Advice about M8 lenses and posssible M9 or M upgrade

[Baevans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A couple of questions for those who have used M8 and M9 (or M).

I have an recently purchased barely used M8 for personal art photography fulfillment (I have a rather complete Olympus OMD kit with multiple primes that I use for extended travel, low light, etc.)

I never print larger than 19 x 11 inches and don't print small crop areas from my Leica pictures. I love the photos I'm getting from my M8.

Would I notice a difference in sharpness/resolution if I add a full frame Leica in the future when printing up to that size? My photography is for personal enjoyment and display is only in my home - no commercial aspirations.

 

Also, I have a 25mm f.2.5 Zeiss Biogon, a 35 mm f2.5 Summarit, and a 50mm f2.0 Summicron. I will likely add a longer reach lens and am looking at 70mm and 90mm Summarit. I am unlikely to invest in the higher cost Leica lenses. Given the M8 crop factor I'd likely go with the 70mm, but if I add a M9 or later in the future, would I be better off with the 90mm? I know personal styles and preferences affect this decision, but I'd love some advice about experiences and useability of these focal lengths with M8 vs. M9.

Thanks for any feedback from more experienced users.

[Advertisement]

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

[DirkB17]

I have basically the same lens line-up with my M8. A 25 Biogon, a 35 Summarit and a 50 CV Nokton 1,5. I also use and enjoy a 75 CV Color-Heliar 2,5 which I bought used for less than EUR 300.

 

In this case there is no need to decide between 75 and 90 with regard to a later move to full frame.

 

Dirk

[tobey bilek]

I would buy a 75 for an M8, 75 is good on full frame and some prefer it. I am thing of adding a 75 to my kit for both 8 & 9.

 

35 & 75 is a nice two lens kit for an M9. 28,35, & 75 would be nice for a M8.

[Christoph13]

Sounds like a very reasonable line-up to me. I am using an M8 with a Biogon 28/2.8, Summicron 50 and the latest Elmarit 90/2.8.

Your question is mostly geared towards the long end. Before eventually buying the Elmarit-M 90, I tested the Summarit 75 and the Summicron 75 Asph.

All three are very good lenses but put a different emphasis.

All are built very well including the Summarit. If I had to nitpick: I did not like the focussing action of the Summicron too much, it was rather stiff and I believe that the floating element added that extra bit of friction. Also the focus throw was a little too short for my liking. On the plus side: 0.7m close focussing limit (instead of 1m or 0.9m) in combination with floating element and aspherical correction...if you DID get everything right, it is an absolutely stunning lens.

 

Personally, I was not convinced I liked the rubber coating on the focussing ring of the Summarit plus the fact that the lens hood had to be screwed in and thus always occupied more room unless unscrewed again. On the flip side, it was the most effective lens hood of the three lenses. I also liked the focussing action of the Summarit best of the three lenses I tested, light, yet long (i.e. precise) enough without getting in the way.

 

I ended up buying the Elmarit-M. Optically very close to the Summarit, the focussing throw longer than the Summicron, yet a little stiffer, sliding lens hood. Frankly, the decisive factor for me was I found a good one for a decent price a the time but if I had to choose again, I'd take a close look at the Summarit, too. You won't go wrong with either of them.

 

Don't overestimate the stiffness, which is also subject to individual variation. I got my Summicron lubricated once, which made it much smoother. Hope this helps.

Regarding a possible switch to a full frame camera in the long run: That's why I decided to go with the 90 instead of the 75 eventually. I must admit that for quickly or rather unpredictably moving subjects the 90 is hard to achieve critical focus with when shot wide open. It can be done though. You will have to decide whether the 75 is sufficiently different from the 50, which you already have. On the other hand, for 90 and longer you might consider using you OM-D kit.

 

Christoph

[IWC Doppel]

I moved from the M8 to M9 a year or so ago, my main drive being wide lenses and an ultimate desire for full frame plus, a perhaps unnecessary hankering for another 8mp

 

Regarding longer lenses I had a 75 Summarit and 90 Elmatit-M. I preferred the rendering and bokeh of the 90, it is a really lovely lens. For me it was notably smoother in transition from in focus to out if focus and whilst every bit as sharp has a more classic thicker brush stroke style IMO

 

For me long lenses do not get enough use and I have settled on 75 for my longest lens on my M9-P. I actually thought a 50 (70mm effective) was really nice on the M8

[LucisPictor]

M8 set:

 

CV 4.5/15, CV 2.0/28, CV 1.7/35, Leica 2.0/50, CV 2.5/75

 

And I love it!

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A 90 is more useful on full frame than a 75. The reverse is true for a M8.

[Jeff S]

Would I notice a difference in sharpness/resolution if I add a full frame Leica in the future when printing up to that size? My photography is for personal enjoyment and display is only in my home - no commercial aspirations.

 

I don't think anyone addressed this question for you. My recommendation is to try and see for yourself; borrow or rent an M9 and make some prints. You can also rent the lenses you question. Only you can determine what works best for you.

 

I wondered the same after using my M8.2 for a while and then tested it against an M9. I chose to keep the former based on my needs and preferences. I'll follow the same process with the new M once it gets through its teething stage and make another determination.

 

Why should you care what others think, when you can easily see for yourself? The small cost and time spent is worth it...for me, anyway.

 

Jeff

[JeTexas]

If you're not seeing any pixelation in your M8 prints at that size, I doubt you'd see any difference in the results with an M9.

 

I ended up with a 28, 50, 90 set of lenses. The 28mm stayed on the M8 90% of the time because of the crop factor.

 

When I upgraded to the M9 I found the 28, 50, 90 combo was still great, but now the 50mm is on the camera 90% of the time. However, I do love the fact that the 28mm is now a genuine wide angle lens, and that the 90 is now more of a portrait lens instead of being impossible to use indoors.

 

As far as ISO, I could only shoot the M8 at 640. I can only shoot the M9 at 800. Not much improvement there, but every little bit helps.

[4X5B&W]

I have used a M8 for 6 years now, and there are times when I wonder if trading up to a FF sensor body is necessary. Like you my largest prints are 19" on the long side, and they look fabulous.

 

I recently shot with a friends M9 and was surprised how little extra performance there was in the files. The M8 is actually sharper at the pixel level. The M9 would make up for this with the 30% larger sensor, but overall my impressions are that the M9 should allow larger print sizes, but the quality of the images are very similar.

 

I use the following lenses, 24 Elmarit ASPH, 35 Summilux ASPH, 50 Summilux ASPH and 75 Summicron ASPH.

The spacing works well for the M8, and should also be good for a M9 or M.

 

IMO, wide angle to moderate telephoto work best for a Leica M.

 

Hope this helps.

[exile]

Both the M8 and the M9 are great cameras. I've used a 75mm extensively on both but only on the M9 until I could afford a 90mm. The 75 worked MUCH better for me on the M8. For some reason I just found composition much more difficult with the 75mm frame lines on the M9. Perhaps also the 1m minimum focus distance did not get me close enough for portraits on the M9, whereas the crop factor of the M8 gave enough magnification to make the 75mm work for me as a portrait lens. However, you already have a 50mm which would serve you well as a portrait lens on an M8 and will probably have a larger aperture than the 75mm or 90mm you have in mind.

Finally, a 90mm on an M8 is a pretty long lens, and would only be used outdoors. i.e. landscape and architectural details. If you can use a fast 50mm on the M8 for portraits, consider a longer lens than a 75mm for dedicated outdoor use.

[jaapv]

An 85 might be a nice compromise if one feels a dilemma between a 75 and 90.

[MarkP]

Exactly what I was going to suggest.

 

I have both 75 and 90mm Leica lenses, and a Zeiss 4.0/85 Tele-Tessar T* which gets a reasonable amount of use. It is indeed an excellent lens, a good compromise between the 75 and 90 focal lengths, I don't really find f4.0 too slow for what I use it for , and it is a fraction of the cost of any of the Leica lenses.

 

If f4.0 is too slow for you then obviously the lens would not be suitable, or just push the ISO 1.5 stops.

[jaapv]

I was indeed thinking of the Tele-Tessar. It has the additional advantage of being light, which is very useful for a lens that is not used too often.

[pfhrased]

I still feel like my M8 had slightly better better resolving power than my M9 does - the prints look amazing from both though.

 

I think if you don't want to spend the money on Leica glass, give the CV 75 1.8 a serious look - it's astoundingly good for the price.

 

The lenses I used most on the M8 were the 28 2.8 asph and 75 1.4 summilux leica lenses, and when I moved to the M9 I found I preferred 35 to 28 - but still enjoy 75 more than 90.

 

The depth of field is quite different between the two cameras because of the crop sensor - possibly it's just the 90/2 I don't like so much. Who knows. I actually really miss the M8 (M8.2) and wish I hadn't needed to sell it to get my 50 lux.. just not as much as I enjoy the 50 lux.

 

One other thing to keep in mind when looking at the M and the M9 is both of them have quite different colour signatures to the M8. I still prefer how the M8 renders a scene to both of the newer models. It's nice not having to dick around with IR cut filters though.

[Baevans]

Thanks to all.

Much useful feedback.

Still on the fence regarding M240; will defer 75/90mm purchase until I'm certain where I'm going.

I did upgrade my Summarit f 2.5 35mm for more low light reach - I figured that would work whether I stay with the M8 or not. Loving new lens on the M8 for sure.

[Frase]

If you're not seeing any pixelation in your M8 prints at that size, I doubt you'd see any difference in the results with an M9.

 

I ended up with a 28, 50, 90 set of lenses. The 28mm stayed on the M8 90% of the time because of the crop factor.

 

When I upgraded to the M9 I found the 28, 50, 90 combo was still great, but now the 50mm is on the camera 90% of the time. However, I do love the fact that the 28mm is now a genuine wide angle lens, and that the 90 is now more of a portrait lens instead of being impossible to use indoors.

 

As far as ISO, I could only shoot the M8 at 640. I can only shoot the M9 at 800. Not much improvement there, but every little bit helps.

 

I bought the 28mm summicron when I first had an M8 and have been very close to selling it and swaping it for a 35mm when I first got the M9, but instead recently bought a 50mm Summicron so my line up is all Summicrons 28-50-90. I do agree M8 after 640iso was not great but I'm quite happy to use my M9 at 1600 and higher.

[pfhrased]

I recently shot with a friends M9 and was surprised how little extra performance there was in the files. The M8 is actually sharper at the pixel level. The M9 would make up for this with the 30% larger sensor, but overall my impressions are that the M9 should allow larger print sizes, but the quality of the images are very similar.

 

Agreed: the files are bigger, but they're not more detailed.

For the prints you like to make, as long as you're happy with not having much in the way of very wide lens options, keep the M8!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest rivercityrocker]

I hated the 28mm on my M8. Not sure why since I love my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 on my FX Nikons. I finally sold the 28mm f/2 Ultron this morning. Right now I have the CV 35 f/1.4 Nokt which I use most, the 50mm Pre-ASPH Lux, and I'm waiting for an old 9cm f/4 Elmar in the mail.

 

My next step is to go wide, but I'm having trouble making a decision because I need a faster lens. Really the only option is the CV 21 f/1.9, but I'd prefer wider.

 

Not sure what my point was here... Just rambling I guess.