Dilemma: Can one justify a 50mm summilux asph if you already own a 35mm summicron?

[richfx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

JAAPV:

Erwin Puts' review of the new 35mm Summilux (below) uses the FLE term. I thought I had also seen it elsewhere. It is confusing in that the new Summilux has the same name as its predecessor with Leica.

Rich

 

SX35FLE, part1

[Advertisement]

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

[57andrew]

The 50mm Summilux Asph is an amazing lens, as is the Noctilux, but it's the photographer who takes amazing photographs not the lens. Some people on this forum seems obsessed by there equipment and only want the 'best' of everything, but using the 'best' equipment don't mean that you make better photographs, it's the professionalism of the photographer that counts.

 

Wise words indeed. (But I still like my Noctilux )

[Guest]

...

It looks like you are infected by the GAS-virus. I wish you a lot of wisdom with your dilemma.

...

 

What does GAS stand for?

Thanks, Karl-Heinz

[holmes]

It depends on how and what you shoot. When I first started out I bought the 50 f 2. This in addition to a couple of other lenses. After several years I sold the 50 f 2. I was then reduced to the M 28 f 2 asph, the 35 f2 asph and having dumped the 135 and the 90, was left with the moderate tele, the M 75 F 1.4. About a year a go I realized that for Me, I was missing the dynamics. So with the introduction of the M 50 f 2.5 I picked one up. Have not been disappointed with the optics of that lens. Cost wise it is probably the lowest cost for a new 'M' lens. It is light, with a fast focus and it's weight is negligible, for hand holding in dusk or night. To your problem. I offer this as an alternative. This doubles your range capabilities with two lenses. Look past the M75 f 1.4 and check out the 75 f 2 or even better, the M 75 f2.5/2.8. Easier on the wallet. You would have F 2.5/2.8 the best of both worlds; the M 35 and the versatility and reach of the M 7. My longest lens is my F 75 and shortest is my 28. I have taken both to Europe and managed to grab some very nice shots.

[freusen]

What does GAS stand for?

Thanks, Karl-Heinz

 

Karl-Heinz, it's an acronym for Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

 

FrankR

[ndjambrose]

Is it crazy to have both a 35mm and a 50mm lens?

 

No. They're very different focal lengths. I'm surprised you think they're conceptually interchangeable, because in my mind they're chalk and cheese. The approach to framing and composition demands a different mindset as you move between 35 and 50, and the final image delivers very different characteristics. I suspect most photographers of any system have both these focal lengths.

[LeicaBraz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"FLE" = f....ing lens eh!

[luigi bertolotti]

"FLE" = f....ing lens eh!

:D

btw, the acronym, I seem, was used years ago on Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses...

[JeremyS]

Many thanks to everyone. I found your comments really helpful and (literally) right on the money. For those that reminded me of Gear Acquisition Syndrome, I suspect you are 100% right. The problem is the M system becomes slightly addictive. If I may generalise (assuming that I am typical of quite a few Leica owners) we work hard so have limited available time to indulge in photography as a result. Plus, even when we can the light in Northerrn Europe (I am in London) is far from ideal so we spend our time fantasizing about the next purchase. My dilemma was whether 35mm (which I have) is just too close to 50mm (which I lust after), i.e. that I could "crop" my digital negative taken on my 35 summicron and get something pretty close to a lens I would be spending £2,500 on (albeit that the 50mm is faster). Yes, I know that you can quote perspective, depth of field and the different "signature" of each lens but my concern remained that this was (as someone earlier put it) a (self indulgent) want rather than a real need. Too true. But, I did receive enough positive, insightful and helpful comments to come to a view and that is to go ahead with the purchase of the 50mm summilux. Yes, I have had experience of the focal length with a number of cameras - indeed I once had a Contax G2 with a 45mm lens and this was my ideal combination (and probably a big part in converting me to Leica after Contax sadly went into terminal decline).

 

For a period I did use a Nikon D2x with zoom lenses. The irony is that I moved to Leica for its quality of files and lenses and its "purity" and simplicity (and, of course, because it is a RF). I justified the huge cost by concluding that it is unique (which it is) and the ideal travel camera for being half the weight and size of a Canon 5DmkII. And then (if you are like me) you decide that you need to travel with a number of Leica lenses to the point where half the rationale (i.e the weight of the system in your camera bag) becomes questionable. Having said that there is a joy in carrying a simple, timeless, small camera with tiny lens attached rather than the machine gun that is a FF Nikon or Canon.

 

But I digress: thanks to all of you (even those whose comments were so cryptic as to be bordering on the unintelligible) who replied. This is a wonderful forum and I really appreciate your wise advice and your taking the time to reply. By the way, as I am merely on a waiting list please do feel to add any words of wisdom if you feel so inclined.

 

Jeremy

[bill]

The 50mm Summilux Asph is an amazing lens, as is the Noctilux, but it's the photographer who takes amazing photographs not the lens. Some people on this forum seems obsessed by there equipment and only want the 'best' of everything, but using the 'best' equipment don't mean that you make better photographs, it's the professionalism of the photographer that counts.

 

Word.

 

Regards,

 

Bill