New to Leica M

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You're looking at optimistic autosuggestion to cure yourself of GAS?

[Advertisement]

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

[pico]

You're looking at optimistic autosuggestion to cure yourself of GAS?

 

I suspect many who ask for advice are really looking for collaborators or enablers, so to that end I suggest he find the elusive post-war Summitar with coating and round aperture. Oh look! I have one to sell! NOT!

Edited December 18, 2012 by pico

[xalo]

Dhuff,

if I get it right, you're not having any M gear so far? Anyway, you put down big money (in my humble terms) for two top-notch lenses and the holy grail of digi-Leicas (until the next, I mean). If I were you, I couldn't stand the wait. I'd get a lens instantly (35mm) and an existing M body. Preferably film, but that's me.

Then i'd probably cancel the rest of the order, travel and photograph

 

Cheers,

 

Alexander

[IkarusJohn]

Bunch of comics!

 

Hi David (it is David, isn't it?),

 

There's a high level of speculation in your question as lens choice, particularly Leica lens choice, is not just about focal length, but also the character of the lens, and how the sensor behaves. We don't know the answer to the last, and there are people here well qualified to tell you about the character of lenses - they just need to get a sense of what you're looking for, I guess.

 

As Philip points out, the M will (we assume) be very good for longer R lenses, if you can find them at a reasonable price. It will also be good for macro, and for wides as you won't need an external view finder.

 

I have the 35 FLE and I recently bought the AA 90 Summicron - I really enjoy using both. I'm not much of a telephoto user (90 is as long as I like to go with my M9), so I tend to use wides a fair bit. If you don't mind the spacing, the Super Elmar-M 21 would give you a nice spread of 21-35-90.

 

I can't quite imagine an M camera without a 50 and the 28 Summicron is very nice, and in no time at all I had 21-28-35-50(2)-75-90

 

But then, I guess that's the point that Jaap and James were making.

 

Good luck with the M.

 

Cheers

John

[Dhuff]

Thanks for the replies. I understand lenses are tools and having numerous times answered the same question posed by others in several forums, for Canon, I knew it was quite open-ended. This will be my first experience with the M system. I have played with some colleagues' equipment and I am ready to delve into the alternative. I did not intend to seek identification by others of a third lens for my personal shooting tastes. Instead, I was looking for a view on positive or negative attributes about the other available inventory that some might share based upon their experience, and that would then help guide me to a choice. (By way of example, there is certainly some Canon glass in the L catalogue that I would not recommend for various reasons based upon experience - perhaps this is not a consideration with Leica glass.) I only remarked on the subjects I shoot because that is always a natural question asked in this dialogue. I have already picked up on some wide-angle/viewfinder considerations I was not entirely aware of as well as an art of focusing with the 135, and appreciated the remarks. So, I look forward to any additional views.

[jaapv]

The problem now is that I cannot think of a single Leica lens that can be disqualified in general on its quality. Nor Zeiss or even Voigtlander.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did not intend to seek identification by others of a third lens for my personal shooting tastes. Instead, I was looking for a view on positive or negative attributes about the other available inventory that some might share based upon their experience, and that would then help guide me to a choice. (By way of example, there is certainly some Canon glass in the L catalogue that I would not recommend for various reasons based upon experience - perhaps this is not a consideration with Leica glass.)

 

Sorry but we are not mind-readers. This was not the question you asked (read your OP if you disagree).

 

Anyway, to re-cap, answering your original question you have been advised by 5 members to buy a 50, 2 say the WATE, 1 says the MATE, 1 says a 180R, 1 the 135, 1 says 28, 1 says a 75, 1 says buy the MATE and another says buy another M body to use while you wait for the new M.

 

These are all great lenses (whichever version you choose) and it comes down to a choice of maximum aperture.

Edited December 18, 2012 by earleygallery

[wizard]

My 2 cents: Do not waste time on considering further lenses at this point. Use your new camera and the two lenses (which are excellent btw) a good while to find out if you are seriously missing anything. THEN think about additional lenses.

 

Qualitywise, all current Leica lenses are simply superb, so I would have no hesitation buying any of these if I needed one (but thanks, I own just about enough of them).

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[beewee]

Perhaps I'll give my two cents as well. Since you mentioned you've shot with Canon L glass, you should have a decent idea of what your most used focal lengths are (if not, go to Lightroom or Aperture and look at the focal lengthhs that you've used most).

 

That being said, it helps to be strategic with your lens acquisitions. I too came from Canon L glass (30D, 5D2, 16-35/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8 IS, 300/2.8 IS, 1.4x and 2.0x extenders) and slowly migrated over to Leica. I still have my Canon glass but they're mainly used for low-light and wildlife, I've got my name down on the M240 as well so once it arrives, I'll probably migrate my low-light shooting to the M insead of using the 5D2 (which is still a brilliant camera but just big and bulky). That means I'll be mainly using the 5D2 for wildlife (something that's difficult to shoot on M anyway).

 

When I first started shooting with M gear, I started with M8.2 (bought used soon after the M9 came out and prices for the M8.2 took a major drop). I chose the M8.2 simply so I could acquire more lenses which is important when starting from nothing rather than spend all my money on the latest M9 with little left for lenses - my main motivation to get into the M system in the first place. It's true that the M8.2 has its flaws (i.e. IR sensitivity, poor low-light performance, etc...) but I knew that my Canon kit could take over in low-light and that I could afford to buy a couple IR filters with the $3500 that I saved from going with the M8.2. I also knew that I actually like shooting with IR and want to use this to my advantage and for this reason, I knew that even when I get a new M body (i.e. M240), I would still keep the M8.2 around for IR work.

 

For lenses, I shoot mostly landscape and knew I wanted wide angles. I also knew that any telephoto work I need could be done with my existing Canon glass. The 70-200/2.8 IS and 300/2.8 IS are quite respectable and have autofocus which makes it much easier to focus on the tele end compared to shooting telephoto on a rangefinder. With this in mind, I put my focus on the wide-standard lenses.

 

I started off with the 28/2.8 ASPH, 50/2, and 90/2.8 tele-elmarit because this was going to be my hiking kit and I wanted to travel light. The 28/2.8 ASPH is amazingly sharp (out resolves the M8.2 sensor) and weighs next to nothing. Th 50/2 was for low(er) light shooting but was reasonably affordable, and the 90/2.8 TE because it was just dirt cheap and I could use it for some wider angle wildlife shooting on the trail.

 

Later, I noticed that I wanted wider (I've always liked shooting at 16mm on the 5D2) so I ended up picking up the 18/3.8 which is equivalent to ~24mm on the M8.2. When I'm in the mountains, this is the lens that lives on the camera 95% of the time. I still carried the 90/2.8 for the odd bear on the trail and a 28/2.8 just because it's so darn light and sharp but the 50/2 usually stays in the drawer. Later, I wanted some brighter lenses and ended up getting the 35/1.4 ASPH. It was nice but the focus shift got a bit annoying and when the opportunity came, I picked up the FLE version. The 90/2.8 TE also got replaced by the 90/2.8 elmarit-M because the TE had fairly low contrast and needed a fiddly hood to perform at its best (not great for shooting bears!) whereas the Elmarit-M had a sliding hood and had higher contrast. That said, the my 1973 90/2.8 TE was actually sharper than the 1990s 90/2.8 Elmarit-M. The 50/2 comes out when I need a second lens for low-light or street photography but otherwise stays home.

 

As you can see, my lens collection has grown over the years but like others have said. Leica do not make dogs. Choose the focal lengths that work for you, then think about whether you need it to do low light or if you'd prefer going lighter. Typically (at least with the older designs) the sharpest lenses are not fastest, the summicrons generally have the least distortion and are usually sharpest (with few exceptions such as the new 35 FLE). Go with the summilux/noctilux only if you need the extra stop, otherwise you're better off going with a summicron or summarit where you get less distortion, less weight, and more money in your pocket. If money is not an issue, then get everything! Otherwise if money is finite, stick with what you need and grow your kit over time.

 

A note on the WATE, I was interested in this lens but ultimately went with the 18/3.8 due to the strong distortion on the WATE. There are compromises that need to be made when designing a zoom (yes it says 16/18/21 but it's actually a zoom design) and having the frankenfinder on my camera all the time was rather unappealing. Also, I found that the Zeiss optical VFs are generally brighter, sharper, and cheaper than the Leica version so I ended up getting the 25/28mm Zeiss finder instead of a Leica 24mm finder.

 

So there you have it, my journey from Canon to Leica. All that said, if I were you, I'd just get a used M9 or M8 for cheap and have some fun with your lenses while you wait for your M240. You can always sell the M8/M9 later for little to no loss.

Edited December 19, 2012 by beewee

[beewee]

If you want to know more about leica lenses (especially the older gems), check out Ken Rockwell's website: LEICA Lenses

 

Erwin Puts is also a well recognized authority on Leica optics: Home

[Tonki-M]

Instead, I was looking for a view on positive or negative attributes about the other available inventory that some might share based upon their experience, and that would then help guide me to a choice.

 

that's the difference of the Leica glass. there's no negative attributes about it (b/c what you have and though of buying are modern glass, older glass, there will be discussion about it). it's well formulated optically (isnt that why we pay such high price for them). one of the only things that will differentiate lens is your choice of focal length (no one can choose for you) and the character of the lens (this, you have to just look at a bunch of images to determine which look is for you)