timope Posted November 30, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) First day in this forum and I know that this is an old story... I sold my D300 with 17-55, 12-24, 70-200 and some primes. I am now waiting my first Leica and M9 ! Now question is what could my first lens set up ? 50 lux or go over to 35 cron and 28cron... How about 75 or 90 for portraits ? Thanks for your opinions. Timo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Hi timope, Take a look here 35lux or 50lux etc...?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bo_Lorentzen Posted November 30, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 30, 2009 Tim, 35 cron is a shockingly sharp lens... I have a 75 lux with rocks for portraits. toss in a little action with my 50mm nokton, find that I use the rest very little... . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted November 30, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 30, 2009 Most Leica lenses are excellent, even wide open. Since you can adjust the iso speed on an M9, I would go for the less expensive Summicron, unless you specifically want the narrow depth of field of the Summilux at f/1.4. In my mind, the Summilux's are really designed for film, where the extra stop of speed can be a big difference. In terms of focal length, 50 vs. 35, it depends on personal taste. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timope Posted November 30, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted November 30, 2009 Bo, 75lux ? What would you think about combination of 50lux, 28cron and 75/90 something ? Timo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timope Posted November 30, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted November 30, 2009 Hi Steve, Thats a good point ! I just see $/EUR´s passing my fingers... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted November 30, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 30, 2009 A 35mm Summicron ASPH and 90 Elmarit is a very flexible outfit for an M. Many people use to travel with this combination. One of the beauty of Leica Ms is that they are so light. Only get what you use. The 35-50-90 is the "classic" outfit, but many feel that the 35 and 50 are redundant in terms of focal length (e.g., a step back turns a 50 into a 35, and visa versa). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwalker649 Posted November 30, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've only had my M9 a week but I can't seem to remove the 35Lux, its a wonderful lens on the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted November 30, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 30, 2009 I just see $/EUR´s passing my fingers... Don't forget to consider the Zeiss ZI lenses. Some of them are just as good as their Leica counterparts (e.g., 50/2) at a significant cost reduction. I have all Leica stuff, but only because when I bought into rangefinders Leica still had a patent on its' M mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted November 30, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 30, 2009 I have a 75 lux with rocks for portraits. Does the 75 lux perform better on the rocks? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted November 30, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 30, 2009 Most Leica lenses are excellent, even wide open. Since you can adjust the iso speed on an M9, I would go for the less expensive Summicron, unless you specifically want the narrow depth of field of the Summilux at f/1.4. In my mind, the Summilux's are really designed for film, where the extra stop of speed can be a big difference. In terms of focal length, 50 vs. 35, it depends on personal taste. Can't agree with this Steve. Considering Iso 1600 is probably as high as I would use except rarely on the M9, (unlike my D3 where Iso 3200 is clean enough to get used all the time), the extra stop of the lux lenses is very important for indoor, ambient light work. I shot most of a job this weekend at iso 1600, 1/15-1/30, wide open on both the 35 Lux and 50 Lux. I could not have done the job (without flash) with a 2.0 lens. ....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted November 30, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 30, 2009 I'm loving the 35-mm 1.4 Summilux and I really appreaciate the speed handling and sharpness. It was my first Leica lens so it will always hold a place in my heart. The minimum focus is brutal but I was impressed with the captures I made while testing the M9. For the most part the Summilux is glued to my M6. On film the Summilux epitomizes the Leica "look". The bokeh is smooth and dreamy. If I had a M9 Im sure it would be the same. For me, I could live with the Summilux and my Noct for my M system. Gregory www.rogaltacdesign@smugmug.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baptiste Posted November 30, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 30, 2009 First day in this forum and I know that this is an old story... I sold my D300 with 17-55, 12-24, 70-200 and some primes. I am now waiting my first Leica and M9 ! Now question is what could my first lens set up ? 50 lux or go over to 35 cron and 28cron...How about 75 or 90 for portraits ? Thanks for your opinions. Timo Same situation... Dropped D700, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 to get a M9... and A Lux 50 (actually aiting for them!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted November 30, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 30, 2009 Timo, Don't know the right answers, but I find that my 28 is used less now I moved from the M8 to M9, I like the 35mm a lot and also the 50... 90 is a bit long for my personal taste, but hey its just a matter of taste. I have a cv15mm which I really like to go in the top pocket of the backpack and this seems to round things out pretty well. though it was a 20 on the M8 so now on the M9 the 15mm feels almost too wide, im wondering if one might need a actual 20mm for the rare wide shot. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_Yoon Posted December 1, 2009 Share #14 Posted December 1, 2009 I'm usually carrying a 21/2.8, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4. And if I think I may need it, a 90/2.8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
logaandm Posted December 1, 2009 Share #15 Posted December 1, 2009 I went through the same thing recently. All focal lenths refer to 35mm sensor size equivilents (i.e. the M9). 35mm if you shoot groups of people, enviromental type photography or you can't get far enough away from your subject (e.g. at a table in a restaurant). 50mm if you want to shoot a single person or you can't get close to the group (e.g. street musian or at a market). Truth be told, if wide angle or focal lengths greater than 75mm is your thing, you should probably stick with a DSLR. Currently I find I use each one about the same amount and I am using the 50mm far more than I thought I would before getting a rangefinder. I would not want to be forced to choose between them! For f1.4 vs f2.0, I asked myself how often I needed to shoot f1.4 (not very often). I asked myself how important it was to get the narrow depth of field (nice but not that important and not that differnet from f1.4 to f2 - in fact I often like the blur at around f4 more than most other f-stops) and finally and most importantly, how useful was f1.4 for the type of photography I did. The answer to that question was f1.4 is not very useful since most of my photography deals with moving subjects and moving subjects have a very low keeper rate with anything larger than f2.8. Since my entire reason to have the Leica is to take "natural" pictures of people anything larger than f2 seems a waste. For groups of people f4 or f5.6 is usually more useful and f2.8 only when they are standing beside each other. For a 35mm f1.4 is probably more useful since f1.4 makes it easier to isolate the subject, but with the 50mm even at f2 focus has to be so accurate as to make portraits difficult unless your subject is stationary or so far away that it isn't a portrait anymore. The crons also seem to have slightly nicer bokeh, in my opinion. Finally the size of the crons is just exactly why I bought the M9 in the first place - a small high quality system, which didn't attract attention. I recently bought the 90mm f2.5 summarit for exactly the same reason. I didn't think f2 would be that useful and the lens is much smaller than the cron. While price is always an issue, in my case the deciding factor was size and utility. I might end up buying the 50 lux since it is not overly large and lens lust is a powerful force, but I suspect that I would still end up using the cron most of the time. To round out my collection I also have a 25mm Zeiss f2.8, but if I planned on shooting mostly 25 or 90mm, I would probably take a different camera anyway. I would highly recommend subscribing to Sean Reid's reviews. If you want to understand the relationship between lenses and photography especially when it comes to rangefinders, this is a great place to learn. Steve Huffs site is also very useful. Andrew's 10 rules of photography: 1. The most important thing in photography is what you point the camera at. 2-7. remember rule #1. 8. Lenses matter more than cameras. 9. Larger sensors tend to be better than smaller ones and offer more creative control. 10. The camera gear you have with you is better than the gear you left at home. Sadly, I have learned these rules in reverse order of importance.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.