If only seven lenses with a M9, which ones?

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rich, thanks for your mini-essay. It is interesting because of your all-digital background. It was not written by some fossil old fart from the age of glass-plate negatives. And it cannot be said too often: Too many lenses do lead to dithering, and Leica M cameras are very clearly action cameras. They are for photographers who wade into the action and come out with pictures. Not for those who are forever thinking: "Now, would that picture maybe look better with a 75mm?"

 

This does also answer Etherfarm, I think. The M is definitely not for long tele 'keep at a safe distance' photography. And it is definitely not for small-bug photography either! Every camera or system has its strong and its weak sides. You choose one that suits you. What's wrong with that?

 

The old man from the Age of Glass Plate Negatives

[Jager]

Beyond the natural desire to have different focal lengths at hand, the problem with Leica lenses is that they are all so lovely it's hard not to want to carry several of them. Rather like having to choose between a harem of lovely young women. Sometimes it's easier to just take several.

 

But just as carrying along that passel of girls is likely to end badly, so is toting along a bagful of lenses. IMHO.

 

But, hey, there are no laws. No rules. At the end of the day it all comes down to what makes you happy. Whatever works for you.

 

I just can't imagine seven. Two, maybe.

[nryn]

This does also answer Etherfarm, I think. The M is definitely not for long tele 'keep at a safe distance' photography. And it is definitely not for small-bug photography either! Every camera or system has its strong and its weak sides. You choose one that suits you. What's wrong with that?

 

I don't shoot above 50mm much and have relegated my D-lux 4 to macro work, so I know what you mean. But if someone wants to shoot a 400mm lens with a visio on an M or break out a bellows, I'm not going to call them a fool or tell them they're doing it all wrong. I'm definitely not one to believe the people wearing white coats (or in this case, the Billingham bags) have all the answers. Things become "proper" so people can know what to expect, and I suppose I'd love for aesthetic endeavors to transcend that mentality.

 

But in this case, this has nothing to do with the mechanisms for artistic expression. This only has to do with how many lenses that guy carried. And what I'm saying is that has nothing to do with photography, and to say that it's an improper use of the camera is absurd.

[lars_bergquist]

Rich, I'm not going to argue a case, but I'd like to explain a lens choice of mine, as an example of my thinking. -- I owned a 50mm Summicron (current version, first mount type) and a late pre-aspherical Summilux. I tired of the 'cron because, when I took a picture with, say, an average foreground with a bright overcast sky above it, the lens produced a roughly rectangular flare patch in the middle of the picture.

 

I liked the old Summilux a lot. It was very resistant to flare and reflections, quite sharp in the middle and with nice bokeh. But off axis, its definition at large apertures was so-so. Solution: I dumped both lenses and bought the Summilux ASPH. This was in film days. I can't say I absolutely need the speed, not nowadays. But this is, in technical terms, the best damn 50mm lens for 35mm anybody had yet produced, and it probably still is.

 

What do I mean by 'best'? There are two 'best'. A lens that you like and that fits your needs better than any other lens is clearly best for you. But this 'best' is quite subjective, because your likes and dislikes, and your style of photography, are yours only. There's no disputing taste -- though it is done all the time of course (not least on this site).

 

The other 'best' is the 'technical best'. This 'best' is not subjective, but objective and actually measurable to a large extent -- in transfer functions, resolution, tests for flare and reflections, and of course for mechanical quality. This can be disputed, because it is not a matter of taste. But not arbitrarily: It is a matter of evidence. So, both 'bests' can be discussed, BUT NOT in the same discussion because they are totally different things. Personally, I do practically never discuss the first kind of 'best' however, because nothing conclusive does ever come out ot this kind of nattering. Some people prefer chocolate ice-cream, others strawberry. Fact of life. Period.

 

But in the case of that Summicron ASPH, and in my case, the 'bests' do coincide. The lens gives me very pleasant imagery, with the crispness I like somewhere in the picture, and it does not cook up unpleasant surprises behind my back, like the Summicron did. Case closed.

 

The old man from the Age of Glass Plate Negatives

[James R]

You are wrong. Lars

 

I'm glad. jr

[Alnitak]

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.

 

Oh, the irony. Maybe not an "iconic image," but one Leica themselves has selected as a winner--and in the words of the photographer, it was taken right after a lens change!

 

"Everything happened so fast. Since I was moving into a smaller space I anticipated the low-light situation, as well as the need for a wider focal length. I quickly swapped out the 90mm for my 50 summilux while on the move."

 

The photo: Leica Camera AG - "Call of the Wild" by Mark Won

 

Jeff

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Eddie Adams took several of those iconic images - especially the one of the Vietnamese polic chief putting a bullet through the head of a prisoner.

 

Here's how he managed to do it without changing lenses:

 

http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/09/images/eddie_adams_at_war2.jpg

 

Larry Burrows (RIP) at work just before his chpper was shot down over Cambodia:

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.a/6a00df351e888f8834010536fa8f96970c-300wi

 

Henri Huet died in the same helicopter with Burrows: http://www.pythiapress.com/letters/images/war32.jpg

[Alnitak]

 

Larry Burrows (RIP) at work just before his chpper was shot down over Cambodia:

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.a/6a00df351e888f8834010536fa8f96970c-300wi

 

If they make a movie about his life, they need to cast Jeff Goldblum in the role. The resemblance is pretty remarkable.

 

Jeff

[dseelig]

I have the wate, 24,35 50 75 luxes and soon the 90 apo f2. I had the mate but I did not like it at 50 . some day might get a 28 cron again, though I am not a big fan of 28 mm lenses. Or if I get an inheritance a 50 noctilux

[batmobile]

I think you have to be stark raving window licking mad to carry 7 lenses with a M. The most I have ever carried has been: 21, 28, 35, 50 and even then its normally the tiny CV 21 in the bag at 150g. Most of the time I carry only 28, 35, 50 and sometimes just 35, 50. I am thinking about switching to 24 to drop both the 21 and 28 for regular use and relegate them to when I know I will need, say, 21, then also ditching the 50 for a 75 to give me more range with only 3 lenses. I say 3 lenses because I am happy to carry 2 bodies with lenses attached (depending on needs) to ensure I dont even have to change lenses if I dont have to.

 

I am working hard to do more with a 35mm so I can rely less on other lenses and keep things light. Bottom line is if I cannot fit it all in aDomke F6 I am straying into 'might as well have packed a huge SLR/MF kit' territory.

 

Spose if you are using a Leica m9 for landscape work lots of lenses are fair enough, but personally I think he has gone way into overkill with regular lenses and low light lenses, but whatever works for him!

 

I'd also hate to have my camera bag stolen in his shoes.

[martinb]

This is sad. People with too much money and very little skill. They rather talk about the gear they own or loan than photography. If I'm not mistaken the best photographers who's been using Leicas throughout history has shot mainly with one or at most two or three lenses..

[wattsy]

If they make a movie about his life, they need to cast Jeff Goldblum in the role.

 

I'd hope not. Burrows was English.

[thrice]

If it won't fit in my Domke F-5XB it doesn't leave the house with me. So that's usually 4 lenses total, sometimes as few as 2 if I'm going out to shoot low light. My whole stable is 5 lenses.

[Jerry_R]

This is sad. People with too much money and very little skill. They rather talk about the gear they own or loan than photography. If I'm not mistaken the best photographers who's been using Leicas throughout history has shot mainly with one or at most two or three lenses..

 

Nice reading - on the subject

Hobbyists vs. Photography

[horosu]

I would like to echo the same feeling as Martin: very few people talk here about photography, but very many about equipment.

 

This is sad, because finally the final picture is all that matters.

 

Horea

[yanidel]

I would like to echo the same feeling as Martin: very few people talk here about photography, but very many about equipment.

 

This is sad, because finally the final picture is all that matters.

 

Horea

but being on a M9 thread, it is kind of normal to talk mainly about equipment. If one wants to talk photography purely, there are active threads dedicated to that.

[adli]

Why limit one self to only seven lenses?

 

Leica has nine different focal lengths in stock, if you like to carry a lot of lenses, buy the whole range