If only seven lenses with a M9, which ones?

[chris_tribble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Travelling I limit to a smaller set - but if I was to be based away for several weeks or months I'd take everything with me. I now have the 2 M9s + 18 Zeiss / 21 elmarit pre-asph / 28 cron asph / 35 cron pre-asph v IV / 50 lux asph / 90 apo cron / 135 apo-telyt + the WATE finder. AND I can fit all of this (except the 18) into a small Domke satchel, so carrying onto a plane is no problem...

 

I got rid of the 75 cron asph a couple of months ago, and seriously don't feel a need for any other Leica glass.

 

As for the lenses which get used most, 28/35/50 are the core glass. 135 gets used more than the 90. 18/21 aren't used much at the moment (partially because of style of work, partly because of red-shift problem) - but I'd never get rid of them as they're so useful when needed.

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Ash]

Regarding the carrying onto the plane problem one of those

 

Tamrac | 153 World Correspondent's Vest, Medium (Black) | 15301M

 

might be a solution for M system users if bags were not allowed anymore.

 

Regards

Steve

[lars_bergquist]

It seems to me that Michael was not thinking 'Leica M'. He was thinking 'SLR'. And then he tried to imitate a SLR with a couple of zooms, but with a RF camera -- and a bag full of prime lenses.

 

But as I have stated before, you do not use a Leica M the way you use a SLR -- especially not one with zoom lenses. With the SLR, you raise the camera to your eye and start hunting for a possible picture, pumping that zoom like a trombone. Maybe you'll find it.

 

With the M, you mount a lens that's suitable to the situation. And then you 'put on the eyes'. If it is a 18mm lens, you put on your '18mm eyes'. If it is a 135, you put on '135 eyes'. And then you see the picture, yes, you previsualize it, before you even raise the camera.

 

This competence is difficult to develop with a SLR camera. It is impossible to do it using zoom lenses.

 

But if you have learned to do that, you can travel around the world with just two lenses, or maybe three, and not feel the least handicapped or limited. My own choice, if I would mainly photograph in built-up areas, would be 24 + 35 + 90mm. Else, it would be 35 + 50 + 135. Remember, the more lenses you carry, the more often you will be caught holding one lens in each hand, while the Picture disappears over the horizon. Less is more!

 

The old man from the Age of the IIIa

[danyves]

six would be enough with two bodies :

 

50/35/28/24/21/15

[tom0511]

WATE

24/1.4

35/2.5

50/1.4

75/2.5

135/3.4

MATE

 

However I would not allways carry all 7 but leave some in the room.

Sometimes I carry just the M9+35/2.5 or M9 with Mate. Other times in low light only 50 and 24 Summiluxes.

Normally I never carry more than 3 or max.4 lenses - but I bring more for a trip.

 

And while sometimes too much gear is bad, other times I enjoy to have options and really can use them. I dont think it is against M-style-shotting to carry more than 1 or 2 lenses.

I even think that the size and weight of M-lenses allows to bring more lenses (if you want to)

[charlesphoto99]

Problem is with so many lenses one can have too many choices and easily miss the moment due to switching lenses (thinking the shot will be better with this one or that one). Best to have three to four at max - wide, semi-wide, normal, and one long(ish).

[Marty]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

and let's not forget the [thread=88114]benefits of 9-lens photography[/thread]...

 

I think MR's message is to take as many as you can carry, which could mean all of them to many. For the few privileged (and weak) with too many lenses, the question becomes which lenses to leave at home. This has already been discussed in the past, I believe with the consensus that just about every lens ever made is a candidate to someone.

[swamiji]

Problem is with so many lenses one can have too many choices and easily miss the moment due to switching lenses (thinking the shot will be better with this one or that one). Best to have three to four at max - wide, semi-wide, normal, and one long(ish).

 

IMHO, this only works if you have some clue as to the environment you are going to be shooting in. Normally, I have two kits, one with my Lux's and the other with My Elmar's. The First for Night time/indoor, and the other for outdoor/bright light. Both kits are about 4 lenses sometimes I limit it to just 3. However, on an extended trip or a trip to a unknown area, I sometimes carry all of them. Once I get the lay of the land, I select the lens of the moment, and go. Only if I notice that I really messed up or if the environment really has changed do I change my lens. I find it really does not matter whether you have 3 lenes or 9 lenses in your kit, you only have one on the body. Getting used to your kit is the key.

[michael_b_elmer]

Over on L-L we see some very nice photos taken with an M9

Flying With Camera Gear Post 25 Dec, 2009

 

Michael explains he limited himself to only 7 lenses, since he was flying "light" on this trip to the Canary Islands.

 

It is, indeed, most difficult to limit oneself so much - but I think I could manage with the following:

 

1.4/21 a+ 21 finder (eventually the FF)

2.8/24 a+ 24 finder (eventually the FF)

2.0/28 a

1.4/35 a

1.4/50 a

2.0/75 a

2.0/90 AA

 

I certainly would be missing the WATE and the MATE, the 3.8/18 a and tha Macro-Elmar 4.0/90, the 2.0/35 a and the 1.4/50 preasph. I do not have the 3.4/135, but that I would probably miss, too, if I had it.

[tgray]

That's the thing. I don't know what I'd do with a 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, and 90. At the very least, I'd toss out every other lens in that setup. 21, 28, 50, 90. Actually, that's pretty much what I have, except I've subbed a 15 for the 21...

 

When I had a 35 and a 50, I found them way too close to each other. But that's just me.

[Alnitak]

I agree with Michael, the lenses are so small, why not take more? I am currently on a ten-day work trip around Europe and I brought the following:

 

WATE, 24 'lux, 50 'lux, 75 'lux and 90 APO

 

I kept it at five because that was the exact number I could carry in my Leica Billingham bag, as well as the Frankenfinder.

 

So far, I have extensively used the WATE, 24 and 50. There have been a few shots with the 90, and the 75 is planned for tomorrow. I probably could have left the 75 and 90 at home, but the few shots I am getting at the longer lengths are some of my favorites, so who knows?

 

The M system is the perfect travel system. It took me a few years to work that out, but I am loving it now.

 

Jeff

[James R]

It seems to me that Michael was not thinking 'Leica M'. He was thinking 'SLR'. And then he tried to imitate a SLR with a couple of zooms, but with a RF camera -- and a bag full of prime lenses.

 

 

Lars,

 

I didn't get that impression. He certainly would list his kit if replacing an SLR/zoom lens were the subject of the article.

 

The article seems straight forward. He taking a lightweight kit on an extended vacation rather than heavy DSLRs/MFs and lenses. What each person considers a lightweight kit is subjective, obviously you judge 7 lenses as being too heavy.

 

I get the feeling from your total response that you have issues with Michael and his photography. I could be wrong.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Michael was kind enough to answer, and I quote:

 

Leica M lenses are so small that there's no point in leaving any at home. Also they are almost all primes.

 

For low light I had the the 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm f/1.4 Sumiluxes

Longer lenses were the 90mm f/2 and 135mm f/3.5

I also had the f/4 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar and the f/4 16-18-21mm WA Tri-Elmar for daytime walkaround use.

 

Michael

 

He has a good point.

Remember, he did leave his P65 back home, and he only had one M9.

 

It could be said that he only took TWO lenses and left the rest in his hotel room.

[robofc]

I have seven M lenses: WATE, 24mm elmarit asph chrome, 28mm summicron asph silver, 35mm summicron asph black paint, 35mm Nokton 1.2 silver, 50mm summilux asph lhsa (both chrome and black paint).

 

I also have a chrome 35mm summicron asph which I will be selling soon as it is part of the Hermes MP kit.

 

But when I travel I will typically take three lenses, 28 summicron, 35mm nokton for low light and 50mm summilux lhsa. If I have to limit it to one lens I would take the nokton. Even though it is big, it is lighter than a chrome summilux and pulls in 50 percent more light.

 

Lately, since I purchased the black paint 35mm summicron, I have been using it as my standard lens. The movements are buttery brass and feel much better in hand then the 28 summicron. When the new 35mm summilux comes out, it will probably be my most used lens.

 

When I had the M8, I was happy to travel with two lenses, the 24mm elmarit and nokton.

[Jager]

Pack along as many as you want for a trip. But I'm definitely with those that suggest less is more once you actually get to taking photographs. Leave the rest at camp or back in your hotel.

 

Leica is disproportionately represented - by a significant degree - in the iconic images taken during the 20th century. I'd venture that very few of those iconic images were taken after a lens change.

[erl]

Jeff, you are basically correct. However, most of my images are NOT iconic regardless of lens change or not.

 

I can attest that some of my better images are so because I did changes lens though.

[nryn]

Lots of people on this forum seem to think there's a right way to do Leica photography. It usually, and not surprisingly, correlates strongly to the way they do photography.

 

So what if he brings 7 lenses? Is he violating some rangefinder code of ethics? Is he somehow using his camera improperly?

 

If you've got 'em, I say it's up to you if you want to bring 'em. Just don't ask me to carry them for you

 

You come back with nice images, doesn't matter to me if you brought a hundred lenses, SLR or rangefinder.

[Hacker]

18mm Elmar, 28 Cron, 35 Lux, 50 Noct, 75 Lux, 90AA, 135 APO.

 

Except for the 18mm, the lenses are not small. I rarely carry more than 2 lenses though.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[James R]

Pack along as many as you want for a trip. But I'm definitely with those that suggest less is more once you actually get to taking photographs. Leave the rest at camp or back in your hotel.

 

Leica is disproportionately represented - by a significant degree - in the iconic images taken during the 20th century. I'd venture that very few of those iconic images were taken after a lens change.

 

The image is what is important, not whether or not the photographer carried multiple lenses. Is the image somehow degraded if lenses were changed to capture the photog's vision?

 

I didn't understand the point of your second paragraph. What exactly does changing lenses have to do with capturing an image that becomes iconic? I don't think you can say that all or most of those photographers only left their studio or home carrying only a camera and one lens. And it doesn't mean they changed lenses because they carried more than one lens.

 

What a person carries is a matter of preference. There are no rules or limits. Me, I'm tired of carrying a heavy kit, so, I'm back with Leica. I took a 35 and 90 to the hospital where my wife was undergoing surgery. I used both lenses. I never would have brought my D3 and 24-70 there.

[lars_bergquist]

Lars, [ ... ] I get the feeling from your total response that you have issues with Michael and his photography. I could be wrong.

 

You are wrong. Lars