In praise of small lenses

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There seems to be a great interest, almost to the point of a religious cult, with regard to using large aperture lenses. Although I understand the fascination of large out of focus areas in an image, such lenses are often physically large.

 

Influenced by the opinions expressed on this and other forums I have ended up with duplication of focal length in several areas.

 

In general I prefer small lenses because they are more balanced on an M camera, less obtrusive, look less 'professional' and are easier to handle. The image quality is generally the equal of a stopped-down summilux.

 

Thus I will nearly always use my 50 summicron instead of my 50 Summilux, or my 28 elmarit instead of the 28 summicron. My 90 elmarit-M is quite big but being light makes up for its size. My 24 elmarit is enormous so I often use my 25 f4 voigtlaender.

 

So although tempted I have avoided noctiluxes, 35 and 75 summiluxes and 90 summicrons. I cant see myself ever being tempted by a 21 or 24 summilux because they are so large. Being able to work in a non-threatening manner is also a concern.

 

Jeff

[Jager]

Guilty as charged. I'm one of those who almost always prefers the fastest lens in a particular focal length.

 

Part of it is relativity. I also shoot a Nikon D3. Walk around for a bit with that and a Nikkor 200/f2 AFS and you'll be hard-pressed to ever say anything with the Leica name on it could ever be considered anything but tiny.

 

Part of it is having the extra stop (or two) available. Last night I was walking around the old main street of the town where I live - something I do frequently. My 35 Lux ASPH (1st ver) was mounted on my M9. Even shooting wide-open I was mostly forced to iso 640 or 1250 to maintain a modicum of shutter speed. I like nighttime shooting and that extra stop often is the difference in whether a shot can be pulled off or not.

 

Even in daylight, I oftentimes will want that fast aperture for creative effect.

 

The smaller Crons and Elmarits certainly are a draw - for their unique signatures as much as their diminuitive size. Alas, I am drawn to fast - whether it be in women, motorcycles, or camera lenses. ;-)

[delander †]

I know that all Leica lenses are small compared to DSLR lenses.

 

But even so for me the summiluxes and larger seem just that bit too large for a camera that is supposed to be discreet. And the balance of course, a large piece of glass hanging off a small camera body.

 

The 50mm cron on an M camera body just handles perfectly, but the lux is a bit too much lens for me.

 

Jeff

[pop]

I agree that the 50mm Summilux is a bit unwieldy. I don't feel the same way about the 35mm Summilux (the spherical one). I would love to use it on the M8, but it will not properly focus on that camera.

[Marty]

Of all the larger lenses I would have thought the 50 Lux ASPH a bad example of a big lens. It is wonderfully compact and light. Otherwise I will join the praise. The small lenses are things of beauty. That is why I resisted the one stop improvement of the 28 Cron over the 28 Elmarit for a long time. Until the majestic 24 Lux came around

[andym911]

Interesting view and I agree completely...the lenses I use 99%are the smaller ones , Cron's and Elmar's are my preferred lenses.

the Lux variants are just too big and heavy and don't make for good handling IMO.

 

Must say though that it has taken me a few years to recognize that and to notice that the lens I am using very rarely makes or breaks an image.

 

best

andy

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The bulkiest lens I own is a late-model 90 Summicron, and the longest is a 135 Tele Elmar. Neither of them gets used frequently. I never had the desire for a Noctilux, but I did toy with the idea of a 75 Summilux at one time. Until I actually found one and put it on my camera. It made my 90 Cron seem small. That lens (along with the 135 Elmarit with goggles) is completely at odds with the sole reason I spent the money on Leica and put up with its eccentricities. I rid myself of the late-model 50 Summicron and 35 Summicron-ASPH in favor of their immediate predecessors because both are significantly smaller/lighter. Those plus a thin 90 Tele-Elmarit, a 21 Skopar and a 15 Heliar is my favorite rig for traveling. I don't really consider the 50 Summilux a big lens though (however mine is the e43 variety).

[FrozenInTime]

The optimal solution is to have a slow compact set of lenses AND a fast set of lenses.

 

Those Summiluxes, Noctiluxes and Noktons come out when needed for differential focus or candle light.

The Zeiss C, Summarit and Skopar lenses for travel and discrete use.

Or one can follow the middle path with Elmarits and Summicrons.

Leica-M gives so much choice : can any other system equal it ?

 

I have a 21mm Summilux and Franken finder, but now I also carry at the same time the 21mm C Biogon and 21mm OVF.

The Frankenfinder with it's parallax correction is the optimal solution for close in work.

The Biogon is so small and sharp.

 

For years I've carried both a 35mm ASPH Summilux and a 35mm Color Skopar each lens has it's moment.

[delander †]

The problem for me is that if I had two sets of lenses, small and light, or a set of summiluxes, I know that I would most often choose the lighter more discreet lens.

 

In fact the only summilux I have is the 50 APSH, which I bought because everybody raves about it, but I dont see any advantage in its images over those of the 50 cron.

 

Jeff

[sm23221]

One of the best and easiest to handle lenses I've used on my M9 is the Elmar-M 50 f/2.8. Try it, it is a very liberating experience!

[delander †]

One of the best and easiest to handle lenses I've used on my M9 is the Elmar-M 50 f/2.8. Try it, it is a very liberating experience!

 

I'm sure it is and I have often thought about getting one.

 

Jeff

[01af]

One of the best and easiest to handle lenses I've used on my M9 is the Elmar-M 50 f/2.8. Try it, it is a very liberating experience!

Also don't ignore the Summarit-M 50 mm 1:2.5! I never had a lens that draws the transition from sharp to blurred so nicely (haven't tried the Elmar-M 50 though ... yet). Hint: When judging a lens' bokeh then don't look at the totally-out-of-focus areas only; also look at the areas where sharpness just begins to turn into blur.

 

Originally I purchased the 35 mm and 50 mm Summarits off eBay as cheap stop-gaps while waiting for the delivery of the Summiluxes, with the intention of getting rid of them as soon as the Summiluxes have arrived. I am new to the Leica M system so I don't own any older lenses to fall back to when I purchased my first Leica, the M9, a year ago.

 

But hey! Those Summarits turned out as real gems! I definitely will keep them. As a matter of fact, I prefer them over the Summiluxes whenever super-high lens speed is not required—not only due to less bulk, weight, and obtrusiveness but also due to their optical performance and character.

[ho_co]

... the 35mm Summilux (the spherical one) ... will not properly focus on that camera.

 

Are you sure, Philipp? If you're speaking of the lens baffle, Leica will adjust that for you to make it usable on the digital boxes.

 

Item 2.5 from M8 FAQ:

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!

[pop]

Howard - thank you very much for pointing that out.

 

My 35mm Summilux has been a problem lens from the very beginning. However, I take all the blame as it is a second hand lens of uncertain origin. On the M8 it has a rather severe back focus issue. When the RF says 1m it will be focused at about 75cm. It worked - after CLA and some collimation in Solms - reasonably well on the R-D1.

[IkarusJohn]

Although I understand the fascination of large out of focus areas in an image, such lenses are often physically large ... So although tempted I have avoided noctiluxes, 35 and 75 summiluxes and 90 summicrons. I cant see myself ever being tempted by a 21 or 24 summilux because they are so large. Being able to work in a non-threatening manner is also a concern.

 

I can see the advantage of the smaller lenses (I love my 35 Summicron Asph), but I simply don't buy this idea that any of the Leica M range is large. My "go-to" combination on my F5 was an 180 mm f/2.8 prime, and a 17-35 mm f/3.5-4 zoom, and by many standards that was compact. Bear in mind that the sensor on an M9 is effectively the same size as the 35 mm film in my F5. There is simply no comparison.

 

In medium format, traveling with my Hasselblad, two light meters, two backs, film, and Sonnar, Planar & Distagon lenses needed a backpack.

 

It's not that you don't have a point that the Summilux 21 is larger than a Summicron 35, but let's have a bit of a reality check. This is full frame digital photography with even large lenses you can slip in your jacket pocket (not something I achieved with any Nikkor lens. The Summilux 50 Asph is wonderfully compact, and looks and feels great on my M9. The Summilux 21 Asph is larger, but still small on any comparison with other systems. I was taking pictures in a market yesterday, and no one gave it a second glance.

 

Cheers

John

[delander †]

I'm not comparing M lenses to DSLR lenses (particularly zooms). The 50 lux is a bigger and more obvious lens for the camera body than the 50 cron and offers f1.4 instead of f2. At smaller apertures there is no practical difference in quality between the two. It is the size difference that I notice when taking photographs, particularly street which is my main interest and of course what the Leica M was designed for.

 

Jeff

[jacarape]

Yea man, F2.8 is a great size for RF lenses. I do have 2 fast lenses, a 35 ASPH and the god like 75/1.4.

 

But my most used is the little 28 ASPH. I also have like you the 90 E-M, it's half the size of anything in SLRville.

[IkarusJohn]

I'm not comparing M lenses to DSLR lenses (particularly zooms).

 

I understand that fully, Jeff. But I don't think you can look at this in isolation.

 

Yes, the Summilux 50 is bigger than the Summicron of the same focal length, but neither is big by comparison with any other full frame system. I don't believe it makes any sense to look at the M system in isolation, and then make this statement:

 

In general I prefer small lenses because they are more balanced on an M camera, less obtrusive, look less 'professional' and are easier to handle.

 

Okay, smaller M Lenses are lighter, less obtrusive (less professional? what's that about?) and you may find them easier to handle. But you're dancing on the head of a pin - compared to anything other than a digital compact, the Summiluxes are hardly huge. Haven't seen a Nocti, but I suspect it still fits in the palm of my hand.

 

Cheers

John

[giordano]

Having owned a nice screw-mount outfit (two bodies, four lenses 35-135, hoods, filters, viewfinders and two or three rolls of film all in a leather case about 200 x 300 x 75mm), all M cameras and most of the lenses still seem big to me.

 

Yes, DSLRs and their lenses are bigger still - but that's a different kind of camera!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[!Nomad64]

As long as you can live without the need for faster speeds I'd agree with you. Smaller lenses are unobtrusive and might come with higher quality.

I ended putting together myself a double set, i.e. Vöigtländer 25/4 & Elmarit 24/2.8, Vöigtländer 50/3.5, Planar 50/2 & Sonnar 50/1.5 and AASPH 90/2 & Elmarit 90/2.8.

That said, I'm constantly carrying with me the heavier set (and sooner or later I'll end selling the lighter one...). I'm generally into landscape & theater. For the first higher even quality is a must, for the second I can't give up the higher speed.

But it's not a written law. To each his/her one.

Besides, as always it's the photographer that makes the difference. HCB took his photos with a lens that today would be comparable to a bottle bottom and Galen Rowell used lower quality cheap Nikkor zooms. Still their works prove all their mastership no matter the tools they relied upon.

 

Cheers,

Bruno