Need help with lens selection

[schlebek74]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Team:

 

I'm putting together a system since recently having taken possession of an M9, and would love your thoughts re: lens selection.

 

I currently shoot with a 50 1.4 and 90 2.8. I probably lean towards the short tele end of the spectrum, but that's likely a result of having shot with SLRs for a lifetime, not feeling comfortable getting into people's faces with a big camera, and preferring more "intimate" shots from a distance.

 

The new 35 1.4's got me intrigued, and I'm waiting on one...

 

I do have need for a wide occasionally. In those cases would you recommend a 24 2.8 or a 21 2.8? This would give a system of 21/24 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 90 2.8. I'm concerned a 21/24 2.8 and a 35 1.4 will be too close in focal length.

 

In that case, would you simply go with a 28 2.0, 50 1.4 and 90 2.8? This has the added benefit of no external viewfinder, but no 35 1.4.

 

Any input is most welcome.

 

 

Seb

[Advertisement]

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

[ezc203]

Hard to decide for you obviously. But I can tell you a 21/24 is VERY different from a 35.

[Bill W]

21 or 24 might necessitate the need for an external viewfinder unless you do a lot of testing. Personally I have a 24 but I hate to use an external finder. A 28 has frame lines within the M9.

[01af]

Rangefinder photography in 35-mm-format is centered around the focal lengths of 50 mm and 35 mm, so every Leica M user should have one of these. Using a Leica M camera (or any 35-mm-format rangefinder camera with interchangable lenses) and owning neither a 50 mm lens nor a 35 mm lens can be considered, umm, eccentric. Whether you you have both focal lengths or just one of them (and which one) is a matter of personal preference. Many have, and use, both but others feel when you have one of them then you don't need the other as they are so close to each other.

 

Obviously you are gravitating to the 50 mm lens so the reasoning goes like this:

 

For a telephoto lens, 90 mm is the natural choice to complement the 50 mm. 75 mm would be too close to 50 mm (it would be a fine complement to a 35 mm lens), and 135 mm on a Leica M must be considered a special lens which is hard to use because it is so close to the absolute limits of the rangefinder. You may consider a 135 mm for a second telephoto lens at a later time if you feel the need but not for your primary telephoto lens.

 

For a wide-angle lens, you should have one moderate wide-angle that is supported by the regular viewfinder. For most Leica M models including the M9, that leaves the choice between 35 mm and 28 mm. Some prefer the 35 mm even though it's close to 50 mm because it's such a natural (some would say: essential) lens to use on a rangefinder camera. Others prefer the 28 mm because it's more different from 50 mm and also is the widest the regular viewfinder will support.

 

With these three lenses you can consider yourself set for a photographer's life ... but beyond 28 mm is where the wide-angle fun begins. So you want another wide-angle lens.

 

If you have a 35 mm lens then 24 mm would be a nice and useful complement. It's different enough from 35 mm to be worthwhile, it's the widest lens for 35-mm-format that gives strong but not exaggerated perspectives, and it leaves room to complement it with an even wider super-wide-angle lens at a later time—e. g. 18 mm or the wide-angle Tri-Elmar (a.k.a. WATE).

 

If you have a 28 mm lens then 24 mm is too close; better get either 21 mm or 18 mm or the WATE for a super-wide-angle. Anyway, you should make up your mind early whether or not you want a WATE, be it now or at a later time. Because when you have a WATE then it's pointless to also have 21 mm or 18 mm prime lenses. And along with the WATE comes the Universal-Weitwinkelsucher-M, a.k.a. 'Frankenfinder,' which makes any accessory viewfinders you may have purchased previously obsolete. If you want two super-wide lenses eventually then I'd recommend 24 mm now and either the 18 mm or the WATE later, and the 35 mm lens in the moderate-wide range. If you want only one super-wide then get a 24 mm or 21 mm to complement a 35 mm lens, or get a 21 mm or 18 mm to complement a 28 mm lens. In other words, you can hardly go wrong with 21 mm but then it would not make too much sense to acquire a WATE at a later time.

[adan]

To echo ezc203, a 24 or 21 will be very different from a 35, so don't worry that they would be "too close." In the wide-angle world, the visual difference caused by a few mm of focal length change is much more apparent than with teles or normals.

 

A horizontal 24mm shot is essentially equivalent to stitching together two 35mm verticals - i.e. it will contain twice as much scenery area even though it is not half the focal length.

 

Personally I use a 90, 35 and 21 with no felt need for anything in between. A 24 always feels a bit cramped to me - "I want MORE!" as Johnny Roco says in "Key Largo". But for most people, a 24 is plenty wide enough and a reasonable step down from 35.

 

Here's how your existing lenses and coming 35 would compare to a 24 or 21.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[gwelland]

I also gravitated to a 21/1.4, 35/1.4 & 90/2.8 combination as these three lenses worked best for MY shooting style and the wide gaps work for me in terms of wide, normal & telephoto without fear of overlap.

 

I tried just about every recent 50mm including summicrons, summiluxes & noctilux and found that 50mm just didn't float my boat. It's not a general reflection in the lenses because they were all, without exception, excellent. I just find myself reaching for 35 or 90. Strange really because I actually use 50/1.4 on my dslr quite a lot.

 

Even though I have the 21 'lux I do also have a WATE which is a great solution when you need to go super wide and speed isn't so important. The overlap isn't really an issue because I find that I use one or the other exclusively. I recently was in Istanbul where it was a classic case of needing a super wide for courtyards & building close ups which required the WATE. However, when shooting inside churches & Mosques the light levels were so low that the 21 'lux was invaluable.

 

If I were building out a 50/90 combination then I'd be tempted to go with either a 28 cron or 24 elmarit/'lux. 28 actually is a relatively wide focal length with full frame and it certainly is nice not having to bother with finders. There is a noticeable jump to 24 if you want true wide - this is something that you'd just have to try for yourself I think. It's all personal experience ...

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Being basiccally a 50 mm person, like the OP, I found that a 24 gets more use than a 21 in my hands. I would, personally, make that my first choice. A 21 can always be found not too expensively for occasional use. I find that I use the 28 as an alternative to the 35 when carrying a 2-lens set (28-50). The 35 is my favorite one camera-one-lens lens. It all comes down to personal preference.

[lars_bergquist]

You may want to experiment a bit with second-hand lenses. These can be sold again without much loss if they turn out not to fit your personal style of shooting. (Getting delivery of anything Leica is not easy right now, in any case.) Going Zeiss or Cosina/Voigtländer is an option, but entails the matter of coding, which takes some expertise. Apart from that, Zeiss means very high quality. Finding a good C/V lens is mostly a matter of luck. Variation is great. My own experiences are such that I won't gamble on C/V lenses in the future.

 

Many 'older' Leica lenses give very good results on a M9, if correctly coded. (You can mostly try them out with manual lens identification via the menu, but lenses for permanent use should be hard-coded.) One of my favourites is a version 4 35mm Summicron, a 1979 design.

 

What lenses you come to prefer and use is very much a personal thing. With 35mm format cameras, for instance, I simply find no use for the 75mm and 28mm lengths. Others love them. I am very much a 35mm man. I too do find 24/25mm a reasonable step from 35mm, and easier to handle than 21mm. Still, at a Medieval Festival this Sunday past I did shoot more than half the frames with 18mm, and the rest evenly divided between 35 and 90mm.

 

Now if you do not intend to penetrate the murkiest ecclesiastical corners, very fast ultra-wides are not really needed. 18mm f/4 and 24/25mm f/2.8 go a long way even at ISO 250, which is my preferred setting. And ISO 1000 is perfectly o.k. at least for occasional use.

 

One of the most wonderful parts of any M camera is that little lever in front that lets you preview different focal lengths from 28 to 135mm without actually owning them. Play with it a bit.

 

The old man from the Rolleiflex Age

[ianspector]

Dear Seb,

 

I came to Leica from the Nikon system when the M9 was launched. The mistake I made was believing that the glass I found most useful on my D3 would be the same on my M9. Thus I acquired a 28 f/2, 50 f/1, 35 f/1.4 and 90 f/2. On my Nikon I quickly amassed over 2.3 metres of focal length but on my Leica 28mm seems super wide and more often I go for the 35mm. When I go out I have my M9 and MP with a 35mm on one and the 50mm on the other.

 

My 90mm is still at Solms being adjusted under warranty as the focus was so far off I quickly grew to hate the lens and ignored it for 6 months. Leica is about small and light and my next two lens purchases will be a 50 f/2 and a 35 f/2. These lengths are such a delight on the M bodies with no external finders and loads of air around the frame in the viewfinder.

 

My strong advice would be to buy only the 50 f/2 or 2.5 and shoot the heck out of it. Then see what you are really missing.

 

Ian

[Ecaton]

Mo matter which focal length you buy next, chances are you will have a full line up, eventually, as so many of us:)

[schlebek74]

Thanks to all for replying. I've decided to go with a 24/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.5 and 90/2.8.

[gib_robinson]

Good choices, but while you are buying lenses, take a few minutes to put a 75mm Summicron on your camera. It's a relatively small lens, does good macro work, and has stunning IQ.

 

Of course, lens choice is often determined by what you shoot, but like others, I use my M in many different situations. For portraits or in classrooms, I like a 75mm or a 90mm along with the 35mm. On the street, I usually carry a 24, 35, and 50. For landscape and macro, I carry everything I have.

 

Now if you start looking at older lenses, you can start playing with contrast variations and subtle bokeh. The choices are endless, as are the pleasures.

 

Enjoy.