Lens question, advice, suggestion

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am considering what second lens to get for my M3, but can't decide if I should go wide for 35mm or long, with either 90mm or 135mm. I realise that this depends on my style of photography. And, that said, I know I will eventually have both a 35 and a longer lens.

 

At the moment, though, I am wondering what to get for now, which, in turn, depends - a bit - on the performance of the alternatives.

 

I've read many threads here about the Summilux 35mm. I do prefer available light photography so that would seem to be the lens to have. But it appears the general view here is that it is a nice lens but that all incarnations of it, bar the latest version which I am not interested in because it costs way too much, have a flare or coma problem. Some people, it seems, like this performance, whereas other detest it.

 

So that leaves the Summicron which, I understand, does not have the same deficiencies.

 

A related question is if I definitely need the goggled version of the 35mm lens. Over the years, I have developed a pretty good understanding of the field of view at 35mm so I think I could quite easily use it with the 50mm framelines (those are the ones brought up, right?). Plus, I guess I could use an external viewfinder, too. So why would/should I get the goggled version?

 

But what about the longer end, 90mm and 135mm? The latter kind seems not to be so much liked. Why is that - are 135mm really poor quality or? The 90mm I've seen is made in a f2 version, which seems nice. Is it to be favoured over a 135mm?

 

I've of course read many threads here and also various websites - - including Rockwell's, which I find difficult to understand because of all the extraneous and unharmonised opinion that pervades the various reviews, making it difficult to compare one to the other - - but the "user's view" would be more interesting, imho.

 

Any comments, therefore, on the quality and performance of these lenses would be much appreciated.

 

Kind regards and thank you in advance

Philip

[earleygallery]

The goggled 35mm will of course alter the exsting field of view in your viewfinder/rangefinder so that you can frame accurately.

 

You can use any other 35mm with an external viewfinder but you then have to focus through the camera finder and then frame through the external viewfinder - a bit slower in practice. Also you don't get the parralax correction the camera finder offers.

 

Watch this space as I will be listing a very nice goggled 35mm 2.8 Summaron in the buy/sell forum soon......

[Guest Randle P. McMurphy]

But what about the longer end, 90mm and 135mm? The latter kind seems not to be so much liked. Why is that - are 135mm really poor quality or? The 90mm I've seen is made in a f2 version, which seems nice. Is it to be favoured over a 135mm?

 

Dude - you got the M3 and the fu**ing best finder Leica ever made.

Forget about the wideangle and grab one of the outstandig 4/135

lenses like the tele-elmar.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/135mm-f4-tele/D3S_7651-1200.jpg

 

http://www.google.de/url?q=http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php%3Ffilename%3Dfile_1750.pdf&sa=U&ei=B31XTr_vEur_4QTdtsWkAw&ved=0CA8QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGopvXFTFmyqSR8F7PAn733rOz32A

 

With the Tele-Elmar-M from 1965 the design reached the theoretical optimum

attainable in these days and reigned unchallenged for more then 30 years.

Indeed the optical performance of the Tele-Elmar-M in its various redesigned

mounts (three times) stayed the same, as the computation was not changed.

Even today it delivers outstanding image quality. Its field of view and foreground-

background relation can be used very advantageously for reportage photography

and fine-art studies alike. It is a very versatile focal length with a long

tradition of classical images. It is a pity that the 135 mm focal length does not

get the attention it deserves pictorially.

[Michael Hiles]

If you go for a 135mm, look for a pristine Tele-Elmar. They are optically wonderful, and they go used for very little money. They are often a terrific deal. And they function really well on an M3.

[kokoshawnuff]

A third vote for a tele-elmar. If you need the speed go for a summicron 90. Ultimately the M3 is really well suited for these longer lenses. and as was mentioned the tele-elmar is underappreciated and therefore undervalued for the optical quality.

[philipus]

Forget about the wideangle and grab one of the outstandig 4/135 lenses like the tele-elmar.

 

If you go for a 135mm, look for a pristine Tele-Elmar. They are optically wonderful, and they go used for very little money. They are often a terrific deal. And they function really well on an M3.

 

A third vote for a tele-elmar. If you need the speed go for a summicron 90. Ultimately the M3 is really well suited for these longer lenses. and as was mentioned the tele-elmar is underappreciated and therefore undervalued for the optical quality.

 

Thanks for pointing this lens out to me. It seems very interesting indeed.

 

If you had to choose between the 135 Tele-Elmar and the 90 Tele-Elmarit (the one which, as I understand it, is called "nano" or which Rockwell calls "Fat"), which would you pick?

 

The 90mm Summicron is, I guess, likely to be more expensive than the Tele-Elmarit?

 

Thanks again for all your assistance.

Philip

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Tele-Elmar is too heavy for my tastes so i prefer the previous Elmar 135/4. Now, how many times will you use a 135 actually? Better choose a 90 for portrait IMHO. The 'fat' Tele-Elmarit is a bit soft i've been told on this very forum (but i have no experience with it). Same for the Elmarit 90/2.8 v1 that i own. The 'thin' Tele-Elmarit is a superb little lens for travels and day to day photo but it flares a lot. The pre-asph 90/2 is one of my favorites but is rather bulky. Same for the sharper asph 90/2 and the last Elmarit 90/2.8. The tiny Macro-Elmar 90/4 is my latest love but it is expensive. So if you're on a budget my votes would go for the cheap Elmar 90/4 collapsible. It is not flare free though, but what a great lens really. For less flare, sharp results and a new lens i would choose the current Summarit 90/2.5.

[prunelle]

I am considering what second lens to get for my M3, ...

What lens do you have at the time being?

[lct]

I forgot the Elmar-C 90/4 for Leica CL. Same size as the 'thin' Tele-Elmarit, it is not expensive and has a good reputation but is said to flare a lot as well. I have no experience with it though.

[philipus]

The Tele-Elmar is too heavy for my tastes so i prefer the previous Elmar 135/4. Now, how many times will you use a 135 actually? Better choose a 90 for portrait IMHO. The 'fat' Tele-Elmarit is a bit soft i've been told on this very forum (but i have no experience with it). Same for the Elmarit 90/2.8 v1 that i own. The 'thin' Tele-Elmarit is a superb little lens for travels and day to day photo but it flares a lot. The pre-asph 90/2 is one of my favorites but is rather bulky. Same for the sharper asph 90/2 and the last Elmarit 90/2.8. The tiny Macro-Elmar 90/4 is my latest love but it is expensive. So if you're on a budget my votes would go for the cheap Elmar 90/4 collapsible. It is not flare free though, but what a great lens really. For less flare, sharp results and a new lens i would choose the current Summarit 90/2.5.

 

Wow, thank you, this is a wealth of information!

 

Re weight, well, I'm sort of used to that, having lugged EOS equipment around since the late 1980s. But it's of course also a matter of balance with the camera body.

 

By "pre-asph 90/2" do you mean this one (11136/11137) or this one?

 

What lens do you have at the time being?

 

I currently have a 50mm Summilux. Yesterday, I read the thread about your getting your first M3 - it was a very nice read because I could relate

 

It is a fair question how often I would use a 135. I love taking portraits and have used a Canon 100mm for that purpose for years. So 90mm might actually suit me better.

 

But...I don't like flare very much if I can avoid it but I'm also not able to buy a 1000€ lens at the moment. One of the reasons I wondered about the nano/fat Elmarit is that I've seen it sold for less than 500€ which appears a rather reasonable price.

 

I forgot the Elmar-C 90/4 for Leica CL. Same size as the 'thin' Tele-Elmarit, it is not expensive and has a good reputation but is said to flare a lot as well. I have no experience with it though.

 

It's funny - I was just going to post my reply and ask what about the 90mm Elmar-C! Yes, that also seems like a light and small lens. The little drawback, I guess, is the f/4.

 

Hmm, the plot thickens!

 

Thanks for all your assistance, I am very grateful for ideas and suggestions.

Philip

[lct]

...By "pre-asph 90/2" do you mean this one (11136/11137) or this one?...

This one (11136/11137).

[Printmaker]

I love my 90 Elmarit M and highly recommend this lens. I also have a 90 TeleElmarit that has been retired to a drawer due to its softening evesight.

 

You might also consider a 28 mm and skip the 35 with goggles. I have a 135 Elmarit with goggles and my old 50 DR had goggles for close up work. I find/found the goggles a real PIA. Of course the 28 would require an external finder but they are easy to use. With a 28 just set the lens on 10 feet/3 meters, stop down to F8 and forget focusing. Compose through the finder.

 

The beauty of a 28/50/90 combo is that the 50 sees the world in the same proportions as your eyes (the M3 is great in this respect); the 28 sees the same slice of the world as you do when you look forward with no particular point of focus; and the 90 tightens up on the human face just as you do when you look someone in the eye. It is a very natural combo.

 

Tom

[MarkP]

I love my 90 Elmarit M and highly recommend this lens. I also have a 90 TeleElmarit that has been retired to a drawer due to its softening evesight.

 

You might also consider a 28 mm and skip the 35 with goggles. I have a 135 Elmarit with goggles and my old 50 DR had goggles for close up work. I find/found the goggles a real PIA. Of course the 28 would require an external finder but they are easy to use. With a 28 just set the lens on 10 feet/3 meters, stop down to F8 and forget focusing. Compose through the finder.

 

The beauty of a 28/50/90 combo is that the 50 sees the world in the same proportions as your eyes (the M3 is great in this respect); the 28 sees the same slice of the world as you do when you look forward with no particular point of focus; and the 90 tightens up on the human face just as you do when you look someone in the eye. It is a very natural combo.

 

Tom

 

 

A very nicely explained perspective on your lens combo:).

 

Regards,

Mark