jacksparrow Posted February 9, 2007 Share #1 Posted February 9, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi! so, I have a Digilux 2 and MP+50mm summilux. I guess that the most versatile thing would be the D2, but what would be the next best lens to add to the MP in order to make it more useful to cover small events, meaning receptions, small inaugurations, nothing too big/fancy that would make approaching problematic. I was thinking about the 90 macro elmar. thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Hi jacksparrow, Take a look here question: minimum gear for covering small events?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted February 9, 2007 Share #2 Posted February 9, 2007 In my case it would be a 35 mm-lens, a SUMMICRON or a SUMMILUX. But t´s all a question of personal likings and your shooting style. I would contact a dealer who has s/h- LEICA M-lenses in stock and would ask him if I could have a go with some of his stuff. Some dealers are generous and let you have a brand new lens to try out carefully. With your 50 mm-SUMMILUX you already have a very fine lens for your LEICA. Take it along to your event and try to use it extensively. Perhaps than you know more clearly and what you are missing ... Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milsu Posted February 10, 2007 Share #3 Posted February 10, 2007 If You want to shoot indoors without flash, I think Your Summilux 50 with f1.4 is much more useful than it would be Macro 90 with f4. And if the room is crowded with people, long focal lenght as 90mm will be useless. (You would always find someone passing by in front of Your lens just at the moment You are about to press the shutter.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksparrow Posted February 10, 2007 Author Share #4 Posted February 10, 2007 thanks for the input, didn't really think about the crowd thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 10, 2007 Share #5 Posted February 10, 2007 You know, the difference between a 50 and a 35 mm lens is not very great. So if you really like that 50 (and it is really the most versatile of all focal lengths) you may want to go for a 28 instead. It does give you some elbow room, but it is still reasonably easy to use, and all the current and late lenses are very good performers indeed -- including the old 1980 vintage Elmarit! For low-light indoor work, you may of course want a 28 mm Summicron, and that lens is really fabulous. The old man from the Age of Silver Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 10, 2007 Share #6 Posted February 10, 2007 Can I ask why you think you would need a 90mm macro for such purposes? It seems a very odd choice to me but you may have certain uses in mind. I would say a 35mm would be the 'standard' lens, with something wider for group shots/interiors when needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjr Posted February 11, 2007 Share #7 Posted February 11, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) 24mmf2.8Asph Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milsu Posted February 11, 2007 Share #8 Posted February 11, 2007 I wouldn't recommend You anything wider than 35mm, because faces of the people who are standing at the edge of image could be distorted. (My face was like that in one wedding photo, and I was so disappointed, but it wasn't shoot with Leica lens, though.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted February 11, 2007 Share #9 Posted February 11, 2007 I wouldn't recommend You anything wider than 35mm, because faces of the people who are standing at the edge of image could be distorted. (My face was like that in one wedding photo, and I was so disappointed, but it wasn't shoot with Leica lens, though.) It wouldn't matter what brand the lens was. The personal distortion would be the same on any lens. I agree that nothing wider than 35mm on film is generally unflattering. probably the 28mm on the M8, with care about placement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksparrow Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share #10 Posted February 11, 2007 I kind of thought that the 50 mm was wide enough for most of the shots I make, and I thought it would be nice having some close-ups. I thought about the 90 mm also because I like the idea of having also the macro option for more personal stuff, however, after more careful thinking and general consensus... 28/35 mm would be maybe more usable in general. Thanks everyone for the advice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksparrow Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share #11 Posted February 11, 2007 I kind of thought that the 50 mm was wide enough for most of the shots I make, and I thought it would be nice having some close-ups. I thought about the 90 mm also because I like the idea of having also the macro option for more personal stuff, however, after more careful thinking and general consensus... 28/35 mm would be maybe more usable in general. Thanks everyone for the advice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted February 11, 2007 Share #12 Posted February 11, 2007 For my reportage and documentary stuff I use a lux 35 asph and a lux 75. Very portable and never a stop to little. Both are close enough to the standard focal length to not have an annoying perspective distortion, they give me two very useable angles of view, so to say an enormous versatility But this is only my taste. One thing more, I heavily disagree with Lars, 35 or 50 is two different worlds. 50 and 75 is imho much closer, though in combination with a 35 I'd prefer a 75. Hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted February 12, 2007 Share #13 Posted February 12, 2007 2.8/24ASPH or 2 or 2.8/28 Elmarit would come in handy. No distortion comparable to the often appalling stretched oval faces apparent with some WA lenses produced by other manufacturers. If you get in low and close to the action -- while staying as unobtrusive as possible -- results can be pleasing. As fast as possible! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted February 12, 2007 Share #14 Posted February 12, 2007 Then again, the 90 T/E is remarkably compact. Keep the 50 'Lux on the camera and a 24 and 90 in a small waist pouch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodaktrix Posted February 12, 2007 Share #15 Posted February 12, 2007 If You have no problem to approach and if there could be crowds of people I would use 35mm + 21mm in that case. Have a 50mm (fully open) as backup for portraits if You can drag people of interest into a lonely corner. Regards Oliver Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 12, 2007 Share #16 Posted February 12, 2007 Hi! so, I have a Digilux 2 and MP+50mm summilux. I guess that the most versatile thing would be the D2, but what would be the next best lens to add to the MP in order to make it more useful to cover small events, meaning receptions, small inaugurations, nothing too big/fancy that would make approaching problematic. I was thinking about the 90 macro elmar.thanks In the situations You quote, I surely would go for a wideangle; say a 28, having already a 50; you have good choices about : 28 f2 is costly, and you have a Summilux for critical lightining, think 28 f2,8 is the right pick for you, new asph or also a good used-non-asph. Have nice pictures ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksparrow Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share #17 Posted February 12, 2007 Thank you all very muchfor the, as allways, unvaluable advice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted February 12, 2007 Share #18 Posted February 12, 2007 I am a little puzzled why you do not try your D2 in the situations you describe. Its lens is fabulous and very versatile covering all the focal lengths discussed and at a fast speed. With that experience you will have a better idea which combination of lenses on the M would meet your needs. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksparrow Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share #19 Posted February 12, 2007 Hi David, D2 is great, true, but after using the MP for a while, I miss sooo much the narow DOF! it's so hard to have the same with the D2: most of the time everything is in focus! I just thought I could find a way to use the MP more instead of the D2, as the thread goes in the film forum "I Love my MP". This wouldn't be professional work, just for personal use, so I don't need to make a gizillion pictures (which would be something to consider otherwise!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.