Planning on buying M9, which wide angle lens should I add to my collection???

[siulonbow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I am debating on getting a M9 camera body to go with one additional wide angle lens. I have a 28mm cron, a 35mm Summaron, a 50mm lux, a 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmar. Knowing that the M9 is a FF, I would more likely keeping the 35/50/90 and returning the 28mm to my uncle.

 

Currently, I am interest in buying a 21mm, a 24mm, or a Tri-Elmar 16/18/21 lens to take architectural and landscape photos. (I have started a thread about choosing a 21mm earlier this week, and thanks for the reply by many members here) For the FF camera, which wide angle lens you would recommend (21mm, tri mar, or 24mm)? For 21 and 24, should I get a lux 21 or lux 24; is the photo quality better than Elmar 21 f/2.8 that I should invest another $2000? One of the worry that I have is that I like to take pictures indoor with low light and am worry that the f/2.8 might not be fast enough.

 

Thanks again!!!

[lars_bergquist]

The 28mm Summicron is a lens with a wonderful performance, and extremely useful for indoor work in available light. 28mm is also the widest lens that the M9 finder can accommodate. Anything shorter needs an accessory finder. So I will very definitely keep my 28mm 'cron ASPH. Whenever I have sold off a good lens, I have come to regret it later.

 

Which is the lens you use most, or will use most, 35 or 50mm? This has a bearing on what will be the next step in the wide direction. Focal lengths in a ratio of 1 : 2 is a good old idea, so if 50mm, then 24/25mm. A 24 is easier to handle than a 21 (perspectival distortion, composing the picture). If 35mm, first thoughts go to 21mm. Shorter lengths are tricky, really. You will probably want a speed of 2.8, so you can use the lens indoors at times.

 

The 16-18-21mm Wide Angle Tri-Elmar or 'WATE' is a fiddly lens, actually a zoom with the ridiculous zoom rate of 1 : 1.3! With lengths as short as these, zooming is totally unnecessary: a step forward or backward is all it takes to change your perspective pretty radically. The WATE is expensive, needs the large 'Frankenfinder' and is error-inducing: You must switch lengths on both the finder and the lens.

 

My own superwide is 18mm. It is actually a Zeiss with a ditto finder. A superwide is really an 'occasional' lens for me, and the Zeiss is quite good, so I could not justify paying two or three times as much for Leica glass. Also, the Super-Elmar did not even exist officially when I bought the Zeiss! A good excuse.

 

But 'au fond', only you can answer the question you put.

 

The old man from the Age of the 2.8cm Hektor

[marknorton]

Just as the 24mm Summilux is a special lens on the M8 - because it's the widest the camera can accomodate without a finder - the lens which is so obviously missing from Leica's lineup is a 28mm Summilux - I agree with Lars' comments about the 28mm Summicron but there's something about those fast wide-angles, especially since the M9 has not improved noise performance as much as I had hoped.

[danyves]

Do Buy a 28 Cron and use it for a year. Too much lens and you won't know which to use.

 

28/35/50/90 is a complete set of lenses.

 

After a year you may or not consider a second hand Elmarit 2.8/24mm

[NZDavid]

The 2.8/24 is a cracker, but occasionally you may want something wider. I wouldn't go for the Tri-Elmar -- posted images show some barrel distortion. You can correct that in post processing but that's a hassle. The 18 or 21 would be worth considering, and 2.8 should be fast enough. I have also seen some good reports on the Zeiss. C/V would be even more cost-effective. One good thing about lenses: they are a lasting investment.

[siulonbow]

Thank you for your response, and esp. thanks for Lars' long feedback to my questions. I have learned a lot. Thanks.

 

Currently, I am using M8, therefore I use 28mm a lot to accommodate the crop. I mostly use 28, then 50, then 90, then 35. Part of the reason I use 35 the least is because the distance is somewhat in between 28 and 50. I can use the 2 lenses to cover the range of 35.

 

Part of the reasons I am looking for a wide angle like 21 or 24 is because when I went to a trip at Japan, I took a lot of random pictures on the street. The 28mm I used at that time can’t cover a lot of stuff that I see; hence, I have to take multiple pictures. Also, I like taking pictures of landscape; I feel that my current 28 would not help much. Please let me know what you think.

 

I have noticed that one of the member recommend 2.8f. This is another issue I am debating about. Shall I spend another $2000 for 1.4f? Can anyone please give me advise on this issue? Thanks

[danyves]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you did use the 28 with the M8 it was like a 37mm. With the M9 become again a true 28.

 

More than enough for street photography, like it was done by Gary Winogrand, or Lee Friandler.

 

Otherwise the usefull addition would be as said the Elmarit 2.8/24mm, light and compact. in proportion to the new 1.4. My sole lens on the M8.

 

My avatar was shoot with a Elmarit 2.8/28mm on a M4.

 

Do not spend the money for f 1.4. Costly, bulkersome and for specialists. Do not forget you do now with the M9 better high ISO up to 1600 ISO.

[biglouis]

I still think you should consider a Tre-Elmar 16-18-21. It is a quite unique and wonderful lens. Yes, you do need the dedicated finder which is big but on the other hand is the best external viewfinder ever made. On a FF M9 I would imagine the results would be astonishing and as the high iso performance is better on the M9 the relatively slow f4 max aperture is not so limiting.

 

LouisB