One lens for new Leica?

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Include second hand lenses in the list of possibilities as mentioned above. I would stay with Leica, certainly for the first lens.35 or 50 mm makes sense.

 

 

If you say you have the budget for one new lens only, I suppose you have about $2500 at your disposal. I strongly suggest that you buy a second hand lens in good shape for about $1500 max.

Then use this for a few months to get used to your rangefinder camera and see how it goes.

 

 

If it is not your taste you can easily sell it or trade it in without to much loss, and go for the new or second hand lens of your choice.

 

 

General advice about Leica historical lenses:

 

 

Leica 50 mm Dual range can NOT be used on any Digital M...

All other 50 mm historical lenses can be used AFAIK

Any choice is fine. 50mm Summicron collapsible is a real gem for the price. It woul probably leave room for an other lens if you were going to

 

 

35 mm Summilux V1 needs adaptation on digital M. It can be done by a good Lecia specialist or in solms. The 35 lux V1 is a rather soft and special lens, so IMO it is not well suited as the first or only lens anyway.

 

 

All other 35 mm lenses without goggles work fine on DIgital M bodies, AFAIK

[Advertisement]

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

[JCharlton]

Hi JCharlton,

I like to shoot a lot of black and white, a holdover from my early days in the use of the darkroom and lack of color equipment. I like shooting landscapes, also architectural and mechanical detail. I am interested in street photography. I know the M Monochrom is supposed to be THE diital Leica for black and white, but I'm sure that I can shoot monochrome with the M or M-E also. Even so, I can use Photoshop or the proper Nik software to do post processing. Don't have the Nik software yet, but do have Photoshop CS5 Extended, and a Wacom Intuos 2 Tablet. But just not sure what lens to spend my bucks on. I know a lot of photographers use a 50 mm as their basic lens. I'm just new to Rangefinder type cameras and want whatever lens I buy to be a good basic starting point.

Unkei

 

Well, if you're into landscapes, architecture, I would say a 35mm Summicron would work rather well. Once you're adjusted to the rangefinder setup, you could look at the Tri-Elmar for shooting wide. A Summilux 50mm would be good for mechanical detail; just remember that a rangefinder is not ideal for macro photography, out of the box, so to speak. Best of luck, and don't let all the opinions and information on internet forums overwhelm you, because there is no shortage of that here.

[01af]

Most Leica M users have more than one lens ... but when asked which focal length they'd use when restricted to exactly one lens then the crowd falls apart into two parts—those who say, "35 mm", and those who say, "50 mm". I, for one, belong to the 50 mm fraction ... but that's a very personal thing. You can't go wrong with either of these two focal lengths. Which one is perfect for you is a question no-one can answer but yourself.

 

In both 35 mm and 50 mm, Leica currently is offering Summarit-M, Summicron-M, and Summilux-M lenses (plus a Noctilux-M 50 mm but I guess that's way off your budget). When given the choice between Summarit-M and Summicron-M, I'd prefer the former due to better flare resistance. The Summilux-M Asph lenses also have good flare resistance and the highest lens speeds (well, with the exception of the Noctilux) which is a good thing but pricey.

[Unkei]

Thanks to all for your advice. First, I am aware the M is not available yet. Hopefully it will be soon. If not then I'm sure the M-E will be just fine. After all, most of the differences will be in the megapixels and the LCD screen. I'm not really interested in a used rangefinder; I'm just not built that way. For me, new is the only way to go. I generally gift my older cameras to other, paying it forward, so to speak! No, I have not had experience with a rangefinder before, other than an old one my father had. However, I am aware of how they focus, and that what you see through the viewfinder is not coming through the lens as in an SLR or DSLR. That is what the framing aids in the finder are supposed to help with as I understand it. I am 65 years old and began with SLRs as a 12 year old, so am well grounded in photography. I have worked in a darkroom many times. I did not care for it much, and as soon as digital cameras boasted enough features and resolution, I pretty much switched to digital, though I still use my Nikon SLR from time to time. Personally, I find that working in Photoshop is much more effective, with less worry about chemicals and consumables. So it is freeing for me as well as having many more post processing possibilities.

My father's rangefinder was old already when I began to use it, had none of the modern features and was film, not digital. So for me, moving to a digital rangefinder is not so much a dark abyss (spelling?), as my next move in my photographic journey. While I realize the choice of a good lens to begin this trip with depends a lot on my intended use, and that no one lens will do it all, I know more glass is in my future. Anyway, thanks again to all who have given me the wisdom of their experience.

Unkei

[hepcat]

I'm going to be the odd-man-out with my opinion here. I'm retired and on a limited income as well, and I make my supplemental income (at least part of it) from photography so my perspective is that every dollar I spend on equipment is a dollar that isn't income in my pocket. I am not a collector. I don't own my gear to look at and ooh and ahh over. For me, these are working tools. Because of my background in photography, bright-line rangefinder cameras just fit my work style better than SLRs. They're not for everyone, and some folks find that rangefinders are extraordinarly frustrating to work with. Each kind of camera has strengths and weaknesses.

 

Whether you buy new or used is up to you and your budget, but I've found that buying used gets me "new" quality gear at about half the cost, usually. If you're careful about your buying, you can get some amazing deals, and a year old body with 1.5k clicks takes every bit as good an image as a brand new one. The only difference is that you don't make those first 1.5k clicks, but in my case I saved $3700 over buying the M9P new. I just shot a commercial job this week that would have run up those first 1.5k clicks anyway, so I didn't lose the $3700 to depreciation because of them. One new Leica lens can easily run $3700... many run much more than that. Instead, I used that $3700 to buy myself a phalanx of working lenses; a 28 f/2, 35 f/1.2, a 50 f/1.5, a 75 f/1.8, a 90 f/2 and a 135 f/2.8... oh, and a Visoflex III. There are few shooting situations for which I am not now prepared.

 

I have an M8 and the M9P and I'm finding, as I get to know these bodies better, that I actually like the features that each offers... The bodies are complementary. The M8 images have a character of their own that works better in some circumstances.

 

My advice here is specifically about lenses though... lenses in particular, unlike bodies, have few moving parts and little to go wrong. Unless they're dropped, drenched, or scratched, there's little difference between a new one and a used one. Buying new is losing money. Sometimes a LOT of money.

 

And now for my last little bit of Leica blasphemy: four of my lenses are Cosina Voigtlander, and a couple of them are even the older LTM mounts with M adapters. The two Leitz lenses (yes, they're actually Leitz Canada) are vintage 1966 and 1968. The real-world rendering from all of these lenses in most circumstances is indistinguishable from any other lens of equal focal length. Yes, yes, there are in fact optical differences and different coatings render more or less warmly, and the latest Leica lenses may be "sharper" in test conditions, but when it's all said and done two images side by side with different lenses are, for all practical purposes, virtually indistinguishable. And "sharper" isn't always "better."

 

You CAN in fact buy lenses for how they render, not their brand name. Older Leitz lenses render differently from their current formulations, and frankly in many cases I prefer the "look" that the older (now availalbe only as used) lenses give.

 

Again, it's your cash and you're free to do with it as you will, but by limiting yourself to "new" equipment, you may be missing some extraordinary equipment that you may have liked even better.

 

Best of luck in your new acquisitions!

[farnz]

Unkei,

 

In support of what Hepcat has written I'll direct you both to a thread here called 'The view through older glass', which offers you an opportunity to see that earlier versions of lenses and some non-Leica lenses offer different renderings of subjects that are no worse (and no better) than current, new Leica lenses. Please don't mistake me, I also very much like and own new, current Leica lenses but this offers a different perspective and might save you a little money, which is always a good thing I think.

 

Pete.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As suggested above i would check if you see the world in 35mm or 50mm in the first place and choose the focal length accordingly.

[efreed2754]

Hi Unkei

 

Like the advice others have about 35 and 50 Summicrons. The 35 may be a better fit for the type of pics you take.

 

Bigger issue is what type of pics you will take in the beginning and say in a year or more. At least for me the new M can handle close ups and telephoto like M9 or ME does not. And whlile we hope for better IQ and ISO speeds, focus peaking and close ups and telephoto put me on the M waiting list.

 

Ask about this as you may be just as pleased with the ME which frees up more funds for lenses than the M will. Such as 35 Lux vs Summicron or same for 50s. Or 35 and 75 for a great little system.

 

As always those asking the question usually best known the answer.

[MirekE]

I like shooting landscapes, also architectural and mechanical detail. I am interested in street photography.

 

It is hard to imagine one lens that would cover all these areas. I would likely want at least 2 (e.g. 35 and 75). If buying more than one Leica lens is not an option, you can look at Zeiss ZM lenses to complete the kit.

[andyedward]

When I switched from an old 50/1.8 on a nikon dslr to a 35 summilux, I noticed very little difference in angle of view between the two. I subsequently found out that the "50"mm nikon lens was actually 42mm, so check your current dslr lenses before you buy leica.

 

The 35 summilux is a fantastic lens, BTW.

[tobey bilek]

A DR will not mount on digital M. The Rigid will.

 

Base your decision on the speed you require. By 4 or 5.6 all are the same. The newer the lens, the better wide open it will be.

 

Faster lenses are not better, just faster, and you pay a premium in size weight and cost.

[01af]

I subsequently found out that the "50" mm Nikon lens was actually 42 mm ...

How did you "find out"?

[nyckylim]

I am also having the exact same dilemma and have been researching for the past few weeks and probably seen almost every thread regarding one-lens Leica.

 

I too, am considering and am very excited over the M. I am currently on wait list and am also considering the M-E if things do not turn out well for the M.

 

My current options are:

 

1) Leica M with either 35 Summarit / 35 Summicron

2) Leica M-E with 35 Summilux

 

Just so you might be able to make a better decision for yourself, this is what I've concluded from dozens of threads.

 

35mm Summicron f2.0 ASPH

Sharper overall image

More contrasty image

Lesser resistance to flare

Faster speed

Closest focusing distance: 0.7m

 

35mm Summarit f2.5

Softer and creamier overall image

Less contrasty image

More resistant to flare

Slower speed

Closest focusing distance: 0.8m

 

Nonetheless, I hope someone here can guide me towards the right path of either the Cron or the Summarit too ! Been researching for way too long. I, for one, would definitely love the "Leica Glow".

 

It would also be best if someone has a side by side comparison of both the Summarit and Summicron ASPH. The only side by side i've seen were the "Ugly Test".

 

Cheers

Nycky

[lct]

I would be glad to do such a test for you if it were not so time consuming. All i can say is i bought the Summarit in the first place for the qualities you stated above because i wanted a Karbe lens to complement my Mandler 35/1.4 and 35/2 v4 and replace my earlier 35/2.8 with goggles. I liked it much really but i missed f/2 too much so i bought a 35/2 asph that i use mostly now. Shooting at f/2 without significant compromises is an experience i did not have with any 35 before that. Aside from that, the Summarit is an excellent lens if you don't mind to get a bit softness on edges and corners. A modern Summaron so to speak.

[nyckylim]

so it seems like summicron is the way to go then !

 

can't wait for the new M to be released despite the sample pictures.

[lct]

Will be hard to unstick it from your new M if you see the world in 35mm... until you realize that you miss f/1.4 too much...

[skinnfell]

Welcome to the forum. A good starter lens is usually a 35 or a 50.

I would recommend a 50 because you mention you want to photograph architectural and mechanical details. That is quite hard with a 35mm because of the close focusing limi . Still hard with a 50 but a lot easier. Besides, 50 is the "cheapest" lens and - in my opinion - the most versatile. However it takes a bit to get used to, but your photographs might improve in the processs.

 

All current leica 50mm lenses are good, pick the one which suits your budget and weight requirements. Summicron have been unchanged for 30 years and should be easily available used. Summarit is newer and smaller.

 

Good luck!

[billo101]

Summicron 50 APO ASPH.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M