One or two focal lengths for leica newbie?

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just received a 35/2 zeiss, but when the 50 Apo arrives I'll order a 35 lux. Back when I owned a d3x, reading 35mm F mount lens reviews never persuaded me that their wide-open performance was worth paying for, despite having need of one. The 35 lux has an excellent reputation, though.

 

When I first began photography with a d700, I'd look at the price of leica luxes and think: "WTF, I'll never pay that much for a lens"!, but two years later I bought an elmarit-r 100/2,8 and it's gone downhill from there........

 

I know the feeling ......

[k_g_wolf ✝]

.... and you are not the only one.

 

 

Best

GEORG

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Scarlet]

Neither of you appears to have picked up on the ironic tone of my post.

 

I'm perfectly able to discern differences between lenses of the same focal length but different optical construction, new lenses v old etc. I happen to have several Leica/Leitz 50mm lenses and a number of 50s from other manufacturers. I do find the clean rendering of the 50 asph nicer - usually - than the pre-asph, for instance, but that's just my preference.

 

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!

 

I do maintain - and to whomever feels hit by this I apologise in advance - that there's a very large amount of intellectual masturbation on this forum about minuscule details of lenses' purported fingerprint and rendering. It is truly hilarious that 900x900px JPGs are the basis for such discussions. The impression I get is that there's a direct correlation between the amount of money some users have spent on their camera equipment and the amount of - for lack of a better term - wishfully perceived differences in rendering of the lenses. There's equally a correllation between the cost and the amount of worry about scratches, dirt on lens elements and general wear and tear of the equipment. Perhaps these are also the guys who have the fanciest skis in the hill and plow their way down. Naturally they claim to be skiers in the apres ski lounge, much like the Leica users I referred to earlier claim to be photographers, often inspired by HCB and discussing their "journey" into photography through Leica on own websites where they publish what really amounts to snapshots taken with an M9-P and a 0.95.

 

Sometimes I do fear for the future of us humans when I see the utter lack of intelligent assessment of people's photographic needs and abilities before plunging heaps of cash on camera equipment. I could myself buy the 50APO and the MM without much hesitation but I wont because I use film and have for decades and so don't see the use of such a lens (and yes I have read the threads about whether the APO will have a perceptible impact on film).

 

Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions. It is largely a free world and people may do what they want with their money.

 

 

When you own different lenses you will very clearly see the difference.

I own the 50 cron , Summilux ASPH and Noctilux 0.95.

Big difference from the cron to the ASPH lenses. The noctilux is about the same rendering as the 1.4. The extra stop give is a little more drama wide open.

 

Here's a small comparison thread I made:

Which do you prefer? 50 mm comparisons: Leica Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

On a real human face the ASPH lenses render warmer which most people seem to prefer.

 

You can only validate things once they have become familiar and you have learned to repeatedly identify them. So it's simply a matter of experience and of familiarisation.

 

There's a regular saying with clients. "I like it but I can't tell you why". Or more difficult "I'll know what I like when I see it"

 

The same goes for Audio. What an untrained ear will say is "amazing" an audiophile will be able to describe it to a tee and tell you that there is a gap in the crossover and there is detail missing in the bass.

 

Unless your relate it to your pictures and particularly the message in your pictures and use it as a tool then it's just pointless academics.

[Paul J]

Neither of you appears to have picked up on the ironic tone of my post.

 

Actually, no. I picked up on your sarcastic tone right from the beginning, though I usually find that kind of remark is from insecurity amongst other things....Though I thought with such a comment you perhaps didn't know and I took the time to further explain. Next time I shall not bother. You've made a one way trip to my ignore list.

 

It turns out, in fact, you really have no clue at all.

 

Ta-ta.

[Scarlet]

I find it interesting that of the two of us you're the only one engaging in ad hominem remarks.

 

Anyway, to go back to Andy's original question, the Zeiss 35/2 will be an excellent stop gap until the 35 Summilux which is a great lens. I understand Andy does have the need for the fast lenses. And, of course, should he feel the f2 of the 50APO to be restrictive it won't be difficult to sell.

[iLikeLeica]

Rick - which version of the 50m summilux is it you're so passionate about?

[dickgrafixstop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

three options - you choose depending upon your shooting style - for a two lens kit would

seem to be these:\

 

a.) keep the 50, buy a 28. if you prefer working close

b.) keep the 50, buy a 90 if you don't

c.) (my choice) dump the 50 since it hasn't arrived, buy a 35mm and a 75mm

which ones depends on budget but all are good, some are incredible.

 

lenses are extremely personal and depend on your vision. since you seem

dedicated to the new 50, use it and master it before buying any additional lens.

when you start to notice things you'd like to do that the 50 won't, your second

lens choice will become obvious

[dachs]

there's two things going on here, treating it seriously as it may deserve; and thanks dickgraphixstop for bolstering my old fashioned 35/75 view.

 

quote

I do maintain - and to whomever feels hit by this I apologise in advance - that there's a very large amount of intellectual masturbation on this forum about minuscule details of lenses' purported fingerprint and rendering.

unquote.

 

Nobody's hit by this; every technical arena has thrombosis of the machinery. There is even a shotgun teacher who uses that term about chokes; the gun restriction is of course little concern if you cannot shoot straight!

 

This does not remove the merit of looking at modern prints made with older lenses, nor marvelling at the quality of eg pre-war archives, so long as we don't get jammed up on it. We live in a period where the glasses from Leica and indeed many others (no Zed words here) are at the finest edge of what can feasibly commercially be produced. Just revel in it, if you can afford it!

 

I am not highly trained nor of good vision, but I love my photo print from an ancient 21mm f 3,4, and yet I can indeed tell that it isn't a recent 16-18-21 Tri Elmar one (as I have seen them side by side, 'cos my friend has the latter on an M9).

 

But now the second point (at last they sigh) - I am not going to bang on about it because when the 'kaboom' shot arrives - and it may be Hasselblad/Zeiss, Mamiya, Zenza, 10" by 8" plate, I don't care, I revel in the shot, the art, the story (if there is one), the composition, the colour or in mono the tones.

 

If the shot works for a lot of people then the machinery was correctly used. If the reality quotient (how detailed and 'in there' you are drawn because it is technically juicy) is high, that will definitely help.

 

To be silly for accentuation, a really nice Lady taken as a bad smudge on a wobbled early model i-phone will not hold most people's attention long. An Adams print of Yosemite canyons, will.

 

On a lighter note, try and keep fingerprints off your front elements, happy snapping