product style artwork shots but try to sneak in some of the experience a viewer may expect from actual contact with the sculpture.

 

My guess is that 28 would distort the form more than I'd be really happy with, 35 would give me a more "normal" view, my original assessment of this quest is that 35 cron would be too similar in effect to 50 cron.

 

In a way the problem is more related to a form of portrait photography than anything else though the subjects can be 4+ times larger than a normal head.

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!

[WestMichigan]

Hello C.M-W.,

while I can't speak 'scientifically' about how much Leica wide angle lenses perform when it comes to 'Distortion', there are quite powerful generalities in the Photographic World that I CAN Speak To. The essential truth is that Single Focal Length Lenses (Primes) are the most straight forward of Optical Designs to come up with and the simplest ones to correct for issues like Distortion, Vignetting, & the Like. It is when coming up with designs for Zoom Lenses that it becomes a 'Right Nightmare!' to make that lens equal to a Prime Lens at any particular Focal Length Setting. Zoom Lenses that achieve that pinnacle of achievement are quite few and far between - some might argue they're as scarce as Unicorns.

What I'd say you should draw from this info about Prime Lenses is that as you shop for a Wider Angle lens to use on your M8 you will Automatically be shopping for a Prime Lens and your purchase options will be limited to lenses mostly made by two of the premier nameplates in optics: Leica and Zeiss. That's not to say there won't be distortion of some sort 'in potentia' using a wide angle lens made by Leica or Zeiss (or any other manufacturer), but if your only 'personal' experience of Wide Angle Photography is from a Zoom Lens you might be very surprised at the results good prime lenses can achieve.

If I personally recall the images I saw of your sculptures on your website, you tend to favor having your sculptures perpendicular to both the camera body and perpendicular to the central axis of the lens. ie: not shooting from above or below your 'subjects' much, nor placing them at the edges of your frames - like 'most' good 'Portraits' are taken in my experience. I would be surprised that you wouldn't be quite happy with the Distortion Behavior of most of the Wide Angle Lens options available to you as an 'M' Shooter based on the images you shared on your site.

As you shop for a Lens I'd also recommend a check of the Voigtlander Options, they generally have quite good reputations for both Price Point and Optical Quality and unless you can 'expense' your purchase in some manner - their products are well worth a look at. Note: Cosina makes & designs the Voigtlander Lenses and they are also the 'contract' maker of many/most of the Zeiss Camera lenses, as well - doesn't mean the 'designs' are equivalent, but they are trusted enough to make Zeiss' Lenses for them which I consider not an insignificant thing.

Another route you could take is 'Renting' a lens or lenses to try, but -if memory serves- you are located in Australia and I have no idea what your options are. If you were in 'the states' I can recommend the outfit 'LensRentals.com'. I had a terrific experience renting something from them and their reputation is pretty good, as well. They have a nice selection of M mount lenses available, the last time I was on the site. It also occurs to me that "http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/" has a significant swath of the current M mount lenses reviewed on his sight. His samples might give you a sense of whether you like how a particular lens 'renders & draws'.

 

Hope I've been helpful

Richard in Michigan

 

 

 

I should come clean about my reasons for an alternative lens, my bread and butter photography is taking pictures of my own sculptures, very recent one shown here, taken with M8 50 cron v 4. As you see I don't subscribe to the usual clinical, perfectly lit product style artwork shots but try to sneak in some of the experience a viewer may expect from actual contact with the sculpture.

 

My guess is that 28 would distort the form more than I'd be really happy with, 35 would give me a more "normal" view, my original assessment of this quest is that 35 cron would be too similar in effect to 50 cron.

 

In a way the problem is more related to a form of portrait photography than anything else though the subjects can be 4+ times larger than a normal head.

[carstenw]

Note: the 35 Cron ASPH is much sharper than the 50 Cron, wide open. It has quite pleasant boke, but it can occasionally get a little harsh. 35mm comparison thread here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/29964-35-lux-asph-vs-35-cron.html

[pop]

I am comfortably far from being an expert. However:

 

If you are looking for a different rendering of your beautiful work, I would start at quite another end of the chain. Changing the lens is the most expensive option with the least quantifiable or even the least perceivable change in the result, I would think.

 

If the sample you gave above is representative, I would suggest to have a look at your lighting equipment before thinking about lenses.

[MikeD700]

Clive, Zeiss 2.0/35 ZM. You can't go wrong, you'll like it.

[ho_co]

... My guess is that 28 would distort the form more than I'd be really happy with, 35 would give me a more "normal" view ...

Clive, I'm a bit off-topic here, a bit pedantic, can't tell you what lens you want, but do want to clarify a couple terms.

 

Distortion figures are available for all the lenses from the manufacturers. Zeiss wides tend to be a bit lower in distortion than the Leica equivalents.

 

I'm guessing that here you're speaking not of optical distortion (curvature of straight lines), but of perspective exaggeration.

 

People often speak of "wide angle distortion" when they refer to the increased recession from foreground to background that wide angle shots often contain. But that is perspective exaggeration, not distortion. It arises from the difference between the viewer's and the taker's distance from the subject.

 

Perspective is determined solely by the location of the camera in relation to the subject. If you put a camera on a tripod and shoot a static subject, both a 21mm lens and a 50mm lens will reproduce the subject exactly the same way with exactly the same perspective. The difference is that the 21 will show a lot more of the surroundings.

 

Since the wide angle lens sees so much more, a photographer tends to move closer to the subject to reproduce it the same size in the frame. It's that change in camera position that changes perspective, because now the relationship between subject and background are different.

 

 

Back to your question, I'm not sure what you're looking for. If you're photographing sculptures like the (very nice!) one you show, all lenses are going to look just about the same. If you're trying for a different look on the portrait heads, I think playing with lighting as Philipp suggested may give you quicker results.

 

If you want to try a new lens, my move in this case would be toward a longer rather than a shorter one. A longer lens would let you shoot from further away and give you flatter, more natural perspective. Remember the "Saddam double" media scramble a few years back? That was all due to different subject distances shot with different lenses. One guy, varying perspective.

Edited December 18, 2010 by ho_co

[Clive Murray-White]

Richard, Philip, Carsten, Jeff, Don & Mike (hello again haven't spoken since Richard's "shall I or shan't I M thread) I've been doing the home work you've all set me! my eyes are nearly falling out of my head and funny but Mike's comment pretty much matches where my head is going. Only one thing though, my gut feeling through looking at millions of examples is that ZM 35/2.8 rather than ZM 35/2 may actually be a better choice - clearly either would give me a a very nice alterative to the cron 50.

 

Philipp - I know what you mean about lighting, its an interesting topic in itself and a real balancing act - my own view is that if I manage to get a picture that just looks as if I've gone into the studio and casually snapped a shot of a sculpture in available light the result often appears more "honest", something that I think is an important factor in communicating what I do. I actually used a bounce flash off a silver umbrella + natural light for that picture

 

So it now looks as if the choice is between ZM 35/2 or 2.8

[WestMichigan]

Hello C.M-W,

I haven't used any of the Zeiss Rangefinder Lenses, but can say those that I HAVE Used were Excellent. It does occur to me that I should note something to keep in mind as you look at Image Samples from various lenses: Don't Forget The 1.3x Field Of View (FOV) Crop of the M8 you use. If the images you base your choice upon were shot with a Film Camera or an M9 then, naturally, the images will be including a wider angle of view than the M8. Doing a bit of 'due diligence' as to what image comes from what camera could help you avoid being disappointed when you get to bayonet whichever lens you get onto your camera first hand.

I am wondering if you shoot handheld or on a tripod? This is due to the fact if you are supporting the camera it can make the choice between the f2 and f2.8 Zeiss Thirty Fives you mention a bit easier if the extra 'speed' of f2 isn't something you need. I presume that Zeiss commands a price premium for that extra 'speed' and (if memory serves) the f2.8 model has a reputation as a bit sharper of a lens. Although 'sharper' in this case might be more of a fight between 'how many angels fit on the head of pin' than it is a statement that one lens is a 'dog' and the other is 'terrific'.

 

Sincerely

Richard in Michigan

 

 

So it now looks as if the choice is between ZM 35/2 or 2.8

[Clive Murray-White]

Thanks again Richard, Yes I've been looking at M8 examples wherever possible, yep I do use a heavy tripod. I think I have a tendancy, like many others, to almost automatically assume f2 is more useful than f2.8 regardless of what I may actually use the lens for.

 

Howard - perspective exaggeration is what I meant. Also your mention of a longer more traditional portrait lens makes so much sense that I may have to question my original premise, focusing a 75 would be a lot harder though.

[MikeD700]

I expected Clive to know the 35 x 1.33 = almost 50mm eq thing. I wouldn't go in to the minute differences between lenses. f2.0/35 (even in 1.33 mode ) is fine for almost everything; the supreme do-it-all lens.

 

I put my 25 yrs or something old 2.0/35 Ai-S on my D700 every now and then, and am still amazed by the quality.

 

Go for it Clive!

[Clive Murray-White]

Mike you are right I do know that stuff, one of the more disturbing things that gets said quite often is that the Nikon & Canon mount Zeiss 35/2 is better than the Leica mount version.

 

My pre-M8 4/3s combo for sculpture was E-3 + Ziess c/y 50/28/85 & Leica R 50 and 35 all effectively longer than 50 cron.

 

The "Go for it" reminds me of that previous thread! ThorkilB would tell me to forget anything past 28mm even if I don't go street shooting too much.

[ho_co]

... your mention of a longer more traditional portrait lens makes so much sense that I may have to question my original premise ...

 

May or may not make sense; I just threw that out to muddy the waters.

 

But you're right, depth of field with the longer lenses becomes a bigger issue and focusing needs to be more exact.

 

As you know, one of the benefits of the M camera is the frame preview lever. Use it to see whether you'll be more comfortable with a wider lens or with a portrait lens. It'll only give you a ballpark, won't give you the image results you need to compare.

 

Most of my own M8 shooting is with wider focal lengths. The 50 already acts like a short tele, portrait lens. So your 'gut feeling' that you want to go wider is probably right.

 

And you can always change your mind later!

Edited December 19, 2010 by ho_co

[WestMichigan]

Hi Mike & C. M-W.,

Please don't take offense at my punting my 'due diligence' inquiry on F.O.V. out there, I know from hard experience that sometimes the simplest of oversights make for the most expensive of errors. Just trying to 'help' a fellow forum member.

After reading about the 75mm piqueing your interest in an earlier post - I 'Was' going to suggest making sure you have enough room to use the lens effectively in your workshop, but since you were using a 2x FOV Cropping Olympus E3 and 'nice' Zeiss & Leica Glass (presumably successfully) it would appear you've got the 'space' to make a short-tele like the 75 work for you. The 'nice' glass also tells me you've probably got some refined taste in 'Glass'. Kudos to you.

I would note that if adding more 'atmosphere' around your sculptures and 'setting a scene' around them is one of the purposes of reaching for a shorter focal length lens, I'd personally lean more towards a 28mm than a 35mm wide angle. Once the F.O.V. factor is taken into account a 28 operationally equates to a 35 and (in my personal experience) that's the focal length where the 'benefits' of a wide angle lens begin to show themselves. It's a fairly personal judgment so don't take my word as gospel in the matter. I would definitely say you are someone uniquely able by skill and profession to make qualified choices about your visual arts options.

Depending on your budget, the 35mm Summilux f1.4 lenses - going back 1 or 2 generations - have spectacular reputations for how they render out of focus areas (Bokeh) while giving terrific 'in focus' results, as well. The price tag for new and used ones is also equally spectacular I hear. Just wanted to toss that out there to consider.

 

Please let us know what you came up with as a choice in the end.

 

Richard in Michigan

 

Mike you are right I do know that stuff, one of the more disturbing things that gets said quite often is that the Nikon & Canon mount Zeiss 35/2 is better than the Leica mount version.

 

My pre-M8 4/3s combo for sculpture was E-3 + Ziess c/y 50/28/85 & Leica R 50 and 35 all effectively longer than 50 cron.

 

The "Go for it" reminds me of that previous thread! ThorkilB would tell me to forget anything past 28mm even if I don't go street shooting too much.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Clive Murray-White]

Hi Richard, all very considerate suggestions especially you thinking of how much space I may have in my workshop, the Zeiss 85/2.8, very sharp, (couldn't see any reason to get the fast portrait version when it was going to become ef 170mm) was a little crampted for room!!

 

Your lux ideas reinforce my first idea of getting the fastest of my under $AU1k options, the Nokton 35/1.2 latest version which is OK with M8, my bones are sort of telling me that it's speed will alow me to blurr out the studio with pretty nice bokeh to what ever degree I want. The more I look at the Zeiss picture examples the more worried I get - I don't mean to offend anyone but after a while of looking at the many images on the net I started to realise that both Biogon 35/2 and 2.8 regularly made what I'd call calendar photos, sure the users may have done that on purpose and clearly lots of people like it, but I've now judged that it's not quite right for my work.

 

A bit of Nokton grunge is becoming quite appealing especially as it has quite a different look to what you'd expect for sculpture - which is as much part of the game as anything else. Being new to M8 just getting it to work may be the biggest challenge.

 

thanks again - Clive