Focal lengths to accompany a 50mm

[asiafish]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28 Elmarit ASPH.  Sharp, small, light, what's not to like.

[lmitch6]

My lineup is the 50mm Summicron v5, 21mm Super Elmar, and a 35mm Summarit, which I'm likely going to swap for a Summicron. For my shooting, it's the perfect lineup.  Hope this helps!

[Advertisement]

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

[JoanP]

I have the 28mm Elmarit and the 90mm Summicron in addition to my 50mm. For really wide I have the CV15mm V3. I'm thinking about adding the 21mm SEM and possibly a 135mm.

[microview]

28 Elmarit ASPH.  Sharp, small, light, what's not to like.

FOV? It stops me considering the Leica Q, although the version 4 Elmarit-M (said to be optically preferable to the ASPH) is a lovely little lens and I shan't sell mine.

Edited July 19, 2015 by microview

[asdfbill]

15mm voigtlander

[IkarusJohn]

James expresses this a little unsympathetically, but then he frequently spends time posting to say that there is no point in posting.

 

You may like the rendering of a particular lens, or you might like its ergonomics.  Those are personal matters no one can really answer for you.  For myself, I like 28mm, and it goes well with the 50mm lenses I have.  That, however, isn't very informative.

 

What is informative, though, is to look at the difference in image size by reference to your viewfinder.  With a 28, you don't need an external viewfinder (they are a hassle - they catch on things, and why have two windows to look through?).  So, here is a useful comparison, which shows that these really are two quite difference, but complimentary lenses:

 

 

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!

Edited July 20, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28mm

[Ai_Print]

I have five different major camera systems I use that vary in complexity and redundancy but with Leica I keep it super simple. 

 

In using it for the past ten years, I not long ago arrived at what I consider a perfect setup, 28, 35 & 50. They all have what I consider to be adequate to good frame lines in a .68-.72 finder, I find external VF attachments to be very disruptive to a shooting workflow, never use them. It then just becomes a point of figuring if you want all those lenses fast or don’t mind one or two being less of low light duty and enjoy a more compact lens selection. 

 

For me the 35 1.4 represents “the” perfect 1.4 / low light lens, but that is just me. So the 50mm is a F2 Planar and the 28mm is a 2.8 Asph. 

 

I’d say if you have a 50 1.4 and are not itching to get a 35, get a 28mm 2.8 Asph. It will be *such* a departure from that 480 gram brass beast you are toting around that I can almost assure that you in some way, will feel a sense of liberation. 

 

Personally I got rid of my chrome 50 asph because I had to be far too gentle with it to keep the front section from coming loose every 6 months, it is just not a good design for that heavy of a small lens in my experience.

 

Couple of shots, to see how small it is, me using the 240 and 28 and then for an article I was doing on overcrowding of our local mountains, shot from the hip ( those kids were beat, lol ):

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!

Edited July 20, 2015 by Ai_Print

[dante]

For an M9 (or M240), I would go with a 21-35mm Dual Hexanon. Gives you very wide, gives you a fallback 35mm setting, well-built, and comes with a dual FL external finder (imagine a CV 21mm finder on steroids). No corner color shifts, no coding required.

 

I would also strongly consider the ZM 18mm. It does not have the corner smear that most symmetrical 21mm lenses have. It is tack sharp and not very expensive (~$800 used). The ZM 24 is also phenomenally good.

 

Dante

[algrove]

Sticking to the lenses you optioned and noting your preferences of landscape and architecture, I would go with the excellent M 21. Keep in mind with a question like yours you have opened up a can of worms and we each come from various FL likes and dislikes. If you use glasses even a 28 will be difficult to see the entire frame in your cameras RF.

Edited July 20, 2015 by algrove

[jdlaing]

Accompany a 50 = a 35mm.

In addition to a 50 = all the rest.

[tobey bilek]

My advice is to plan the entire set,  then pick one to start.   Otherwise you end up on a buy and sell routine.

 

Going back to Leica film days,  35,50,90.135 was the preferred set.  I would agree.   If you have never shot with wides,  do not go extreme as good composition is exceeding difficult.   They take more in for sure, but details become small.  They are most useful for emphasizing foreground objects.  If you have a M with frame selector,  use it to see what other lenses do.  If not, a 24 takes in 2x the 50,  both width and height.  A 35 about 1.5.

 

In general,  35 & 50 are the most used lenses followed by 90.

 

The planned set should not include 21 & 24  or 24 & 28   or 28 and 35 unless you buy a 21 and then things get heavy to carry.

Edited July 21, 2015 by tobey bilek

[Exodies]

Either a 35 or a 50 (or a 90 but I suspect that would be a less common opinion) is good for a one lens day out; when it is not optimal, you will take the shot anyway just as a record of the scene and be content. A 21 taken out by itself will several times a day leave you feeling annoyed that you didn't bring a longer lens. A two lens day out is a bit of a chore.

By day out, I mean just having the camera with you in case; for a planned shoot of course the story is different.

[almoore]

Going back to Leica film days,  35,50,90.135 was the preferred set.  I would agree...The planned set should not include...28 and 35 unless you buy a 21

 

I picture a set of ancient scrolls with the holy protocols of Leica wisdom set down to keep future generations on the straight and narrow.

 

As an instinctive blasphemer I'd say that a 28, a 35 and a 50 would cover every eventuality.

[efreed2754]

Gee no one answer.   Like what IWC and IkarusJohn said.

 

MATE covers all sins nicely but expensive.  I have 35 and then 24 (without MATE) and 18.   All get used depending on situation.

 

You didn't mention which camera you are using.  If an M suggest 24 using LV if needed.  Natural rendering and just wonderful.

 

I don't like 28 field of view, you may.  Not needing a finder is a good reason for 28 with enough difference from 50.

 

So in summary 35, 28 or 24 next most logical choices.  As you go wider will find less use but more creative artistry advisable.

[tobey bilek]

Gee no one answer.   Like what IWC and IkarusJohn said.

 

MATE covers all sins nicely but expensive.  I have 35 and then 24 (without MATE) and 18.   All get used depending on situation.

 

You didn't mention which camera you are using.  If an M suggest 24 using LV if needed.  Natural rendering and just wonderful.

 

I don't like 28 field of view, you may.  Not needing a finder is a good reason for 28 with enough difference from 50.

 

So in summary 35, 28 or 24 next most logical choices.  As you go wider will find less use but more creative artistry advisable

 

 

I hope you really did not expect one.  This is like single or two story house, Ford or Chevy, and the list goes on.

 

It still comes down to the kind of pictures you make which we can not know.  

[efreed2754]

I hope you really did not expect one.  This is like single or two story house, Ford or Chevy, and the list goes on.

 

It still comes down to the kind of pictures you make which we can not know.  

 

Yes fully agree.  OP is seeking to find own path based on others experiences to see what applies to his/her situation.

[Herr Barnack]

As a compliment to the 50 Summicron, I would recommend either the 28 Summicron or the 28 Elmarit.

[semi-ambivalent]

 With a 28, you don't need an external viewfinder (they are a hassle - they catch on things, and why have two windows to look through?).

Perhaps just to be contrary, I use an external viewfinder with a 28 (and a 21) because it shows the weighting of FG objects; something the VF simply cannot do aside from the focal length built in to it. I've found 28mm to be the point where this weighting begins to really make itself visible although it's in 35mm as well. If you manage your image then wides simply get more in, something that backing up can often achieve without the cost of another lens. But they can supply some energy when you use that FG/BG thing they have going for them.

 

I don't find externals catching on anything as much as the neckstrap does so I avoid that hand-carry business. I've had a Nikon F stripped out of my hand twice in the past; once by a water fountain head at the zoo. Finally, the two windows (for me anyway) is a non-issue, and I don't use hyperfocal focusing to avoid moving my eye. There is the issue of price, that's up to the buyer.

 

thanks,

s-a

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bocaburger]

I have an assortment of rangefinder lenses ranging from 12mm to 135mm.  When I travel I select a 3 or 4 lens kit based on what I anticipate will give me as much flexibility as possible for the particular destination(s).  The two kits I have used most are 12-21-35-90 and 15-28-50-135.