yanidel Posted January 11, 2012 Share #21 Posted January 11, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Didn't some of the best "Leica photographers" use only one lens anyways ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Hi yanidel, Take a look here Erwin Puts' three-lens choice. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bocaburger Posted January 11, 2012 Share #22 Posted January 11, 2012 I know Mr. Puts has written a lot about lens performance, but I don't recall ever seeing much of his photographs. I might be inclined to take his word on which are the sharpest lenses within each focal length, but as to choosing focal lengths, not so much Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 11, 2012 Share #23 Posted January 11, 2012 Definitely not! The ratios are very different in these two three-lens kits. Remember the famous quote: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Ah, here it depends on what the meaning of the word 'Ratio' is. 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! The ratios of the ratios of the ratios of the focal lengths are indeed the same! Cheers, K-H. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The ratios of the ratios of the ratios of the focal lengths are indeed the same! Cheers, K-H. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/170298-erwin-puts-three-lens-choice/?do=findComment&comment=1895107'>More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 11, 2012 Share #24 Posted January 11, 2012 I know Mr. Puts has written a lot about lens performance, but I don't recall ever seeing much of his photographs. I might be inclined to take his word on which are the sharpest lenses within each focal length, but as to choosing focal lengths, not so much Plus one. Now after declaring publicly my lofty and highminded attitude to focal lengths, I should perhaps crawl into the confessional and reveal, blushingly, what I use. My Leica mainstay lenses are: • 21mm Super-Elmar • 35mm Summilux ASPH v.2 ("FLE") • 50mm Summilux ASPH • 90mm Elmarit-M • 135mm Apo-Telyt There are also some other odds and ends, for special purposes. I should add that accessory finders hold no terrors for me. I am old enough to remember when you needed one for EVERY focal length except 5cm! I never go out with more than three lenses – sometimes with just one. That one is the 35mm, or 50mm, depending on where I am heading. It is obvious that I can assemble different three-lens kits for different purposes. The one I use most often however is 21+35+90mm. I did however make a ten-day holiday trip last autumn with the classical combo of 35+50+90mm. The unexpected outcome was that all indoor pictures were taken with the 35, all outdoor ones with the 50, and none with the 90! Should I have brought the 21 instead? No, because this was mostly an open-country trip. I could have taken only the 35 and the 50. But they would not have substituted satisfactorily for each other. We often hear that these focal lengths are too close, but don't you believe it. They are different enough to deserve sharing your Billingham. So I am no dogmatist even when choosing what lenses to carry today. But knowing what I do carry, I 'wear' and can 'put on' the appropriate eyes for those lenses. That is key to successfully operating a Leica M. The old man from the Age of the Screw-Thread Mount(s) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 11, 2012 Share #25 Posted January 11, 2012 When I first encountered some articles by Erwin Puts a few years ago, I was impressed by the apparent level of knowledge. To me it seems that Puts is a technical expert but being a technical, photographic expert should not be confused with being a photographer. I would say that photographers choose lenses depending on many factors including their type and style of work and their personal preferences. IMHO the fact that Leica makes such high quality lenses helps photographers because there is less to worry about in terms of how well the lenses will perform when choosing them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 11, 2012 Share #26 Posted January 11, 2012 21 - 35 - 75 would be a very nice kit, but there is no way that a 50mm would not be on the list of "iconic Leica lenses" that "encapsulate the essence of Leica photography". If making a list of 3 such lenses, I think 2 of them would have to be the 35 and the 50, for both historical and practical reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted January 11, 2012 Share #27 Posted January 11, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) My choices for a three-lens set? Summicron-M 28mm f/2 ASPH Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8 All have the same basic diameter and are quite compact. All have 46mm filter threads, making filter sharing easy. All are at the top of their game and work equally well on film or digital bodies. All 6-bit coded, of course. I have this set myself, as well as the Tele-Elmar-M 135mm f/4 lens as an optional fourth. Me too and they can all be used without an external finder. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 11, 2012 Share #28 Posted January 11, 2012 Didn't some of the best "Leica photographers" use only one lens anyways ? Feel free to name "the best 'leica photographers' " and the lens(es) they used. Dig down and you'll find that while some had a "preferred" lens, they rarely use "one" lens. W. Eugene Smith, Leica (and Canon and Nikon) photographer?: http://corkap.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/tumblr_lbet616kql1qb09lpo1_500.jpg?w=500 http://www.richardsnotes.org/pictures/w_eugene_smith.jpg http://www.jazzloftproject.org/files/image/smith.jpg Henri-Cartier Bresson?: Hmm, is that a 50 Summicron on his MOTION PICTURE camera? http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BoRrHG%2BNL._SL500_AA300_.jpg Go through his book "People of Moscow" and you can see the signature and "perspective" of every lens in the original M3 pantheon (he had a pre-production prototype in 1953): 35, 50, 90, 135. The People of Moscow - Henri Cartier-Bresson | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Thene there is the iconic "Behind the Gare St. Lazare" - which is always cropped to about a 75mm field of view. If H CB had just had a 75 Summicron in the first place.... Original whole neg: Vintage Camera Style (HENRI CARTIER-BRESSON Behind the Gare St.Lazare...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 11, 2012 Share #29 Posted January 11, 2012 Me too and they can all be used without an external finder. Yes, exactly! I don't particularly like them, and why I went with the 2,8/25 ZM previously (I use the whole of the internal VF for framing - close enough). I thought about the 24 Lux, but it's way too big, heavy and expensive (plus requires series filters). So I compromised on the speed and focal length a little and just went the 28 Cron direction. EDIT: Also, as a bonus - several of these lenses have built-in, slide-out lens hoods (e.g. 50, 90 and 135). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 11, 2012 Share #30 Posted January 11, 2012 I know Mr. Puts has written a lot about lens performance, but I don't recall ever seeing much of his photographs. I might be inclined to take his word on which are the sharpest lenses within each focal length, but as to choosing focal lengths, not so much I cannot believe that a non-photographer or one who does not thoroughly use a lens really knows whether it is suitable or not. We can go through MTF metrics, military targets, flare tests, you name it - but it doesn't mean one knows anything relevant about the lens. All Puts has done is highlight recent Leica lenses. Newer does not equate with better, and the sharpest lens might be the worst for some subjects. Mr. Puts has gone over the edge on this one. Nonetheless, I do read his work because he is something of an institution and often has some stunning insights into the technology. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 11, 2012 Share #31 Posted January 11, 2012 Mr. Puts has gone over the edge on this one. . :o Erwin is very precise in his choice of words and his specific reasons. I agree with everything he says within the context of his comments and reference to the 'Leica Philosophy'. They are however, not MY choice of lenses, but there again I would be choosing based on completely different criteria ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 11, 2012 Share #32 Posted January 11, 2012 The ratios of the ratios of the ratios of the focal lengths are indeed the same! Sure ... and if they weren't then you would compute the ratio of ratios of ratios of ratios. If you only string together enough of these steps, you'll always arrive at a super-ratio near 1.0. When I first encountered some articles by Erwin Puts a few years ago, I was impressed by the apparent level of knowledge.To me it seems that Puts is a technical expert but being a technical, photographic expert should not be confused with being a photographer. I don't care whether he, as a technical expert, also is a photographer or not. Purely on a technical level, his expertise seems like a vast accumulation of many, many facts, like an encyclopaedia, but without much of some deeper understanding of the physical and mathmatical underpinnings. Sure—his latest article seems to indicate he isn't much of a photographer, too ... but my primary concern in the context of technical expertise is, he isn't much of an engineer in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong ... but that's my impression. Still I tremendously enjoy most of what he writes ... just not everything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 11, 2012 Share #33 Posted January 11, 2012 […] The third argument is just plan wrong ... and it would be wrong even if it was arithmetically correct. A useful spreading of lenses in a kit must not follow any fixed multiplication factor but is highly non-linear ... and furthermore a matter of personal preferrence. […] The fourth argument is not plain wrong but debatable. Does a three-lens kit containing a 21 mm lens really "make optimum use of the inherent capabilities of the rangefinder concept"? Those who hate accessory finders definitely will disagree. On the other hand, one of the advantages of the rangefinder concept is the fact that it can focus super-wide-angle lenses with much better accuracy than cameras with focusing screens can. But the hassle with accessory finders takes away a lot of this advantage. The fifth argument is just weird, as (a) there are other kits which would give you even faster lenses, and ( many fast lenses also offer the 3.4 aperture (just not as their widest) with very high definition […]. Yes and the statement according to which the "optimum choice" can be used on M8 & M8.2 as well is curious. 21 & 35 why not but the gap between 35 & 75 is too large. 50 is missing there. Anyway, as often with some reviewers, those are just words to try to rationalize what is essentially the author's subjective preference. Even if i like much my 21 and 75mm lenses, my "optimum choice" does not include the latters and is not the same for full frame (35/50/90), APS-C (28/50) and APS-H (28/35/50) personally. Not sure if philosophy plays any role in that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jneilt Posted January 11, 2012 Share #34 Posted January 11, 2012 my thoughts are 'why just 3'? and with that...21, 35, 50 and 90. don't know how I feel about the 75 yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 11, 2012 Share #35 Posted January 11, 2012 :o Erwin is very precise in his choice of words and his specific reasons. Which really means he is consistent with his information and also his impressionistic opinions which have nothing to do with making pictures: what a perfect balance for a wannabe photographer! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 12, 2012 Share #36 Posted January 12, 2012 I find his contributions always informative, often insightful and interesting. I'm completely disinterested in his photographic ability. It's simply not relevant to the information he provides. As a matter of interest, have any of you experts seen any of his pictures? I have been carrying the 21-35-50 combination, but I do see that the 75 might have something different to offer to my pictures. His are irrelevant. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #12 Posted January 12, 2012 Share #37 Posted January 12, 2012 To me it seems that Puts is a technical expert ... No he has no professional or academic background in optics or anything related. So I think that makes him a professional photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 12, 2012 Share #38 Posted January 12, 2012 No he has no professional or academic background in optics or anything related. So I think that makes him a professional photographer. That is funny. In my day, National Geographic gave high points to those who were good photographers with backgrounds in anthropology and history, respectively. These people would not even read Puts' writing. They knew what they needed, and very much of their work, if not all of it, could not be improved by Leica's latest and greatest technology. (And I am speak of those few who used nothing but Leicas before 1975 when I quit tracking the tech.) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted January 12, 2012 Share #39 Posted January 12, 2012 Hello Everybody, I think the person themselves is not the issue. When the person becomes the issue then the actual issue - In this case what lens for what, when & how - becomes secondary. What does the elevation or dimunation of any individual have to do w/ what lens is best for which of us under what circumstances? None that I see. Lens choice is a personal decision based on need brought about by circumstance, personal proclivities & so on. For me - Personnally - I take 90% or more of my pictures w/ a 35 on a full frame M. Most of the rest on a mix. The majority being w/ a 135. This is my personal choice. As a person who has had & finds no use for a 50 & feels the same about a 75 or anything wider than 35 - If I had a 3d lens it would be a 90. Note: I had a very nice 90 & sold it years ago. Too much duplication w/ a 135. So there you are : 35, 90, 135. But then, I use an M3 so what could I possibly know. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted January 12, 2012 Share #40 Posted January 12, 2012 Feel free to name "the best 'leica photographers' " and the lens(es) they used. Dig down and you'll find that while some had a "preferred" lens, they rarely use "one" lens. W. Eugene Smith, Leica (and Canon and Nikon) photographer?: http://corkap.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/tumblr_lbet616kql1qb09lpo1_500.jpg?w=500 http://www.richardsnotes.org/pictures/w_eugene_smith.jpg http://www.jazzloftproject.org/files/image/smith.jpg Henri-Cartier Bresson?: Hmm, is that a 50 Summicron on his MOTION PICTURE camera? http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BoRrHG%2BNL._SL500_AA300_.jpg Go through his book "People of Moscow" and you can see the signature and "perspective" of every lens in the original M3 pantheon (he had a pre-production prototype in 1953): 35, 50, 90, 135. The People of Moscow - Henri Cartier-Bresson | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Thene there is the iconic "Behind the Gare St. Lazare" - which is always cropped to about a 75mm field of view. If H CB had just had a 75 Summicron in the first place.... Original whole neg: Vintage Camera Style (HENRI CARTIER-BRESSON Behind the Gare St.Lazare...) Jean-Loup Sieff, 21mm F2.8 Depardon, M6 + 50mm Winogrand 28mm, lens was a Canon on a Leica. Robert Frank, 50mm Elliott Erwitt, 50mm ... I am sure they used and experimented other lenses. But I am sure also they did not procrastinate on which lens to use before every shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.