Struggling with 35 cron on M9 - need a bit of guidance!

[Julian Thompson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Evening everyone,

 

I wanted to ask please whether anyone else here who has moved from their M8 to the M9 has had a problem with their 35mm focal length in terms of feeling comfortable.

 

I have noticed that now, with the 35 cron mounted I need to get uncomfortably close to my subject when I'm trying to get what I would describe as 'portrait + background' shots.

 

Previously, on the M8, the 35 was obviously more like a '50 and I could be a few feet further away for the same shot, of course, but I had not considered the impact that my closer presence would have on the shots!

 

I have a 50 'lux on order but with no likelyhood of seeing it soon (plus the fact that I like to try and learn/improve!) - I wanted to try and tap the knowledge of our contributors to try and get on top of it.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Julian

[wstotler]

I have noticed that now, with the 35 cron mounted I need to get uncomfortably close to my subject when I'm trying to get what I would describe as 'portrait + background' shots.

 

You're not alone. I go through this every time I mount the 35mm up on the M6TTL and shoot film--the 35 is considerably wider while the 50mm is about what I'm used to using. I expect that when I (one day) acquire an M9 I'll go through "relearning" lenses.

 

BTW, get right up on them

 

Cheers,

Will

[charlesphoto99]

The 35 on any 35mm camera has never been considered a classical portrait lens though it's my favorite for what is known as enviromental portraiture.

 

Yes, get closer. A good practice no matter the lens for getting more dynamic photos.

[Julian Thompson]

The 35 on any 35mm camera has never been considered a classical portrait lens though it's my favorite for what is known as enviromental portraiture.

 

That's very helpful Charles. I guess the 35 on the M8 (aka 50!) was my 'swiss army knife' lens!

[ashwinrao1]

Sounds like if you really liked the 35 on the M8, the 50 on the M9 may be the way to. There are so many options at 50 that you can't go wrong!

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Julian,

 

Like you I really liked the 35 on the M8, but I had a strange experience moving to the M9, I had expected to automatically more or less retire the 35 and move to a 50mm, mostly because I never really warmed up to 28mm on the M8.

 

The strange thing was that for some reason I kept using the 35mm and liked it. Im still using the 50 more than i used to, but the 35 is seeing much more action than I had thought, it seems that at least a few other shooters have had the same experience.

 

That said, clearly its time for you to order a 50 cron, its a great lens so you can't really go wrong with it.

 

 

.

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My feeling is that the 35mm focal length has changed slightly from an everyday lens on the M8 to a landscape lens on the M9. On the M8, I used my 35 Lux/MATE about 40/40% with 20% on other lenses. I am now using my MATE about 50%+ on the M9 with the 35 Lux down to about 20%. I use my 50/2 Planar a lot more than I did on the M8. My M8 now sits with a Visoflex mounted on it most of the time.

 

Wilson

[250swb]

Maybe your preferences have changed Julian? There's nothing to say that a once favourite lens/focal range can't fall out of favour from time to time. If you've enjoyed the 35mm on the M8 it could mean you need the 50mm for your M9.

 

I hadn't used a Leica M for a few years after giving up on film, but not wanting to buy an M8 because of the crop. When I did get my M9 I found my view on the world had changed, and I now wanted a 28 as my standard wide lens not a 24mm, with a 50mm effectively taking over from my 35mm.

 

Nothing needs to be set in stone, so go with the flow and don't struggle with anything that isn't working out.

 

Steve

[yanidel]

I often read that 35mm and 50mm are too close, that you can basically go from one to the other by taking two steps back/forward. But as you found out, I feel it is a completely different kind of photography. Many times, the two steps forward of the 35mm mean that you will intrude your subject space, while with the 50mm I feel you are still at a "tolerable" distance. By tolerable I mean both in terms of being spotted and reaction of people. It depends obviously on place and people response to being photographed. In Paris I find it easier to go with a 50mm.

Now a well composed 35mm shot where you were able to get close without changing your subject attitude is such a great reward, that I would not give up on it. So as general rule, I go 35mm in crowded areas and 50-60mm when it is a bit wider spaces. An additional 90mm will isolate or compress.

I think people like Lars refered to the best lens combination 35-50-90 as the Holy Trinity in photography. Though I have switched many times my set up, I converge slowly to it as it does cover indeed all situations in "candids" photography.

[lars_bergquist]

I have made some very satisfying 'environmental portraits' with a 28mm lens. It all depends on the environment, of course.

 

But please do resist the temptation to 'get closer' with a wide lens. As you get closer -- closer with ANY lens from 400 to 18mm -- you change perspective. And a portrait of an adult from closer than 2m/6feet will introduce an element of caricature: Large noses, receding chins. Don't! It is not for nothing that 90mm is regarded as the classical portrait focal length, among those who think that 'portrait' means 'head on a salver'.

 

I don't.

 

The old man from the Age of the 9cm Elmar

[helen_d]

"Maybe your preferences have changed Julian? When I did get my M9 I found my view on the world had changed, and I now wanted a 28 as my standard wide lens not a 24mm, with a 50mm effectively taking over from my 35mm." Steve

 

"My view on the world had changed." That's an interesting comment, Steve, and one that probably applies to most of us at various times in our lives. My pre-M8 view was telephoto; my prized photos were good closeups of birds, of which I have an extensive catalog. Over time, however, a sense of place has become far more important than a closeup. Anyone with reasonable skill and a good tele lens can get a closeup of a bird, and I can open a good bird book and look at much better pictures that I could ever take. However, I think that it takes far more photographic/artistic skill to compose a photo of that bird in its setting so that anyone looking at the picture can get a feel for the habitat and setting where the bird was sighted. That came home to me recently when an unusual bird (for this area) was found in a pond close to my home. Several birders posted closeup photos that were technically excellent but really didn't say anything at all---the bird could have been anywhere in the world. I was disappointed, as I was hoping to see this unusual bird in MY home town, with some identifying landmarks (I was unable to get there myself).

 

Though I have and enjoy using a 75mm Summarit and would eventually love to have a 90mm lens, my 35mm cron gets the most use and to my own surprise I find much more challenge and pleasure in getting a "larger" view of things.

 

Helen

[Rolo]

Julian, I find the opposite is true.

 

On the M8, I found the 35mm to be restrictive, whilst on the M9 it let's me 'breathe'. The M9 allows for much greater cropping, if that's not against your principles. For me that means massive flexibility with the 35mm lens.

 

Take a look at :

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/114548-creating-masterpiece.html

 

shot on the 35mm and cropped. This would have been better shot on a 50mm, perhaps, but would have meant a lens change and then another when I moved on. As it is, I could probably get an acceptable head shot from this frame to 10x8".

 

So, select you position thereby defining your perspective and the potential picture content. Worry about the precise framing later.

 

For me, the M9 is infinitely better than the M8 as it removes any need for me to shoot with zoom lenses on my Canon for my professional work, but I have to be prepared to crop.

[rob_w]

When I first switched to rangefinder photography with an M6, I found I instinctively worked closer to the subject. I suspect this was simply because the M6 is less intrusive and intimidating than an SLR and allows you to be in the midst of the action.

 

As a result my most-used lens became the 35 rather than the 50. There is a famous photographer who said something like "if your photos are not interesting enough, you are not close enough" [can't remember the attribution, perhaps someone can assist?]. I have often reflected on that saying, and my willingness to get closer with the 35. With the M8 I use a 24; when my M9 arrives I expect to go back to the 35.

 

Cheers

 

Robert

[yanidel]

"if your photos are not interesting enough, you are not close enough" [can't remember the attribution, perhaps someone can assist?].

Robert

The quote was by Robert Capa. But there is a slight misunderstanding of this quote. His "close enough" was referring to "close to war action". Meaning that some war photographers would not take the risk to go in the midst of action and stay somewhat behind the first lines, resulting in less dramatic pictures. "Close enough' was not really about the 1-5 meters range we usually take our pictures from.

[rob_w]

Aha, you just destroyed the magic of it for me, Yanidel.

 

Maybe then again -- no. The injunction is still, to take a risk and get closer, whether in combat or in other circumstances.

 

Robert

[yanidel]

Aha, you just destroyed the magic of it for me, Yanidel.

 

Maybe then again -- no. The injunction is still, to take a risk and get closer, whether in combat or in other circumstances.

 

Robert

 

Sorry about that

 

Leaving this quote aside, I do agree with you, being not close enough is often my main critique when reviewing my pictures or looking at other's gallery. Many times, a great scene enfolds, but it is kind of lost in the surroundings, it loses it's power. But then, there is always a thin edge between getting closer and the risk to impact the scene by your presence. Not easy.

[stunsworth]

JOn the M8, I found the 35mm to be restrictive, whilst on the M9 it let's me 'breathe'. The M9 allows for much greater cropping, if that's not against your principles. For me that means massive flexibility with the 35mm lens.

 

I used a 35mm Summicron for 90% of my shots with an M6, I'd imagine the same to be true with an M9. People differ, some prefer 35mm, others 50mm.

 

As for the original post, if you can afford it buy an old Summicron or Elmar to use until the Summilux arrives. You'd probably be able to sell the lens you bought without losing any money when the new lens arrives.

[lct]

...please do resist the temptation to 'get closer' with a wide lens. As you get closer -- closer with ANY lens from 400 to 18mm -- you change perspective. And a portrait of an adult from closer than 2m/6feet will introduce an element of caricature: Large noses, receding chins...

Agree.

[lct]

...if you can afford it buy an old Summicron or Elmar to use until the Summilux arrives. You'd probably be able to sell the lens you bought without losing any money when the new lens arrives.

+1

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rob_w]

Yanidel, I really enjoy your 'soul' series, which I started following a while back. I just asked myself, would I have a preference for those taken with your 35 'Lux? I think the answer is 'yes' as a generalisation, because I enjoy seeing something of the context (e.g. the truffle seller). But ultimately I am more drawn by the subject and the moment of capture than by the lens used.

 

Cheers

 

Robert