50lux Asph Owner...worth getting the 35 cron ?

[vk2109]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone

 

This is mainly for the people who uses the 50lux Asph as main lens and I was wondering if you guys also own the 35 cron ? ( i see leica increasing the prices) and I am considering getting a WA angle to my 50lux....ie a 35mm. I have 28 and don't like it ! but thinking also

if 35cron and 50lux is not too redundant ? (i know different focal and speed but close) !

 

PS: this is for FF leica (M9)

 

Thanks for any shared advice

 

Vadim

[Paul Verrips]

I use the 50 Lux asph as main lens and own an 28 Elmarit, the choice fot 28 was because i thought that 35 would be to close to 50. A few months ago i bought the 35 Lux ASPH because 28 is good for landscape, but for me it was too wide on the streets.

 

So if it's redundant or not depends on what might be your general subject........

 

Whether 35 is to close to 50 depends on your.........general subject. But on the streets it makes more difference then i had in mind.

[Peter H]

Hi Vadim, I'm sure many will tell you about how subjective all this is, how every lens has its own special qualities and uses, how 35 is very different from 50, and how the only way to really find out is to try them. And all these things are correct.

 

But since you ask about our own experiences to help you make your own mind up, this is mine: I own both, but use the 50 more, and since getting a 28 Summicron, the 35 gets very little use. I find the 50 Lux ASPH and 28 Summicron a wonderful, absolutely top quality, compact and versatile combination capable of handling 95% of what I want.

 

But the 35 Summicron is a beautiful little lens in its own right, one I'm quite happy to use when I just want to go out with a single fairly fast & tiny lens. And as Paul says, its excellent for "street".

[jaapv]

I sold mine in favor of shorter focal lengths. I never used it, except as a small walkabout single lens. Normally my bag was Summilux 24-Summlux 50 asph - Elmarit-M 90. Now that I sold my Summicron 35 asph a Super Elmar 18 has appeared . For the odd time I do want something small and handy I have a Summicron-C 40

[01af]

35-mm rangefinder photography revolves around 50 mm and 35 mm focal lengths, so having both is a must, anything else is optional ... well, at least that's how I feel about it.

 

Okay—when you have 28 mm and 50 mm (and love using both) then a 35 mm lens might be mostly redundant. But you said you don't like the 28 mm focal length, so I'd guess 35+50 would be right for you. Many feel these two are too close to one another ... but I say they're wrong. Only if you deperately want (or need) to cover a maximum range of photographic fields with a minimum of lenses then it'll make sense to choose your focal lengths in wider steps. But when you've found the "center of gravity" of your personal vision then it makes perfect sense to use two lenses that both fall in "your" range even when they are fairly close to each other.

 

However I'd suggest to stay away from the current Summicron-M 35 mm Asph. If you need the speed then better get the Summilux-M 35 mm Asph. You may think when shooting the shorter lens hand-held then you can get away with slower shutter speeds and thus, with a slower lens speed than in your 50 mm lens. But on the other hand, most likely you will use the shorter lens indoors more often than the longer lens; hence a Summilux will make sense also in the 35 mm focal length. You may also want to consider the Voigtländer Nokton 35 mm 1:1.2 lens.

 

If you don't need (or want) the speed of a Summilux or Nokton then I'd suggest to get the Summarit-M 35 mm rather than the Summicron-M 35 mm Asph. The former is as sharp as the latter, only insignificantly slower, cheaper, and a lot less prone to flare. The 35 mm Summarit is a very underappreciated little gem.

[alun]

Some will tell you that a 35 is too close in focal length to a 50; others that nothing but a 28 will do; others that "you need to go really wide" and nothing above an 18mm is truly any good. It's all bunk. In real life usage a 35mm is an utterly different beast to a 50mm and I think the two together are the ideal pair, the staple of rangefinder photography.

 

BUt your experience, wishes, needs, enjoyments etc may differ, of course.....

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some will tell you that a 35 is too close in focal length to a 50; others that nothing but a 28 will do; others that "you need to go really wide" and nothing above an 18mm is truly any good. It's all bunk..............

 

Funny, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone express those dogmatic views.

 

In fact it seems to me that people go so far out of their way to emphasise that their opinions are simply their own personal preferences and they might not apply to you, etc. etc., that it takes ages to find out what their own preferences actually are!

[vk2109]

Thanks Paul, Peter,Jappv, 01 and Alun for all your responses. As you mentioned Paul the 28 is quite wide and still the 35mm is wide too but not as much and will give that extra when needed on very narrow situation.

 

I agree that 35/50 is what street photography with RF evolves around. I even have an elmarit M-90 but to be honest I barely used it more than twice during the last 6 months and still prefer using the 50lux or if telephoto is a must use the only lens i kept with my 5d2, the 70-200 2.8

 

I am just looking something to fill the gap for wider than 50 so that's why I was looking at the 35. The 35 elmarit seems like another great option for the cost !! not sure why people don't like it !! how is the contrast with the summarit ? i love the rendering of the 50lux specially in BW ...so which would give something as close ?....all those leicas are all great anyways !!

 

Thanks

 

Vadim

[Peter H]

I haven't used myself it but judging from photos I've seen from it and reports I've read, the Summarit 35 is worth very serious consideration.

[gib_robinson]

35-mm rangefinder photography revolves around 50 mm and 35 mm focal lengths, so having both is a must, anything else is optional ... well, at least that's how I feel about it.

 

Okay—when you have 28 mm and 50 mm (and love using both) then a 35 mm lens might be mostly redundant. But you said you don't like the 28 mm focal length, so I'd guess 35+50 would be right for you. Many feel these two are too close to one another ... but I say they're wrong. Only if you deperately want (or need) to cover a maximum range of photographic fields with a minimum of lenses then it'll make sense to choose your focal lengths in wider steps. But when you've found the "center of gravity" of your personal vision then it makes perfect sense to use two lenses that both fall in "your" range even when they are fairly close to each other.

 

However I'd suggest to stay away from the current Summicron-M 35 mm Asph. If you need the speed then better get the Summilux-M 35 mm Asph. You may think when shooting the shorter lens hand-held then you can get away with slower shutter speeds and thus, with a slower lens speed than in your 50 mm lens. But on the other hand, most likely you will use the shorter lens indoors more often than the longer lens; hence a Summilux will make sense also in the 35 mm focal length. You may also want to consider the Voigtländer Nokton 35 mm 1:1.2 lens.

 

If you don't need (or want) the speed of a Summilux or Nokton then I'd suggest to get the Summarit-M 35 mm rather than the Summicron-M 35 mm Asph. The former is as sharp as the latter, only insignificantly slower, cheaper, and a lot less prone to flare. The 35 mm Summarit is a very underappreciated little gem.

 

+1

 

I use both a 35 and 50 more than any of my other lenses. Next is the 75 then the 28. Yes, the 35 and 50 are fairly close to each other, but IMO the field of view of the 35 is very appealing on a FF sensor. I own

a 35 Summicron ASPH and I agree that a Summarit is likely to be less prone to flare, probably as sharp, and certainly cheaper.

 

--Gib

[sblitz]

i have the 35 cron and 50 lux and they are very different from a focal standpoint. of the two the 50 gets more use and if i want to go wide i use a 21 and long i use a 90. the 28 and 75 will eventually show up, but there is no rush. if you are walking about and do not want to carry anything more than the camera and lens that's attached, the 35 will cover the broadest set of possible uses. as for the cron vs others, the lens does flare but that isn't a problem for me, it does have a somewhat clinical look to my eyes and so if want to take a photo that has a distinctive look, the 50 lux. but i would not be without a 35.

[wda]

Vadim, a very low-cost method of evaluation is to go out shooting just with your 50mm lens. When you selected a subject, shoot it then while continuing to view the subject, adjust the framing pre-view lever to select the 35mm frame. Gently move the camera around that subject, studying the extra material included in the frame. Then ask yourself whether that would have been a better lens choice given the option.

 

This method is simple but does not take into account repositioning your viewing position. Just repeatedly explore the two options. The exercise should give good insight to your preferences for different types of street photography.

 

You might like to add a second exercise. Having taken your 50mm shot, move forward with the 35mm pre-view selected until the first subject area is approximately covered by the imaginary 35mm lens. Of course the perspective of some elements will have changed. Those are the subtle differences between the coverage of the two lenses.

[microview]

Maybe it's because I always had only the 50mm option for years, but increasingly I find the 35 view excessively wide – as with these shots from Waterloo Bridge London.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Manolo Laguillo]

Both are nice, microview!

But they are completely different! And it's ok! Shall we understand that you prefer the 2nd over the 1st? Why?

[microview]

Both are nice, microview!

But they are completely different! And it's ok! Shall we understand that you prefer the 2nd over the 1st? Why?

 

Well that's very kind Manolo. One is 50 Summilux asph, the wider shot with people in it is Zeiss 35/2.8. Textures seem more real at 100% view with the 50mm and in the other the stretch of road itself seems excessive. I make no artistic claims for either:).

 

I could have come in closer with the 35 – and thereby hit by traffic in the middle of the road:D.

[kdriceman]

I shoot mainly a 50mm (Summilux and Zeiss) but also have the 35 chron also. I find that I utilize the two focal lengths very differently without really thinking about it. I tend to shoot the 50s more wide open trying to isolate the subject more and with the 35 I tend to stop it down, get greater DOF and include more of the scene. So, even though the focal lengths don't seem that different, I end up with very different images.

[Fang]

I tend to agree with kdriceman - I too learn to shoot with the 50mm lux wide open but use my 28mm cron to get the greater DOF.

 

I shoot mainly a 50mm (Summilux and Zeiss) but also have the 35 chron also. I find that I utilize the two focal lengths very differently without really thinking about it. I tend to shoot the 50s more wide open trying to isolate the subject more and with the 35 I tend to stop it down, get greater DOF and include more of the scene. So, even though the focal lengths don't seem that different, I end up with very different images.

[MarkP]

I'm not sure whether you're asking about 35mm in general or specifically the Sunmmicron (as you've already decided you want 35). I'll respond to both possibilities.

 

Can you explain why you don't like the 28 focal length? It may be that something wider, ie 24 or 21 may suit you better. If you find the 28 too wide then 35 is appropriate. The 35 and 50 are very different, and not interchangable, focal lengths (although of course a photo taken with 35 can be cropped to ~50).

 

In general, if I'm taking a single lens it tends to be a 35 (Summilux FLE or Summarit) or 50 (Summilux ASPH or ZM C_Sonnar or 1.0 Noctilux). If two lenses a 50 and 28 Summicron, sometimes a 50 and a 35 as they are still very different)

 

The 35 is an excellent general focal length. Not too wide to create any distortion, good for travel as it lets in just a bit more, good for social situations and some portraiture as it puts people in a broader context (I think Annie Leiboviz' preferred focal length for just this reason).

 

Most Importantly, as mentioned in posts above, you need to use the 35 to see if it suits you. Hence the argument of starting (or staying with) one of the cheaper lenses. Personally, I would not be without a 35mm lens.

 

 

 

I haven't used the 35 Summicron but (I don't think there are any issues about it's quality if you want a 2.0/35), although I bought the 35 Summarit as an alternative to the 35 Summilux for when I wanted a different look and/or less weight. The Summarit is an excellent lens despite the lower price (~60% the cost of the Summicron) You could also consider a Summarit (probably no great advantage over the Summicron) or Zeiss initially, and if you really end up liking the 35 you may even want to upgrade to a 35 Summilux which is a fantastic lens. There are numerous threads here comparing the 35s, or look at Reid Reviews excellent online comparisons.

 

 

Mark

[vk2109]

I shoot mainly a 50mm (Summilux and Zeiss) but also have the 35 chron also. I find that I utilize the two focal lengths very differently without really thinking about it. I tend to shoot the 50s more wide open trying to isolate the subject more and with the 35 I tend to stop it down, get greater DOF and include more of the scene. So, even though the focal lengths don't seem that different, I end up with very different images.

 

Thanks ! if stopped down for the 35 then there is no real need for the cron's f2 and the summarit may do the work then...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Fang]

Thanks ! if stopped down for the 35 then there is no real need for the cron's f2 and the summarit may do the work then...

 

my answer is yes you are right logically