dickgrafixstop Posted October 3, 2011 Share #41 Posted October 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) one lens - 35mm two lenses - 35mm/75mm three lenses - 28mm/50mm/75mm four lenses - 24mm/35mm/75mm/135mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Hi dickgrafixstop, Take a look here choose only three lens`. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted October 3, 2011 Share #42 Posted October 3, 2011 Then we have interpreted his words entirely differently. It falls to him to explain what he meant. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmldds Posted October 3, 2011 Share #43 Posted October 3, 2011 I usually only carry 2: 35 Lux pre-asph and 75 Lux. When traveling, my third lens is the Zeiss 25. Tri:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnri Posted October 3, 2011 Share #44 Posted October 3, 2011 Hi Stephen, I tend not to think too much in terms of character of the lenses (I don't have those pretentions, I tend not to rely on the flaws in my equipment or post processing to give character or appeal that the original compositions lacked. Cheers John No post processing? So no adjustments to color, contrast or sharpness. Nor any cropping? So you just tend to let the camera make those choices for you, even with it's own particular flaws, including the 3:2 ratio? While your approach is interesting, you will find that many photographers pretentious enough to think about lens character do know how to compose a powerful image. For the OP, my preferences are: 50 Noct f/1 for general versatility and 21 'lux for wide versatility. I very rarely use the external finder with the 21 mm. On occasion, I like the 35 'lux ASPH and the WATE. On the WATE, I generally use the large but excellent Leica finder. Best, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smdavey Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share #45 Posted October 3, 2011 No post processing? So no adjustments to color, contrast or sharpness. Nor any cropping? So you just tend to let the camera make those choices for you, even with it's own particular flaws, including the 3:2 ratio? While your approach is interesting, you will find that many photographers pretentious enough to think about lens character do know how to compose a powerful image. For the OP, my preferences are: 50 Noct f/1 for general versatility and 21 'lux for wide versatility. I very rarely use the external finder with the 21 mm. On occasion, I like the 35 'lux ASPH and the WATE. On the WATE, I generally use the large but excellent Leica finder. Best, Bill yes i think i need to get my hands on one of these 21 lux. i use post. coming from digital side.. my 2 pence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 3, 2011 Share #46 Posted October 3, 2011 That really is a soul-less approach that misses the whole point of variances in lens design - it sounds like the rendition of a Mandler-era lens would be wasted on you. Soulless? Nah. Wasted on me? Probably. It's a bit like regarding a track on an iPod as superior to an LP because it is digitally precise. Not really. I love my Roksan CD player, and I would have stuck with LPs if they'd been at all durable. Stick to the ASPHs and the clinical purity by all means but don't sneer disparagingly at those who understand ad appreciate the value of character and personality over grey, uniform, regimented "perfection". Sneer? No, more like scorn, really. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 3, 2011 Share #47 Posted October 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) No post processing? So no adjustments to color, contrast or sharpness. Nor any cropping? So you just tend to let the camera make those choices for you, even with it's own particular flaws, including the 3:2 ratio? Hi Bill. I don't use jpegs produced by the camera, so I'm always using the raw output. The camera is making no choices for me. Minimal adjustments to colour, but I do adjust White Balance if I have to (I tend to set White Balance manually with a WhiBal card so I get a reasonably accurate setting in camera). Contrast and sharpness? No. Exposure? Sometimes, if I've got it wrong. I rely on the in camera meter, and adjust either shutter speed or use EV Compensation if I need it. Cropping? I prefer not to, but will do so if the image warrants it. I prefer to frame in camera - composition is probably the most important issue for me, which is why I also think about lens selection. While your approach is interesting, you will find that many photographers pretentious enough to think about lens character do know how to compose a powerful image. I'm sure there are. I don't have such pretentions, as I said. I'm simplistic enough to believe that the photographers I like from bygone eras would use the latest equipment, as they did in their day. What I like about their pictures is not that they lack clarity or are taken with flawed lenses, but their subject matter and their composition. Perhaps another way of looking at this is that the images that I like, and which seem to have lasting quality are not displaying the photographer's technical skill, or the superiority of their equipment. They are not immediately apparent. They may have used a Box Brownie, or some rare, arcane lens, but that is not point of the image. What you see is the image, and the technology and technique is simply used to get a fine image - these things are not overt. Modern lenses allow me to think about clarity and composition (framing and depth of field). My lens selection influences that; I prefer sensible separation between my preferred 3. I'm less interested in telephoto lenses - I have those on my previous kit, tight images with foreshortened backgrounds aren't my thing. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 3, 2011 Share #48 Posted October 3, 2011 Sneer? No, more like scorn, really. Yes. Thought so. That just speaks volumes... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smdavey Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share #49 Posted October 3, 2011 Hi Bill. I don't use jpegs produced by the camera, so I'm always using the raw output. The camera is making no choices for me. Minimal adjustments to colour, but I do adjust White Balance if I have to (I tend to set White Balance manually with a WhiBal card so I get a reasonably accurate setting in camera). Contrast and sharpness? No. Exposure? Sometimes, if I've got it wrong. I rely on the in camera meter, and adjust either shutter speed or use EV Compensation if I need it. Cropping? I prefer not to, but will do so if the image warrants it. I prefer to frame in camera - composition is probably the most important issue for me, which is why I also think about lens selection. I'm sure there are. I don't have such pretentions, as I said. I'm simplistic enough to believe that the photographers I like from bygone eras would use the latest equipment, as they did in their day. What I like about their pictures is not that they lack clarity or are taken with flawed lenses, but their subject matter and their composition. Perhaps another way of looking at this is that the images that I like, and which seem to have lasting quality are not displaying the photographer's technical skill, or the superiority of their equipment. They are not immediately apparent. They may have used a Box Brownie, or some rare, arcane lens, but that is not point of the image. What you see is the image, and the technology and technique is simply used to get a fine image - these things are not overt. Modern lenses allow me to think about clarity and composition (framing and depth of field). My lens selection influences that; I prefer sensible separation between my preferred 3. I'm less interested in telephoto lenses - I have those on my previous kit, tight images with foreshortened backgrounds aren't my thing. Cheers John i am very new to this forum. but John speaks sence. only crop. only ever,ever when you have to etc. just one example of how i agree with him. seems pretty hard on him( this forum) or just that people like to argue? do we love photography for same reason? to show people how we see life. be it. landscape. people ....or whatever.... i guess i like the passion people show here, on this forum. passion is never a bad thing. and from one question. a Amazing thing has happened, in my mind at least. ( you would never get this on a Canon Forum, hahaha) Leica is the the best, i have discovered this. , it is not only about photos, its about holding an amazing piece of history, that can not be bettered, and i love that. and everyone can get what they need from a leica lens. which ever they choose. they can show you there dreams as such. and i thank everyone that has put into this discussion. i have learnt alot in a small amount of time. which is so good i adore my M3 in a completely , un explainable way. to hold it feels like i am the knig of the hill. and to find the correct lens` for me will be an adventure i have never had before. where as i know. i use a canon 5dii i buy the L lens, thats it. job done. with leica. it is more..... yes i want to know more. yes i want to be able to shoot the M3 without light meter. and in the end i will. i had pretty good idea. this weekend i used canon, and for some reason i overexposed everything i shot. i was really . screwed! dont know why or how i made that mistake. but i also, used 36 frames on the leica, i would say 50 percent were spot on, the rest were 1/2 stop over or under which i could correct in light room. when you hold a leica, you feel special. when you see someone shooting with leica, you have to walk up to them and say hello. in my mind at least. a billion different styles. but one love..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 3, 2011 Share #50 Posted October 3, 2011 Then we have interpreted his words entirely differently. It falls to him to explain what he meant. Regards, Bill Bill, you know from our previous posts elsewhere that I understand and agree with your approach to the different character of lenses of the same focal length. After all it was you who led me to that lovely 1.5/50 ZM C-Sonnar (which I too find I'm using more than my 50 Summilux ASPH). I also have a friend who is an internationally renowned photographer (unlike me) who has lent me his 1.0 Noctilux indefinitely (he now primarily shoots MF) telling me it draws images like no other 50mm lens and he's right. I'm also playing with a 65 year old 2.0/50 Summarit. I too have no pretentions that I am competent or expert at this but I'm finding my way, and can appreciate the differences between these lenses. The word pretentions is made with respect to my skills and abilities, not with someone else who is more experienced or skilful at getting the most out of these variances. I found nothing offensive in John's comment and read it as applying to him. Certainly the remainder of his post was innocuous and inoffensive. I suspect that this was simply part of our Antipodean self-deprecating manner. I suspect the issue here was cultural and no-ones 'fault'. Miscommunication (inherent to brief electronic communications such as these particularly as the tone of the post cannot be readily gauged) is not always the fault of the one writing (like the abuse I was subjected to in another thread after I posted what I thought really was innocuous and inoffensive advice). One could be given the benefit of the doubt and clarification could be requested before going for the jugular. Regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted October 4, 2011 Share #51 Posted October 4, 2011 Currently on a round the world trip with only M8 + 35mm Lux Asph. Sometimes I tell myself "I wish had a wider/longer lens" but reality is that 99% of the shots I am not able to take is because either I do not react fast enough or simply do not have the guts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 4, 2011 Share #52 Posted October 4, 2011 Why so few? 18/24lux/24elmar/35lux/50 lux/90cron/90macro/135. And those are the new ones. And more Zeiss are not listed and older Leicas are not listed. If I go to a windy/sand area I often take older lenses which have already been to sandy areas. For the street I take a lux or Sonnar and keep it simple, i.e., 2 lenses max and often just one. Yes, I usually pick 3 for a daily outing or more for a long trip. Lenses are like ties, you own several, but can only wear one and try to match that one to the occasion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted October 4, 2011 Share #53 Posted October 4, 2011 Earlier I suggested that my 3 lens kit for the M3 would only be a 50 & 90, because with the .91x viewfinder the M3 doesn't lend itself to wide angle. In review of this thread I note that the OP and several posters here have suggested numerous wide angle combinations. If I had an M3 (which I do) and wanted to shoot wider angle lenses with my classic Leica RF camera (which I do), then I would buy a nice M2 (which I did). The M3 is just so perfect with a 50. The 90 is a great bonus. That's enough for me. With the M2 and it's .72x VF it's 35-50-90, of course... I love this thread...no wrong answers here!!!! Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnri Posted October 4, 2011 Share #54 Posted October 4, 2011 Hi Bill. Perhaps another way of looking at this is ... What you see is the image, and the technology and technique is simply used to get a fine image Cheers John On this we are in agreement. It is always the final image that either works for me or not. I know many who love photography but are not fans of heavy processing. Personally, I enjoy both simple images and very deeply manipulated ones. I like both "found" images and ones that are completely "set up". I appreciate any image that moves me no matter the path taken. Certainly, others will feel differently. Best, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 4, 2011 Share #55 Posted October 4, 2011 Currently on a round the world trip with only M8 + 35mm Lux Asph. Sometimes I tell myself "I wish had a wider/longer lens" but reality is that 99% of the shots I am not able to take is because either I do not react fast enough or simply do not have the guts. Hi Yanidel, How could you bare to leave your glorious 60mm Hexanon at home? Having enjoyed your work in the past I thought you to be a bold but sensitive street photographer. I can't reconcile your photography with your comment about reaction time and guts. Regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted October 4, 2011 Share #56 Posted October 4, 2011 Hi Yanidel, How could you bare to leave your glorious 60mm Hexanon at home? Having enjoyed your work in the past I thought you to be a bold but sensitive street photographer. I can't reconcile your photography with your comment about reaction time and guts. Regards, Mark Hi Mark, I did not feel confortable travelling with it in some countries due to its value + I liked the one lens experiment. Reaction time -> everything happens so fast in street photography that missing shots is part of it. Bad angle, too far, against light ... so many situations when you have not enough reaction time to adjst. Guts -> I am not a completely fearless photographer, there are shots I do not dare to take. Also, after being 2 months in South America, I learnt there are also shots it is much better not to take. This all in all, makes you miss a lot more shots then not having the appropriate lens with you Cheers, Yanick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eleskin Posted October 4, 2011 Share #57 Posted October 4, 2011 For my M8: This is my walk around street shooting kit 1. 15mm Super Wide Heliar - no distortion, sharp, cheap, small, great for hip shots! Great for moving subjects in bright light! Great for landsapes! Great for interiors! 2. 35mm f1.2 Nokton - great bokeh,color, sharpness, little distortion, no flare, and priced reasonably compared to Leica, great for low light. Great for people, low light street photography, portraits, general purpose. My M8 wears this lens 80% of the time. 3. Noctilux f1.0 - great portrait lens (the women love how they look at f1.0, I have become popular with them with this lens), incredible bokeh, very little flare, even facing into the sun!, great shadow detail, and sharp at smaller f stops. Not cheap, but a classic! very good for low light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted October 5, 2011 Share #58 Posted October 5, 2011 1960s style would be a M3 with a 50 Summicron across your body to the right. A 90 Elmarit in your pocket. And a M2 with a 35 Summicron across your body to the left. I shoot with a M9 with either a 35 or 50 Summicron attached around my neck and a Domkie F5b on my belt holding the other Summicron, a 90 Elmarit, spare battery and a few cards. But on a M3, I might be tempted to go with a 28 rather than the 35 with bug eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 5, 2011 Share #59 Posted October 5, 2011 For my M8: This is my walk around street shooting kit 1. 15mm Super Wide Heliar - no distortion, sharp, cheap, small, great for hip shots! Great for moving subjects in bright light! Great for landsapes! Great for interiors! 2. 35mm f1.2 Nokton - great bokeh,color, sharpness, little distortion, no flare, and priced reasonably compared to Leica, great for low light. Great for people, low light street photography, portraits, general purpose. My M8 wears this lens 80% of the time. 3. Noctilux f1.0 - great portrait lens (the women love how they look at f1.0, I have become popular with them with this lens), incredible bokeh, very little flare, even facing into the sun!, great shadow detail, and sharp at smaller f stops. Not cheap, but a classic! very good for low light. I had never thought of a Noctilux as a "chick magnet":cool: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted October 5, 2011 Share #60 Posted October 5, 2011 Try it, it can indeed be a magnet ! Unfortunately I do not have a NOCTILUX but the SUMMILUX 75 mm works pretty much the same ... Which makes it part of my 2-lenses-kit: 35 mm (SUMMICRON IV) and 75 mm. Lens no. 3 would be the 24 mm ELMARIT. best GEORG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.