Best lens choices for shifting systems

[essphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello there,

 

I'm a relatively new member here. Been active on other, non-Leica forums for a while because I've only shot Nikon my entire career. But now I've decided to make the jump over to the rangefinder. So I've got a new M on pre-order, and I want to begin tracking down some lenses for it.

 

One of the biggest worries that I have about the switch over to the M is that my shooting style will be hindered by the fewer lenses I'll ultimately have with the Leica system. Now with my Nikon glass I have focal lengths from 14-135 pretty much all covered. For cost reasons, I've come to the conclusion that I'll be only able to purchase 2-3 Leica lenses (in the beginning at least). So my question is, which ones?

 

My first thought is that I've got to get the classic 50 Summilux. Then I'm still between the 28 Summicron and the 35 Summilux. The 28 I hear might be outdated soon by a Summilux, so I'm concerned about that for one due to the retail value. Secondly, the Summilux only opens to f/2 and I like using wide angles indoors a lot, so that's a bit limiting (though perhaps the new M will help with better low light performance). With the 35 my concerns are that it's very similar to the 50. In what situations would I truly need to swap the 50 off my camera for the 35? If I'm trying to be frugal here, is the 35 too redundant? Finally, I'm considering the 90 Summicron. It looks like a beauty, but I've never tried something longer than 50 on a rangefinder. Can somebody with experience tell me if it's a problem to frame correctly with the 90?

 

So, to sum it up, which direction do you all think is worth taking? And in what order would you purchase the lenses if it were up to you?

 

Thanks very much,

Eli

 

PS - Somewhat unrelated, but does anyone know if it's possible to use Nikon Speedlights with the M system?

[jaapv]

No Summicron was ever "outdated"by a Summilux. Leica produces lenses in several speeds in each focal length. f 2 is pretty fast for a 28, it is unlikely you will need more, unless you want to go for wide-angle-shallow dof photography.

Keep in mind that each and every lens in the Leica system is superb, just different specification. Choose to your need, not to a false perception of "better".

The Summicron 90 ditto. A super lens, but the Summarit 90 is a lot more affordable and the better choice for most users.

 

I would say, get the Summilux 50 asph, the Elmarit 28 asph and the Summarit 90. A super starter kit that has 95% of standard photography covered. And is still "affordable"by Leica standards.

 

 

 

Btw Leica lens ever loses value, no matter what new lenses are produced. They only seem to get more expensive by the day.:mad:

[pgk]

My first thought is that I've got to get the classic 50 Summilux. Then I'm still between the 28 Summicron and the 35 Summilux.

 

PS - Somewhat unrelated, but does anyone know if it's possible to use Nikon Speedlights with the M system?

I have the 50 and 35 Summiluxes. I used to have the 28 Summicron. I do not find the 35 and 50mm focal lengths to be too close to each other and I prefer 35 over 28. However, this is, I believe, an entirely personal choice and posting here will almost certainly produce very varied advice. FWIW I would suggest that you stick with the 50 for a time and see how you feel about needing something wider, by trying to decide whether you just want a slightly or distinctly wider lens when faced with situations that requires a wide lens. I would agree though that a 28 Summilux might just change the game somewhat.

 

You could try another way of deciding, and that is to keep your eyes open for cheaper, older 28 and 35mm lenses, and buy and try - you won't lose much (if anything) providing that you choose wisely and at the right price, and you may even like the older lenses - none are actually anything other than pretty good and the worst have 'character'. The current lenses are just extremely good. I have both older 90mm Elmarit-M and Summicron lenses (not the latest) both of which I like but I tend to prefer the slower Elmarit-M. The apo has an excellent reputation but older 90s are very reasonable and again you are unlikely to lose much by trying one.

 

I think that there is a long thread about Nikon Speedlights on the forum which may be worth while searching for.

[philipus]

I shot Canon from 17-400mm until I moved to Leica and have never found the fact that these days I only have lenses up to 135mm to be a problem. In a way, I carried around a lot of unnecessary millimetres before.

 

If you've shot fullframe on Nikon there's (of course) no difference in the focal lengths so get the focal lengths that you've predominantly used in the past.

 

I have the 35 FLE and the 50 Asph plus the 90 Elmarit-M and I use film only. If I were setting up a new system these are the lenses I would get, even if I used digital. They're all great.

 

On the issue of perceived focal length proximity between 28 and 35mm: I also have a 2.8cm Hektor (with an extremely slow "widest" aperture of 6.3; it works great on film in the right circumstances, such as street) but I have never found this lens to be too close to 35mm. But - if I had to choose between these focal lengths I would pick 35mm because it is simply my preference. I find that 35 and 50 are a good complement to each other.

 

Btw the Summicrons "only open up to f/2", not the Summiluxes. However, on a digital body it is unlikely that you'd see a(ny) difference in usage indoors between an f1.4 and an f2. You'd even be able to use f2.8 quite easily. Jaap's suggestion about the Summarits is good; they're very good value for the money. The one reason I did not buy the 35 Summarit is ergonomy; the aperture ring is too thin and in my tests I kept nudging the focus ring.

 

As for framing, this is something one learns quickly (and even more quickly on digital, of course). I have used 135mm/13,5cm lenses quite a lot on both Barnacks and Ms and haven't had much trouble framing. The key is always to imagine a bit of a crop when composing/choosing a lens. This is just a different style of photography than SLR photography and something one has to accept.

[pgk]

However, on a digital body it is unlikely that you'd see a(ny) difference in usage indoors between an f1.4 and an f2.

Sorry Philipus but I'm going to disagree with this statement. It really depends on how you operate. I personally DO use f/1.4 quite often, indoors and out, and if you do, you do. F/2 simply isn't the same.

[jaapv]

It depends whether you need the extra speed for light, in which case the higher ISO rating of the M will negate the difference, or the extra stop for the look of the image, in which case there is a difference.

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry Philipus but I'm going to disagree with this statement. It really depends on how you operate. I personally DO use f/1.4 quite often, indoors and out, and if you do, you do. F/2 simply isn't the same.

 

Fair enough, I'm not going to argue on opinion or preference. Just to clarify my post: I meant actual usage, that is, risk of motion blur vs added noise due to having to move up the ISO one stop. I didn't refer to OOF character of f1.4 vs f2.

[pgk]

It depends whether you need the extra speed for light, in which case the higher ISO rating of the M will negate the difference, or the extra stop for the look of the image, in which case there is a difference.

I have a 5D2 with 24 and 35 L f/1.4 lenses. Clean higher ISO really does not negate the use of fast apertures for me - they are a powerful combination and allow for images otherwise unobtainable. I recently shot a wedding (last minute, for a friend) and arrived at the church (on a small island) to discover that there was no power supply and there were only candles to light up the whole service (and it was a dark, dull day). The camera was pushed to the limit even wide open. Fortunately the images captured the atmosphere and they went down well as the combination of shallow depth of field and low noise high ISO worked.

 

I think that we live in exciting times with equipment capabilities which we could only ever dream of a few years ago.

[flyalf]

Hi,

 

I would recommend to wait with longer than 50mm until you are familiar. Also there seem to be a fair amount of reasonable priced SH 90mm in good/ex condition out there.

 

As to first lens(es):

 

You should decide if you in medium term will move into super wides. For me thats a no-brainer; a life without M super-wides is like a river without trout.

 

W/O super-wide:

Go for a 28/2,8 or 28/2 + 50/1,4 or 50/1,5 (Zeiss or Jupiter)

 

W superwide

Start with a 35/1,4 only. Consider a WATE or 21/3,4.

 

Best of luck!

[Guest MarcRF]

No Summicron was ever "outdated"by a Summilux. Leica produces lenses in several speeds in each focal length. f 2 is pretty fast for a 28, it is unlikely you will need more, unless you want to go for wide-angle-shallow dof photography.

Keep in mind that each and every lens in the Leica system is superb, just different specification. Choose to your need, not to a false perception of "better".

The Summicron 90 ditto. A super lens, but the Summarit 90 is a lot more affordable and the better choice for most users.

 

I would say, get the Summilux 50 asph, the Elmarit 28 asph and the Summarit 90. A super starter kit that has 95% of standard photography covered. And is still "affordable"by Leica standards.

 

 

 

Btw Leica lens ever loses value, no matter what new lenses are produced. They only seem to get more expensive by the day.:mad:

 

I've got exactly that kit and it simply is awesome! for lowlight you got the summilux, for wider stuff the perfectly sharp (and small) elmarit and for portraits the summarit. performance is great. I haven't found a situation yet that I couldnt cope with any of these lenses and I can recommend each one of them

[tobey bilek]

I fail to see how can give advice not knowing subject matter, expected light levels, and if you use flash.

 

Low to dark light levels, summilux lenses for sure.

 

For brighter light or flash, a Summicron is top of the line. Do not discount the Summarit line in 35, 50 75,&90. Quality is high.

 

There is little point to buying 1.4 lenses for flash or bright light work.

 

Do not sell the Nikons as there is no 85 1.4 or zooms. Do not buy used to soon as any warrantee will expire before you can test them.

 

All that said, 35,50,90 are my choice for a basic lens set. Digital m is very difficult to focus with 135, so a used 135 2.8 which has magnification eyes has come out of my storage.

 

Even 90 mm is somewhat difficult. My two digital M simply do not focus was well as a .72 M6 and nothing comes close to a M3 from 1955. The .68 magnification seems lacking to me. I suppose it was necessary for the thicker digital body compared to film.

 

The two 28`s are both nice, one for speed, one for nearly zero distortion and low cost and extreme sharpness.

 

Take your pick of 24`s based on size, speed and cost.

 

I still use Nikons where Leica is by it nature not as effective, auto focus, tele and macro.

 

For compact travel package and better colors, Leica is the winner.

[swamiji]

I have a ever so slightly different take on the whole thing. First the name pretty much only refers to the speed (Except for the Summarit f1.5 & a few others). Second, it is my opinion one need to judge each lens on it's own merits. What I mean by that, is that each Leica lens is unique. Even in the same focal length and model designate. It depends on what qualities you desire in your photos, is the best lens. This is why I own 4 50mm lenses. None of them replicate the qualities of the others. Thirdly, the new lenses tend for sharpness, and the older lenses tend for softness. But sharpness is not always good.

 

The Summarit Lenses, in my opinion are excellent lenses, even if their build is not the same as the more expensive lenses. They are to my view, Leica's ode to all the older lenses, as they are all older designs, updated with modern glass. Some like the 50mm are close to the Summicron in optical quality.

 

You can pick your lenses on technical merits, and your first choice and reasoning is not bad. Though the details are not correct... as older lenses are not outdated, just the new ones are updated.

 

Just as a minor point, I have almost every focal length from 12mm to 560mm, and my oldest lens is from 1954 (new by Leica standards), so it's possible to cover the same focal length territory, with all primes, but 90% of the time I have either a 35mm or a 50mm on my M. But as they say YMMV.

[1joel1]

PS - Somewhat unrelated, but does anyone know if it's possible to use Nikon Speedlights with the M system?

 

I haven't tried with my M8, but I often used my Nikon Speedlight, SB-28(DX) I think, on my M6 and it worked great. I'll have to give it a try on the M8 to see if it works. I put it in auto mode and preselected the focal length.

 

Cheers,

 

Joel

[essphoto]

Thanks for all the suggestions. Unfortunately I do not live near a Leica dealer, so it's difficult for me to tell the difference between a 28 'cron and 35 'lux in person. Might anyone know a website that reviews lenses where I can see image samples? (FWIW, I can't stand Ken Rockwell.) By the way, somebody mentioned that I shouldn't buy used -- why is that so? And if I do, are there any particularities for buying Leica gear that I should know?

[elgenper]

Thanks for all the suggestions. Unfortunately I do not live near a Leica dealer, so it's difficult for me to tell the difference between a 28 'cron and 35 'lux in person. Might anyone know a website that reviews lenses where I can see image samples? (FWIW, I can't stand Ken Rockwell.) By the way, somebody mentioned that I shouldn't buy used -- why is that so? And if I do, are there any particularities for buying Leica gear that I should know?

 

IMHO, the best site for Leica lens tests is Reid Reviews. It is a subscription site, and the user interface can make a grown man cry , but contents is first rate for people who actually take photographs with their gear, not just pixel-peek . There are reviews of all the lenses mentioned in this thread, and several more, as well as selected cameras and other gear. Well worth the modest cost, and even the hassle of navigating and reading the contents.

[jaapv]

Thanks for all the suggestions. Unfortunately I do not live near a Leica dealer, so it's difficult for me to tell the difference between a 28 'cron and 35 'lux in person. Might anyone know a website that reviews lenses where I can see image samples? (FWIW, I can't stand Ken Rockwell.) By the way, somebody mentioned that I shouldn't buy used -- why is that so? And if I do, are there any particularities for buying Leica gear that I should know?

As far as used lenses go common sense suffices. It is always worth buying used from a reputed dealer. For example U once bought an Elmarit M 90/2.8 from Meister. Both Meister and I were convinced the lens was a perfect mint-. Nothing wrong with the images or mechanics, I thought on first use. I sent it to Leica to be coded and CS found hundreds of Euros of damage inside. Meister spoke to Leica and even the coding was for free.

Btw, please use the Summis as well;)

[algrove]

@ the OP

 

Keep in mind that Leica makes a 1.4/24 and a 1.4/21 which are expensive, but if Leica ever comes out with a 1.4/28 it will not be far behind those other two in pricing if not the same price. Thus it seems with your budget you should pick one 1.4 like a 1.4/35 FLE and be done with it until more finds open up. That is assuming from your experience the 35 FL appeals to you. It turns out for me and many others that is our go to lens.

 

@essphoto

 

Why not rent the lenses you are discussing? In this way you get to test both FL out and then decide on your own time without perhaps the rush being at a dealer's counter or ordering over the Internet.

[essphoto]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I am seriously considering the 35 Summilux FLE as my primary lens, as algrove recommends. But I worry that I won't be able to make the type of close portraiture I'm used to with my Nikon 85 and 135. So I am also interested in the 75 Summilux. Does anyone have experience with this lens? And would anyone recommend it over the 90 Summicron? My gut feeling is that the 75 1.4 is different in portrait situations because it can open wider than the 90.

[Guest MarcRF]

maybe it is just me but I wouldnt want to spend that much money and am currently using a 90 summarit. just love rendering of the lens.

 

alternatively if I cant switch I'm just doing it with a 50 summilux asph...

 

as far as my experience goes with rangefinders it seems to me that you dont necessarily need the typical portrait focal lengths on an M. 50 is fine for most of it and the 90 for special shots... the problem is just that every lens they make is just so damn good nowadays...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I am seriously considering the 35 Summilux FLE as my primary lens, as algrove recommends. But I worry that I won't be able to make the type of close portraiture I'm used to with my Nikon 85 and 135. So I am also interested in the 75 Summilux. Does anyone have experience with this lens? And would anyone recommend it over the 90 Summicron? My gut feeling is that the 75 1.4 is different in portrait situations because it can open wider than the 90.

The Summilux is completely different from the 90 AA Summicron, not because of the aperture, but because of the totally different character. The 75 Summilux is one of the top lenses of the Mandler era, with the more poetic look, whist the Summicron is one of the modern highly corrected lenses, more clinical. So it depends on whose portrait you are taking.