Should I upgrade to Summicron Lenses?

[kuau]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have really gotten the M9 bug badly now

My current lens lineup is:

28mm Elmarit

35mm Summarit

50mm Summicron

75mm Summarit

90mm Elmarit M which I just purchased, love my 75 but wanted something a little longer,

 

I am a landscape shooter so I hardly ever shoot wide open.

The two lenses I would think of upgrading are my 28 and 35 to there Summicron counterparts.

 

Am I wasting my money? comparing a 35 summairt at F8 to a 35 Summicron at F8 would the final result be much better IQ, color, micro contrast, etc.?

 

Thanks

Steven

[luigi bertolotti]

Frankly, given what you say, I think you have better ways to use your money: Summarits are excellent lenses and a Summicron asph vs. a Summarit at f 8, imho isn't a noticeable difference: same for 28, I'd say: think of a 21 or 18

[wattsy]

Am I wasting my money?

 

Yes, I think so. Let's face it, even at maximum aperture the differences in "IQ, color, micro contrast, etc" are not going to make or break anyone's photography.

[luigi bertolotti]

Another thought... landscape can be also a good field for teles... what about affording the "Visoflex way" ? A good Viso III with a fine 200 f4 or a 280 f4,8 (last type) could be interesting...; not for quick takings, Visoflex is for "slow" operations, but again this isn't an issue in landscapes.

[kuau]

luigi,

yep, I actually want to go longer also.

the 135mm was next on my wish list.

I am waiting to receive my 90 in the mail, if I like it which I am sure I will I may sell my 75 and save up for the 135mm.

[Rick]

I think all of the previous posts make a lot of sense. At ideal apertures which are f4-f5.6 on your wider lenses you would be hard pressed to see any difference by upgrading to the Summicrons.

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't have any experience with the Elmarits, but I can tell you that the 28cron is a very contrasty lens, which may not be exactly what you want for landscape photography. The shadows are fairly distinct and dark, so you would probably have to apply some fill in post for foliage etc. Faster lenses are also larger and heavier than their slower counterparts.

 

I understand the lens addiction, but I would always find a dealer that lets you try out a lens for a few hours before spending that kind of money.

[cheewai_m6]

i get the feeling, people are never happy with their leica lens, until the get the fastest one available.

[kuau]

i get the feeling, people are never happy with their leica lens, until the get the fastest one available.

 

Very well put..

[Wiggi]

Erwin Puts says: "If you don't need the higher lens aperture, take the lens with the lower speed." And I also think so.

 

When you really need a faster lens, I think the step from the 35/2.5 to the 35/2.0 is very small, les than 2/3 f-stops. A faster 35, I would prefer the 35/1.4 Summilux.

 

You like to shoot wide open. I also think, that there is only a little difference between the 35 and the 28. What about a 24/1.4 Summilux?

 

Erwin Puts says: "With the 24 you can create a dream." With the low DOF of this lens you can take dreamy pictures like the famous Stanley Kubrick did in his movie "Eyes Wide Shut".

 

But that is only my personal point of view.

[sparkie]

If you don't need f2.0, stay with the elmarits and elmars - save yourself a lot of $$$, weight and size in the bag.

 

How about consider getting the MATE: TRI-ELMAR-M 28-35-50mm f4.0 ASPH - since been discontinued but look on secondhand market.

[Wiggi]

I think kuau wants faster lenses.

 

Also I see no reason, why he should sell his lenses to by a second hand MATE.

[Nicoleica]

i get the feeling, people are never happy with their leica lens, until the get the fastest one available.

 

Very true. And then they complain about the focus drift, size, weight, and other issues associated with fast lenses.

[wda]

Steven, you already have one Summicron lens. Analyse your use of this lens and see how often you shoot using it at f/2. I guess, using it for landscapes, the answer is 'rarely'. I endorse the majority view that for your requirement, your lens line-up is already more than adequate.

 

While I think that a 135mm lens might add an extra capability, the general consensus is that such a focal length is one of the least used on M cameras. However, your need may be greater. If so, make that a priority over upgrading any of your existing lenses.

[Ecaton]

What I would do in your case is either replacing the 28mm with the 24 Elmarit or selling the 35mm and the 28 Elmarit and using the funds to buy a Cron 28mm.

28 with 50, or 24 with 35 would be my choices.