tgm Posted April 26, 2011 Share #1 Posted April 26, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is there any 31-32 mm Leica M lens available? Most of the time I am either using the 28 summicron or the 35 mm summicron, but I would prefer something in between. With my Mamiya 7 I was only using the 65 mm wide angle corresponding to 31.5 mm for full frame. I found it almost perfect, it gives a tiny bit wider field than 35 mm but, it does not give an extreme wide angle perspective like 28 mm. Off course I can use the the 28 mm summicron and cut away the outer part, but this reduces the 18 Mp sensor to 14 Mp. What do you think? Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Hi tgm, Take a look here 31-32 mm wide angle lens?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted April 26, 2011 Share #2 Posted April 26, 2011 No. 28 (or 35) is the closest. Why don't you move 32 cm closer to the subject? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peyton Hoge Posted April 26, 2011 Share #3 Posted April 26, 2011 [ What do you think? Thomas I think you're trying to get too technical! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick in CO Posted April 26, 2011 Share #4 Posted April 26, 2011 Use the M8 and the 25mm ZM Biogon or one of the 24mm Leica lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted April 26, 2011 Share #5 Posted April 26, 2011 I was going to suggest the M8 + 24mm combination too, because that gives you exactly 32mm. BUT the OP did say he didn't want to crop 28mm from 18MP down to 14MP, so settling on the 10MP M8 is presumably unacceptable too. Maybe get a 28mm lens and take a step forward after framing? Or get a 35mm and take a step back? ... Why MUST you need a 32mm? I just don't understand.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted April 26, 2011 Share #6 Posted April 26, 2011 I was going to suggest the M8 + 24mm combination too, because that gives you exactly 32mm. BUT the OP did say he didn't want to crop 28mm from 18MP down to 14MP, so settling on the 10MP M8 is presumably unacceptable too. Maybe get a 28mm lens and take a step forward after framing? Or get a 35mm and take a step back? ... Why MUST you need a 32mm? I just don't understand.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted April 26, 2011 Share #7 Posted April 26, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Given the difference in shape of a 6x7 neg and a 24 x 36 sensor, presumably you are cropping your M9 shots at the ends anyway to get the same shape as Mamiya 7 images. In which case the 28 is equal to a "63mm" on the Mamiya format. If you are not cropping your M9 shots to 6x7 format, then the difference in format (1.16:1 vs. 1.5:1) is 10 times larger than the difference between an M9/28 and a Mam7/65 - Format difference = 30% "63mm" vs. 65mm difference = 3% If you can actually tell the difference between "63mm" and 65mm in a collection of, say, 20 images at anything better than "random guess" percentages - I'll contribute $100 towards whatever lens you end up getting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted April 27, 2011 Share #8 Posted April 27, 2011 M photographers zoom with their feet. The old man from Prime Time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted April 27, 2011 Share #9 Posted April 27, 2011 1) 35mm and 27,6666 cm step back 2) 28 mm and Adan's way... 6x7 vs. 24x36 is a much more significant difference, for your attitudes of framing, than few mm of focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted April 27, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted April 27, 2011 M photographers zoom with their feet. The old man from Prime Time Thanks for the various comments, actually it seems that my point, why a focal length between 28 and 35 mm might be interesting, became not clear. It is a question of perspective. Moving a step further or closer does not help. Just an example I portrait taking with a wide angle lens and with a telephoto looks very different, in the first case the background displays a wide perspective, while in the letter case the background has the typical telephoto bocket. It is certainly not only depth of field. Even if you shoot with the wide angle lens wide open and the telephoto stopped down the pictures look very different. The 28 mm lens has the clear wide angle look, while 35 mm has almost a standard perspective. Something in between ( I was often using an equivalent focal lens with the Sony R1 or the Mamiya 7) would be nice. But if there is not such lens, then I will use the 28 mm and 35 mm depending which seems more appropriate. best regards Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted April 27, 2011 Share #11 Posted April 27, 2011 It is a question of perspective. Moving a step further or closer does not help. Just an example I portrait taking with a wide angle lens and with a telephoto looks very different, in the first case the background displays a wide perspective, while in the letter case the background has the typical telephoto bocket. Yes, perspective depends on distance, but we are talking about a mere 25 percent here, or rather 11 percent (between 35 and 32 mm) and 14 percent (between 32 and 28 mm). Surely such a small difference in distance wouldn’t change perspective that much? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 27, 2011 Share #12 Posted April 27, 2011 I can of course tell the difference between a 28 and 35 - at least, most of the time. But a 31? I'll buy you a beer if you can pick the difference in actual - i.e. not side-by side, but real life shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted April 27, 2011 Author Share #13 Posted April 27, 2011 I can of course tell the difference between a 28 and 35 - at least, most of the time. But a 31? I'll buy you a beer if you can pick the difference in actual - i.e. not side-by side, but real life shots. Actually, I fully agree, most of the time I see a clear difference between 28 and 35. 35 looks more natural. That is exactly the reason why I would like to have a little bit smaller focal length giving the natural look of the 35 but a slightly wider angle. Its only a subtle effect, sure. Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted April 27, 2011 Share #14 Posted April 27, 2011 Thanks for the various comments, actually it seems that my point, why a focal length between 28 and 35 mm might be interesting, became not clear. It is a question of perspective. Moving a step further or closer does not help. Just an example I portrait taking with a wide angle lens and with a telephoto looks very different, in the first case the background displays a wide perspective, while in the letter case the background has the typical telephoto bocket. It is certainly not only depth of field. Even if you shoot with the wide angle lens wide open and the telephoto stopped down the pictures look very different. The 28 mm lens has the clear wide angle look, while 35 mm has almost a standard perspective. Something in between ( I was often using an equivalent focal lens with the Sony R1 or the Mamiya 7) would be nice. But if there is not such lens, then I will use the 28 mm and 35 mm depending which seems more appropriate. best regards Thomas Only partially tongue-in-cheek: If having a lens with a 31 mm FL is that important to you, buy a Pentax K-5 (or a Sony Nex-5 w/K mount adapter) and use the Pentax SMC FA*31mm Limited lens - IMO it's as good as Leica glass. Of course, you'll need to adapt to a different camera... Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted April 27, 2011 Share #15 Posted April 27, 2011 If having a lens with a 31 mm FL is that important to you, buy a Pentax K-5 (or a Sony Nex-5 w/K mount adapter) and use the Pentax SMC FA*31mm Limited lens With a 1.5 crop factor on the K5, he would need a 20-21mm lens to gain the equivalent FOV of a 31mm lens. The 31mm lens would give him a 46-47 mm equivalent FOV. That's why several folks here already suggested an M8 with a 24mm lens, yielding roughly 32mm FOV with the 1.33 crop factor. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted April 28, 2011 Share #16 Posted April 28, 2011 With a 1.5 crop factor on the K5, he would need a 20-21mm lens to gain the equivalent FOV of a 31mm lens. The 31mm lens would give him a 46-47 mm equivalent FOV. That's why several folks here already suggested an M8 with a 24mm lens, yielding roughly 32mm FOV with the 1.33 crop factor. Jeff Yes, but he seems to feel that the perspective of a 31mm lens is what's special for him, not the FOV. Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted April 28, 2011 Share #17 Posted April 28, 2011 Yes, but he seems to feel that the perspective of a 31mm lens is what's special for him, not the FOV. Regards, Jim Well, if he doesn't change his position relative to his subject, all his lenses will have the same perspective. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted April 28, 2011 Share #18 Posted April 28, 2011 Well, if he doesn't change his position relative to his subject, all his lenses will have the same perspective. Jeff That's why this thread is somewhat silly, IMO. Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted April 28, 2011 Share #19 Posted April 28, 2011 The viewfinder is not likely to be that accurate annyway, the 35 frame on my m6 is about right for 40mm, and even with reflexes there are very few which show the whole frame, the answer is cropping, or an evf! Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peyton Hoge Posted April 28, 2011 Share #20 Posted April 28, 2011 Thanks for the various comments, actually it seems that my point, why a focal length between 28 and 35 mm might be interesting, became not clear. It is a question of perspective. Moving a step further or closer does not help. Just an example I portrait taking with a wide angle lens and with a telephoto looks very different, in the first case the background displays a wide perspective, while in the letter case the background has the typical telephoto bocket. It is certainly not only depth of field. Even if you shoot with the wide angle lens wide open and the telephoto stopped down the pictures look very different. The 28 mm lens has the clear wide angle look, while 35 mm has almost a standard perspective. Something in between ( I was often using an equivalent focal lens with the Sony R1 or the Mamiya 7) would be nice. But if there is not such lens, then I will use the 28 mm and 35 mm depending which seems more appropriate. best regards Thomas Use what you have and enjoy it! Enough of this jibberish! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.