komatsu1000 Posted October 7, 2010 Share #1 Posted October 7, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just got my M9 on Monday and, as a novice to both rangefinders and Leica, well what can I say? You're all extremely fortunate! My lens choice was mostly influenced by the opinion of Steve Huff and Ken Rockwell. So I went for a used 35mm Cron and a new 50 Lux. But I'm surprised now many advise against this on this forum, preferring a 28 alongside a 50 (not that I see anything wrong in this). Me, I'm enjoying the combo immensely: 35 just feels "right" and it's scope allows you to tell a story or convey intimacy - It feels like you're placing the viewer in your shoes. Yes the fifty's focal length is not so different, but IMO it feels completely diverse, as though it's more detached, producing contemplative studies rather than documenting events. In this respect the low-light ability is perfect on the Lux as it allows for those candle lit portraits than merit prolonged scrutiny. I know it's not wise to generalize but this is how I'm using these lenses. I think this is all the glass I'll ever need. Anyone else had the same experience? ... or disagree completely! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Hi komatsu1000, Take a look here First post and it's 50 vs 35!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted October 7, 2010 Share #2 Posted October 7, 2010 There's no right or wrong, just what works for you or doesn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
komatsu1000 Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted October 7, 2010 For sure, I agree with you 100%. I think my observation was that many seem to think that either one is best, and that therefore, one immediately negates the other - whereas I find them complimentary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d2mini Posted October 7, 2010 Share #4 Posted October 7, 2010 I have the 35 now and thinking of picking up a 50. I know I also want something wider like a 24 or 28 so I will see if I decide to keep the 35 or replace it with the wider lens. btw, here's a shot with the 35 from when i visited your fine city for just a few hours one evening on my way back to the states. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shard Posted October 7, 2010 Share #5 Posted October 7, 2010 There is no right or wrong or a perfect combo, it totally defeats the concept of an interchangeable lens system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted October 8, 2010 Share #6 Posted October 8, 2010 Both are superb lenses -- don't have the 50 'lux ASPH, just an old 50 'cron and the 35 'cron ASPH. 35 has proven to be excellent for travel and for environmental portraits; 50 works very well for closer-up portraits and all sorts of subjects including landscapes. But be warned! It is extremely unlikely you will want to stick with just these two, as delectable as they are. For example, try out the 24 ASPH. Please. I don't think you will regret it. It has become one of my most used lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Lea Posted October 8, 2010 Share #7 Posted October 8, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I also use both a 35 and a 50, and find them quite different. Beware, you'll be trying a 75 next! Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
komatsu1000 Posted October 8, 2010 Author Share #8 Posted October 8, 2010 Hi Peter, that's what I mean: read most lens advice and you get the impression these two focal lengths are mutually exclusive. @d2mini: this is a great town for low-light and low-life photography! (Sometimes both at the same time...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 8, 2010 Share #9 Posted October 8, 2010 Split the difference and get a 40mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo Park Posted October 8, 2010 Share #10 Posted October 8, 2010 Komatsu, I agree with you to a certain extent. 35mm and 50mm seem ideal for my rangefinder photography. I don't wish to have anything else and recently sold my 90mm rangefinder lens which did not get much use at all . When I need to use different focal lengths I resort to my slr s for which I have lenses from 24 - 180. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
komatsu1000 Posted October 8, 2010 Author Share #11 Posted October 8, 2010 Bingo, Mongo! That's what I'm thinking. With modern SLRs and Point-&-Shoots, it seems like we own the middle ground: no need to damage your bank account further than necessary! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted October 8, 2010 Share #12 Posted October 8, 2010 What others prefer is irrelevant...it is what YOU like and find useful! Personally I preferred a 35 and 90 for a number of years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickgrafixstop Posted October 9, 2010 Share #13 Posted October 9, 2010 Any number of photographers have done quite well with only one of these. If you have the mental discipline to master the focal length you may well not need any more. Particularly at these focal lengths, and slightly wider or slightly longer, a little walking will more than compensate for the missing lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted October 10, 2010 Share #14 Posted October 10, 2010 35 and 50 are a significant difference to those who have used fixed lenses long enough to understand the difference. The perspective is more significant than the field of view difference. These are my favourite 2, combined with a 28mm for when I need more or comfortable enough to get closer to my subjects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.