Jump to content

Help me create a Lens Kit for the M-A


lencap

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings -

 

I treated myself to a M-A, and I'd like your help deciding upon lenses for my kit.

 

I intend to only shoot film, and initially to shoot only Tri-X, but I expect to move into color film as well.  

 

My intent is to optimize the lenses for film work, but also with the potential to work well with digital sensors if the need/desire arises.  I'm coming from a background of 28/50 for 95% of my photographs.  I bought the Summarit 35mm F/2.4 (latest version) as my "base" lens for the M-A  to force me out of my comfort zone.  It also straddles both the 28 & 50 perspective, a compromise on my standard way of viewing the world, and I welcome the challenge.  Frankly, I've never "got" street photography - "Why am I taking pictures of people I don't know, will never meet again, and have no connection to?" - but after studying the works of many "street" photographers who do "get it", the 35mm deeper depth of field perspective versus the thin in-focus layer combined with lots of bokeh from my 50mm perspective seems intriguing.  

 

So the question is: "Now What?"  Many suggest just shoot with the 35mm lens for a year and see what I learn.  Others suggest adding more Summarit lenses now - 50/75, and maintain the 46mm diameter to make filter selection easier across the entire lens kit.   Some in this camp also note that the slower f/2.4 lens will actually mate very well with digital bodies (if I go in that direction), and may draw images more consistent with great film lens designs of the past - enhancing the fun of shooting film with the M-A.  They argue that the Summarit line may be the "best" solution for my lens kit since it works for all of my anticipated shooting.  Still others note that Leica makes great lenses, but they are really great "wide open" and for that you need the Summilux lenses.  

 

So instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, and potentially wasting a lot of energy and money,  I'd like your thoughts on how to build the lens kit, primarily designed for the M-A and film, but flexible enough to accommodate digital bodies.  Your thoughts are welcome, and my thanks in advance for your comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lencap.

 

If 95% of your work is with 28 & 50 (similar to me) why would you not want these two focal lengths as this is how you best see the world? You know these work for you.

 

Having said that, for me, 35mm is an excellent general purpose FL if I'm going somewhere with only one lens and have no specific expectations.   My preference is to head out with a 28 & 50 use the particular photographic task may require otherwise.  So your 35 Summarit will be perfect as a general FL unless you find it too slow.

 

Which 28 & 50 is a different question.  Sticking with Leica (and of course there are good alternatives around), if you're shooting film then that extra stop in a Summilux 50 and Summicron 28 for example may be worthwhile.  I you want to travel lighter and cheaper, then the slower lenses would be a better option.  That the Summiluxes are able to be shot wide open doesn't mean they don't have an aperture ring and produce excellent IQ at smaller apertures.  Do you need that extra stop or are you into razor thin DOF on your subjects.

 

It depends which wheel you don't want to reinvent. If it's the 'how I see the world' wheel then get a 28 and 50 as well. Then experiment beyond these FLs in due course (28 is great for street - just have a look at Adam Miller's street photography here in the Forum with his old 28 prefocused with small aperture.

 

Kind regards

Mark

Edited by MarkP
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies - much appreciated.  I also welcome your thoughts about specific lenses and how they may differ when shooting film versus digital.  Are there any lenses to avoid for film work?  Any that work particularly well with film?  I'm thinking specifically about the limited dynamic range of film versus digital, the differences in how the sensor gathers light (AA filters/angles/etc) versus film, and other things that I may not be aware of.

 

Again, thanks for the thoughts.  Please keep them coming.

 

PS:  I didn't mean to "troll" on street photography - it's my lack of understanding of the subject matter, not the skill and art that's required to make those photographs, or the role of Leica in capturing street topics over the decades.   My intent is to learn more about mating lenses with film versus digital sensors, and what differences in those media may mean when printing photographs.  Street photography was just an example of why I selected the 35mm lens as my first lens for the M-A, combined with my desire to learn more about various focal lengths and perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think you're over thinking all of this. 

 

As said above if you have always preferred 28 or 50 I think you should have stuck with one or both of those, but 35 is a great 'all rounder' lens. 

 

All lenses will work well with digital and film. Some people like the older lower contrast lenses on digital but it's all personal. There's a thread on this site about using older lenses on the digital M's and lots of example photos, take a look at that. 

 

There's lots of variables between capturing an image and final presentation (print or digital) that affect how the image looks. 

 

The only issue with older lenses on digital is focus shift on some and that they may need some recalibration to focus correctly. Some, definitely not all! 

 

To add - if you're using film then you don't need to worry about the calibration issues and focus shift is rarely an issue on film. 

Edited by earleygallery
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

What he said :-)

 

 

If you search through the Forum there are also innumerable threads discussing newer vs older lenses and their rendering.  

 

 

However, I would recommend decision making strictly in this order (unless GAS overtakes you and there's something you just must have):

1. Focal length (but I think you're nuts not going for a 28 & 50 as discussed above)

2. Maximum aperture

3. Price range

4. only then you can you try to decide which particular lens or set of lenses (Leica or not) you want within those requirements/constraints. The decision regarding the transition to digital is also important here as the IQ benefits of some of the new expensive esoteric lenses would less noticeable with film that digital (and even then often very little gain for a lot of weight and cost), and as James wrote the issue of focus shift on digital with some of the legacy lenses.

 

Regards again,

Edited by MarkP
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Film is a far more tolerant medium than digital sensors. The random structure of film means that aliasing isn't an issue, so there are no AA filter issues; sensitivity is based on each film stock, so there are no UV/IR filter issues; film accepts light from any angle, so there are no angle of incidence or corner-coloration issues; and film is less reflective than digital sensors, so there are fewer flare problems. As far as I know, the unique issues related to film are in the filmstock itself, in film flatness during exposure, during development, and throughout processing -- none of which matters to your lens choices.

 

So, as to "now what?" Go shoot.

 

Cheers,

Jon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On film Leicas I always used 50 more than 35, and 90 for more reach. I have the 2.5 versions of the 35 & 50 Summarits, and it's nice to have the same size and handling. On my M9 I use the 35 most of the time, and I like the Summarit over my other 35s.

While the 50 Summarit can give very nice results, I find in real shooting I miss focus a bit more than with a Summicron; probably because of the faster focus throw. A 50 Summicron on a film M is always a great combination.

I also like the 90 Summarit, especially on film, as it forces me to tighter framing. It balances nicely on a film M. 90 is now about the point where my old eyes do better with an A7, which I use for longer lenses.

If you want to go classic wide, the Voigtlander 21 f4 is great on film (and still nice on my M9), but you need the bother of an accessory finder for wider than 28.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all of the helpful comments - this forum is remarkable!

 

You've all got me thinking, and I have a few questions:

 

  • In terms of "low contrast" lenses and film, can someone explain a bit more how using a lower contrast lens would impact the final look of the photograph?  Back in the day I used to use colored filters when shooting black and white film - mostly yellow, some green, rarely others.  In many instances using filters helped with contrast and often reduced the need to dodge and burn.  Do today's lenses change that relationship with higher contrast lenses compared to what was available years ago?
  • Also back in the day, much of my shooting was at very low ISO - especially when shooting color.  I typically had moderately fast lenses, nothing faster than a f/2.0, and most closer to f/2.8 (no Leica gear then).  Later on with my Hasselblad gear many lenses were even slower (f/4).  Despite the slower lens/film speeds I worked off a tripod if needed, and generally enjoyed the results, especially when using a light meter (which I plan to do with the M-A).  I don't see many posts about using a tripod with a Leica film camera, but I was wondering if that is something to consider, and if so, should that impact my thoughts about aperture when building a lens kit?  
  • Is there a benefit to having either APO or ASPH lenses for film in general, and black and white film in particular?  Do these lenses make a significant different for digital images, and should I consider this as well?
Edited by lencap
Link to post
Share on other sites

Before digital, the two things which gave me the most concern were fine grain for big prints and film speed for indoor use.

The former I eventually solved with medium format ; the latter resolved with film pushing and fast lenses.

 

I had a great time this year with my M-A loaded with Plus-X or Tmax400 - used far more than digital

The 28mm Elmarit ASPH and 50mm collapsible Elmar-M were my first choice in lenses - for their great quality and small size.

Frequently I carried a compact fast lens either the MS optical 35/1.4 or Voigtlander 40/1.4 - for low light or narrow d.o.f use.

Occasionally the 90mm Macro Elmar got into the mix.

 

Last weekend I went out with the M-A, a 28 Summilux and 50mm Summilux - That combination failed to inspire and I only took a handful of shots.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you have a 35 and get a 75 you don't really need either a 50 or a 90.

 

That's what I did.....and very happy...DONT forget to consider weight as well which is why I went with a 35 / 75 2 lens kit.

 

The very best advice I can give is for you to try and determine if you will build a 2,3,4 lens etc kit and know if your tendency is toward wide or tele. I know this is hard to do but it's exactly as Jaapv says perhaps a 75 instead of a 50 & 90.

 

I spent all my time thinking where I wanted to end up and how to get there, then the choices are easy to execute as your ready to invest

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings -

I treated myself to a M-A, and I'd like your help deciding upon lenses for my kit.

...

Sounds like you're intending to use your M-A the same way I tend to use my M4-2 and M-D typ 262. I have many more lenses than I need, but I tend to use mostly 35/75 nowadays. My favorite 35 is an ancient Summilux 35 v2 from 1972, my 75 is the current Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4. Both produce outstanding results on both cameras.

 

The 28-50 pairing is also excellent. For that I have two Voigtländer Color Skopars, the 50/2.5 and 28/3.5.

 

Since you have a fine 35 already, I'd just go with the 75 and use that set for a time, see where your photography goes from there. Both those lenses perform beautifully on the digital bodies too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly suggest 35mm summicron V2 and 35mm summicron V3.

 

I always wondered about the differences between those two lenses. Some people say they're the same while some others say that there is a slight difference between those two versions.

 

Your results could contribute positively on answering many questions and would be a welcome additional knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me all this lens talk seems bassackwards. The main thing is what you want to do with your photography.

 

Some people shoot landscape essentially because it gives them on ongoing lens resolution test, or another form of lens test; no problem, they know what they want to do. If you don't "get" street photography, all that it means that you're not interested in saying something about city life, or modern life, if you will. Again, no problem: at least you won't be going around photographing homeless people, or people sitting on park benches from the back. There are lots of other types of photography that you can do.

 

Also, you don't have to have a "message" in your photography. Speaking of his own work in one youtube video Ralph Gibson quotes Sam Goldwyn saying to a young director, "If you want to send a message go to Western Union, don't try to make movies". You can do a lot worse in your photography than Ralph Gibson. 

 

Again, the point, it seems to me, is to figure out what you want to photograph and why. Then the lens(es) you'll need will be obvious. All this talk about this kens being better than that one is meaningless unless there is a context to it in terms of the photography you want to do — and, even then, I'm not so sure theres is. 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of "low-contrast" lenses and film, can someone explain a bit more how using a lower-contrast lens would impact the final look of the photograph?

The differences of (global) contrast between lenses are only nuances. The influence of analog and digital processing on the final photograph's contrast is higher by one or two orders of magnitude. So don't worry too much about lens contrast. Modern lenses are all high-contrast anyway. To get a real low-contrast lens, you'd have to go for pre-war lenses, such as the uncoated Elmar 5 cm 1:3.5.

 

 

Back in the day I used to use colored filters when shooting black-and-white film—mostly yellow, some green, rarely others.  In many instances using filters helped with contrast and often reduced the need to dodge and burn.  Do today's lenses change that relationship with higher contrast lenses compared to what was available years ago?

This has not changed since those days.

 

 

Is there a benefit to having either Apo or Asph lenses for film in general, and black-and-white film in particular?

Not really. Both Apo(chromatic corretion) and Asph(erical lens elements) are just means (among others) for the lens designer to correct aberrations and to improve lens performance. They are particularly useful for fast lenses, but even your not-so-fast Summarit-M 35 mm is an Asph lens.

 

Simply choose your lenses by focal length, speed, and budget but not by buzzwords like 'Apo' or Asph.' If your chosen lens happens to be an Asph or an Apo or both then it's fine. If not then it's fine as well. If you are happy with your Summarit-M 35 mm Asph (which in my opinion is better than the Summicron-M 35 mm Asph due to nicer bokeh and less inclination to flare) then I'd say the natural choice for a second lens was the Summarit-M 75 mm. The 1:2.5 version is cheaper in the used market; the 1:2.4 version has a slightly shorter minimum focus distance. The optics are the same in both.

 

 

Do these lenses make a significant different for digital images, and should I consider this as well?

No.

 

 

Last weekend I went out with the Leica M-A, a 28 mm Summilux, and 50 mm Summilux. That combination failed to inspire and I only took a handful of shots.

This is funny bcause before I noticed that the thread opener already has a 35 mm lens, I was going to recommend the 28+50 combo to him. That's the combo I am having a lot of fun with on the Leica M-A lately. And that's even though I used to dislike the 28 mm focal length. But over the last couple of years, I am gravitating towards shorter lenses—from 35+50+90 to 35+75 to 35+50 ... and now 28+50. And, to my own surprise, the 28 mm even gets significantly more use than the 50 mm. By the way, the 28-mm frame lines are easier to see and to use in the M-A's viewfinder than in the digital M models' viewfinders.

 

So—what exactly failed to inspire? The fact that the lenses both were the Summilux variety? Or the 28+50 combo of focal lengths?

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Erwin Puts has traced the changes of lens characteristics for Leica lenses, and how they have been optimized for different priorities as films and perceptions changed. One major change was in the late 1960s when it was found the higher contrast in the fine detail matching the resolution of the film / print made the image appear sharper than optimizing for pure resolution with more subtle contrast. The v1 and v2 Summicrons had gained some contrast compared to previous lenses, but were still emphasizing smooth color response and resolution. The Summicron V3 was the first M lens to try and match contrast to the film characteristics, using concepts tried with the Leicaflex Summicron. The V3 of 1969 was the first Summicron I bought, also in 1969.

After the V3 all Leica lenses were based on this contrast balance concept, which was also primary in the v2 50 Summilux and V4-5 Summicrons.

More recent lenses consider other factors due to changing customer preferences and the characteristics of digital sensors. In some ways many prefer the older lenses on digital.

I shoot more film than digital now, and my old V3 50 Summicron (and even my v2 35 Summicron bought the same year) add something to the images. I also have the v1&2 Summicrons, and while the pictures with them are lovely, there is an added snap when the V3 images are compared side-by-side.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...