Most useful lens for FF

[Leicaiste]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We could see a new Summilux 35/1,4 Asph next spring.

 

It seems logical.

 

The current version is the older Asph. in the stable, the third leica M lens using aspherical lenses, after the limited 35/1,4 Aspherical and the old Noctilux f1,2.

 

Some users are reporting back focus and it is sometimes prone to flare.

 

For the time being, I would look at the 35/2 Asph.

[spersky]

For me it is the 50mm Lux. I love it and use it most of the time.

[wlaidlaw]

If I was only allowed one lens, I would cheat and go for a V2 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. This lens was on my M8 most of the time when I was travelling and now the same applies to my M9. Only, when the light starts to fade or I am indoors, do I change over to a 35 ASPH Summilux. I am very surprised Leica has not re-introduced an updated version of this lens. With improving optical abilities, I am sure they could this time go for the much cheaper option of a stepped zoom, like the WATE. If they could extend the range to make it a Quad-Elmar of 28-75, how good would that be on an M9. I am sure it would be a big seller.

 

Wilson

[tpkoester]

My personal favorite is the 50 Lux ASPH. The only alternative for a one lens setup to me would be the 35 Cron ASPH.

 

Your choice depends highly on Your personal preferences 'what' You are shooting from 'where'.

 

ciao tpk

[wattsy]

I am sure they could this time go for the much cheaper option of a stepped zoom, like the WATE. If they could extend the range to make it a Quad-Elmar of 28-75,

 

Sorry Wilson, but that sounds ugly. Apart from the size issue, you'll need an extra control ring for switching the framelines. As you know, one of the beauties of the old 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar was how it switched framelines as you changed focal length (a system that isn't going to work with a stepped zoom). It didn't matter so much for the WATE (apart from requiring the fussy system of entering the focal length manually on the camera LCD). The Quad-Elmar doesn't sound very Leica M-like to me.

[wattsy]

Going back to the OP's question I'd throw the 40/F2 into the mix.

[jlancasterd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Going back to the OP's question I'd throw the 40/F2 into the mix.

 

The problem with a 40mm lens is the lack of a viewfinder frame for this focal length. I had the CV version for an M8 but sold it quite quickly because it was so inconvenient in use.

 

Having found that I used a 28/3.5 (37mm equivalent on the smaller sensor) for 95% of my work with an M8, I bought a Summarit 35/2.5 as the first lens for my M9 and have not been disappointed. The 35mm Summicron is also excellent, but considerably more expensive. The CV 35/1.4 suffers from rather ugly bokeh.

[E.M]

I have a lux 35 asph. and I want a cron 35 asph sooner or later. Size matters.

 

Etienne Michiels

[carstenw]

I have both 35 Lux ASPH and 50 Lux ASPH, and had the 35 Cron ASPH. I would personally choose the 50 Lux ASPH over both the others, by far.

 

It does depend on preferred focal length though. I use a 35 only in crowds, something I don't need so often.

[wlaidlaw]

Sorry Wilson, but that sounds ugly. Apart from the size issue, you'll need an extra control ring for switching the framelines. As you know, one of the beauties of the old 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar was how it switched framelines as you changed focal length (a system that isn't going to work with a stepped zoom). It didn't matter so much for the WATE (apart from requiring the fussy system of entering the focal length manually on the camera LCD). The Quad-Elmar doesn't sound very Leica M-like to me.

 

Ian,

 

I would on my(!) Quad Elmar, retain the single focal length change ring which would, just like present move the frame lines automatically. The only reason I said to go for a technical zoom, was to simplify and reduce manufacturing costs, against the multi element movement system on the MATE. On the QE zoom, you would only need the same three position frameline change cam for 28, 35 and 50/75 as on the previous MATE. I am aware that this is total pie in the sky but I would still think a MATE V3 would be a big seller. In reality the only two improvements needed, are slightly better optical performance from the 28mm and a more robust frameline change mechanism, which is currently fragile and prone to going out of adjustment.

 

Wilson

[Leicaiste]

Ian,

 

I would on my(!) Quad Elmar, retain the single focal length change ring which would, just like present move the frame lines automatically. The only reason I said to go for a technical zoom, was to simplify and reduce manufacturing costs, against the multi element movement system on the MATE. On the QE zoom, you would only need the same three position frameline change cam for 28, 35 and 50/75 as on the previous MATE. I am aware that this is total pie in the sky but I would still think a MATE V3 would be a big seller. In reality the only two improvements needed, are slightly better optical performance from the 28mm and a more robust frameline change mechanism, which is currently fragile and prone to going out of adjustment.

 

Wilson

 

Both the Tri-Elmar 28/35/50 were activating the frames 35/50/28. That is why it is not a zoom.

[wattsy]

Wilson, I might not be completely thinking it through but the issue I'm highlighting is that the focal length changeover on the MATE goes something like 28-50-35 as you twist the lens focal length selector. This is presumably because of the historical order that frameline pairs appear as the 'lug' on the mount gets longer. I'm not sure that this kind of mechanism is going to work with a conventional zoom. You could de-link the frameline selector from the zoom focal length selector (and have the framelines simply selected manually) but this seems a kludge too far for Leica.

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson, I might not be completely thinking it through but the issue I'm highlighting is that the focal length changeover on the MATE goes something like 28-50-35 as you twist the lens focal length selector. This is presumably because of the historical order that frameline pairs appear as the 'lug' on the mount gets longer. I'm not sure that this kind of mechanism is going to work with a conventional zoom. You could de-link the frameline selector from the zoom focal length selector (and have the framelines simply selected manually) but this seems a kludge too far for Leica.

 

Ian,

 

I think it might be simpler than that. If you look at the drawings of the MATE, there are a number of concentric barrels, which move the element groups and one to move the little tab on the mount, which controls the framelines. It should be a question of the shape of the cam on the frameline barrel so that it moves the frameline tab to suit the focal length, irrespective of the focal length sequence. I am sure that one of the reasons for the 35 to 50 to 28 sequence on the MATE was partially to give a linear movement to the frameline cam but I also guess it was to do with the way the element groups are moved inside the lens. If you look at the back of a MATE as you change the focal lengths, it is mechanical poetry in motion.

 

Wilson

[lars_bergquist]

If I was only allowed one lens, I would cheat and go for a V2 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. [ ... ] I am very surprised Leica has not re-introduced an updated version of this lens. With improving optical abilities, I am sure they could this time go for the much cheaper option of a stepped zoom, like the WATE. If they could extend the range to make it a Quad-Elmar of 28-75, how good would that be on an M9. I am sure it would be a big seller.

 

Wilson

Wilson, a supplier of glass to Leica stopped supplying a vital glass. It seems that the sales of the lens were not high enough to warrrant a redesign from scratch. I do also suspect that because of the complicated mechanics (remember, they had to redesign the mount) the profit margin on the lens was quite low.

 

Even so, a 28 to 75 will never exist. The reason is simple: The 50 and the 75mm frames are shown together, so we would not see in the finder that we had changed the focal length. The WATE? Yes, but here ALL changes are invisible! And the Frankenfinder is there to remind us! But if with the MATE you were going up from 28mm, you would register the step from 28 to 35, and from 35 to -- what? You would have to take a peek at the lens to find out! And you can be sure that all pilot errors would be blamed on Leica Camera A.G. And not without reason. As the Lord's Prayer says: Lead us not into temptation.

 

The old man from the Age Before Zooms

[wattsy]

The problem with a 40mm lens is the lack of a viewfinder frame for this focal length. I had the CV version for an M8 but sold it quite quickly because it was so inconvenient in use.

 

40mm is generally considered to be a decent match for the 35mm framelines. All you need is a file to remove some of the bayonet lug so that the 35mm framelines are activated.

[norsk]

Maybe you also have to think about f.stop:

 

With a 35 mm lense you can use for example a 1/60 sec - where you need a 1/125 sec for a 50 mm lense.

 

So for 35 mm you need only f.stop "2" while "1,4" for the 50 mm - for the same lightcondition!

Or - with 1,4/35 you can use a longer time, than with 1,4/50 mm.

 

Maybe also to think

 

Regards

Heinz

 

P.S.: No - I think I would take a 2/35 mm -lense. Smaller, easier to use, and - I´m not sure: But maybe the last 2/35 mm is a little bit better then the last 1,4/35. And - it is cheaper.

Only when I would use a filmcamera I would take the 1,4/35. With a digital you can change to another ASA, very easy

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Norsk,

 

For some reason I always used focallenght as the shutterspeed - such as 50mm, could shoot at 1/60th. never seemed to have much problems with that for a rule of thumb. Im sure we all operate at much slower speeds frequently.

 

Aside from that, I gotta say your logic of the 35mm 2.0 and 50mm 1.4 makes perfect sense.

 

Dansk.

 

.

[Wonka]

I had this same question coming from many years as a Nikon user with a cropped sensor. The general consensus always seemed to be either the 35mm or the 50mm. It seemed that more people preferred the 35mm focal length to the 50mm focal length. I then purchased a 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH. Since my M9 arrived I have been very unhappy with it as my only lens. It's just too wide for me for daily use. I have since exchanged it for a 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH and I have been happy ever since. The 50mm focal length on full frame just suits my style better. Don't get me wrong, the 35mm Summicron was an excellent lens, it's just that it was way too wide for me.