NathanS Posted February 8, 2011 Share #1 Posted February 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, I'm going to switch to digital Leica. Currently I'm using MP and some digital cameras for commercial use. I'm looking for lenses. I want to shoot still life with tripod. Aperture would be something around f/8. I need good geometry and sharpness. Focal lengths around 24mm and 100mm. Compact size would be additional profit. Thanks, Nathan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Hi NathanS, Take a look here Lens selection for still life. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mblaze Posted February 9, 2011 Share #2 Posted February 9, 2011 Hi, I'm going to switch to digital Leica. Currently I'm using MP and some digital cameras for commercial use. I'm looking for lenses. I want to shoot still life with tripod. Aperture would be something around f/8. I need good geometry and sharpness. Focal lengths around 24mm and 100mm. Compact size would be additional profit. Thanks, Nathan Nathan, What kind of still lifes do you shoot? (E.g., at what scale?) Why are you thinking of switching? I shoot a lot of still lifes. I love my Leicas as much as anyone, but rangefinders are not well optimized tools for still life work. The viewfinder is not exact, which makes careful composition of the frame very difficult, there are few macro and closeup lenses, and certain standard techniques of still life and tabletop photography simply can't be done with a rangefinder. . If you're concerned with geometry and perspective, you likely will need to shift the lens, which you can't do on a rangefinder, and especially if you are working close up, you need to be able to tilt to maximize sharpness and control DoF, which you also can't do with a rangefinder. For the price of a Leica you can get a very nice view camera, or a DSLR with live view and a shift/tilt lens. Or both. I do most of my still life and tabletop work with a view camera with a scanning digital back, or sometimes with a Nikon with one of their (quite good) PC shift/tilt lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanS Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted February 9, 2011 Maybe I used "still life" term in bad manner. Generally I'm not a native english speaker, so sorry for choosing words. I didn't meant product or tabletop photography. To be more specific now I use Cambo with old digital back and lenses that gives me 24, 40 and 110 mm equivalents in terms of Leica M9. I barely use shift or other lens movement. I don't want to shoot closeups. 0.7m is sufficient MFD for me. Even 1m would be. I just realised that I'm using my Cambo on tripod without removing back - just guessing focus distance and framing with additional viewfinder. I thought that would be nice to reduce size and use the same camera for still life and general street photo (I use Leica MP with ZM 35/2 and Cron 35 IV) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mblaze Posted February 9, 2011 Share #4 Posted February 9, 2011 A dSLR would be a little quicker and convenient but not much once you've got used to using a digital rangefinder for still lifes. I prefer the slower more deliberate approach that using the M8 in this way necessitates. I take most of my still lifes at 1-1. 5 m. Rich, I'm pretty sure that no one uses a view camera -- or a DSLR equipped with a lens that has limited view camera movements -- because it is in any way "quicker", "more convenient", or allows a less deliberate approach. You use such a beast by choice only if the photographs you want to take can be made only by use of one or more of the basic camera operations that smaller cameras lack. But it sounds like Nathan doesn't need these features (which the camera he has now -- a Cambo -- has), in which case I suspect he will very much enjoy the advantages that a Leica provides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 9, 2011 Share #5 Posted February 9, 2011 I never advise people on "the right lens for portraits/landscape/whatever ..." because only the photographer (or possibly a customer or subject) can know what kind of pictures heshe wants. The proof of the picture is in the peeping. You have already specified a range of possible f.o.v. equivalents. There are of course two technical considerations. A 90mm lens on a M has a maximum rate of reproduction of 1:9, except the 90mm Macro which can reach nearly 1:3 with the adapter. The 75mm Summicron goes unaided to about 1:7. Shorter lenses can't reach that; it's about 1:25 for a 24mm lens. I do often use my 50mm Summilux ASPH for the kind of work you want to do, however, even though the max ratio is just 1:11.3, because it's such a superb lens. You should seriously consider it. The other matter is depth of field. Choose a long lens if you don't want it, a short one if you want lots of it – and quite a bit of environment too. A 90mm lens is also quite finicky for focusing, even if you stop it down a bit. But remember that very highly corrected modern 35mm lenses produce their best definition at about 1:5.6 and start losing contrast from 1:11 on. You are already familiar with the problem of subjects that can't keep still! The old man from the Bellows Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.