2.0 vs. 2.5 at 35mm and 50mm

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only value I consider is personal value and reward from taking pics and making prints, nothing to do with dollars and cents after the fact. YMMV.

 

Jeff, I am with you on that. But the personal value you mention is in the pics and prints, and even we Leica enthusiasts have to accept that a Canon is able to take pics. So what I meant was you won't lose any great pics waiting for the M to hit the shelves, at least not if you happen to have a good camera already. And renting an M before actually buying one is a very good idea if you are new to rangefinder cameras.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

Ed, you are comparing the current 35mm Summarit and Summicron lenses. The former is largely based on the optical design of the latter so you would not expect to find any significant performance differences. The latter is slightly faster, if that is important to you. Given the trade you are considering, and based on my experience only with the 75 Summarit, I would not hesitate recommending you go for the Summarits. However, given the closeness of the focal lengths, I suggest at least you consider twinning the 75 with the 35 Summarit. They make an excellent duo and would cover many regular subjects.

[anabasis]

I don't think that you will go wrong with either the Summarit or the Summicrons. If you shoot at night I would go for the higher speed lenses. Also, you might want to consider the Zeiss ZM line. Also quite good optically, and at a decent price.

 

VC lenses can be good, but be careful on digital M's as they tend to have harsher BOKEH and certain models have color banding (mostly WA).

 

My personal opinion is that the limiting factor in street shooting is the conditions of the street rather than the absolute optical quality of the lens. Rendering and BOKEH are both more important to me than resolution for street work.

 

I am tending, like you, to move more to my RF's over my SLR's due to size and weight when I am doing street work. I leave my DSLR's to long lens and macro work these days.

 

JCA

[Jeff S]

Jeff, I am with you on that. But the personal value you mention is in the pics and prints, and even we Leica enthusiasts have to accept that a Canon is able to take pics. So what I meant was you won't lose any great pics waiting for the M to hit the shelves, at least not if you happen to have a good camera already. And renting an M before actually buying one is a very good idea if you are new to rangefinder cameras.

 

Speak for yourself, please. Pics and prints are my goal, but I assess value on the whole experience. A DSLR is a different tool, and it has nothing to do with how I assess the value of any digital M. Apples and oranges for me.

 

Renting a good idea only if you are new to RF? I've been using M cameras for over 25 years, and I will still borrow or rent the new one before buying. I did the same with the M9, and decided that the M8.2 was a better tool for my needs and preferences.

 

YMMV.

 

Jeff

[leicafan!]

One thing about renting is it might put you off.

 

I had real buyers remorse when I sold all my Canon kit to fund an M8 and 35 Summicron ASPH during the first week or two.

 

However, after around a month of perseverance with the camera it became the camera I have most enjoyed using in my life.

[plewislambert]

"Also consider s/h lenses - the 50mm Elmar M is highly regarded for example, you could look at s/h Summilux options, and there are other new options such as Voigtlander and Zeiss."

I have been using a 40mm Summicron f2, which is modified to bring up the 35mm outlines in the viewfinder. It works well on an M4P and M9; cost a fraction of the price of a 35mm Summicron; sharper than my35mm f1.4 Voigtlander and better built.

The Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 is a good lens and I regret selling mine due to lack of use.

 

Philip:)

[tony740607]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the advice, Jeff.

 

I have been thinking about this decision long and hard. In the perfect world, i would keep my Canon kit and add the Leica. But the world is not perfect and I can't afford to do that. So I would have to sell pretty much all my Canon gear to be able to buy the Leica camera and lenses that I want.

 

My decision really stems from two things. First my shooting style and preferred genre has changed. Used to be that I shot outdoor, landscape, nature (anything but people) almost exclusively. But these days, my preferred genre is urban street photography (with people, people, people). Much of my shooting is now being done with cameras like my Leica X2, Ricoh GXR, Ricoh GRD IV and Canon G1X. Compact, inconspicuous and well suited for street work.

 

Also I find that as I get older, I am less interested in lugging around a big backpack with a couple of bodies, a half dozen of so L-glass lenses up to a 300 2.8 and so on. I am looking to simplify my life. That's why I am thinking about the M-E with a 35 2.5 and a 50 2.5 to start. And hopefully I can add a longer lens to the kit somewhere down the road.

 

All that said, your advice to try it out with a rental is good advice and I will definitely consider it. Again, thanks.

 

Ed

 

I did exactly the same transformation as you are planning but from Nikon equipment and for exactly the same reasons. You can read more on my blog at imagements.com

The first week I sold all my equipment I woke up in the middle of the night wondering what I have done. My friends laughted and said "did you sell the D800 with all the professional lenses for THAT thing". That thing is my M9 with 50mm Summicron. Since first week I have never looked back. I love my kit. Regarding my advice to you I would do like this; buy a used M9 and a 50mm Summilux 1.4 (with or w/o ASPH depending on taste).

I shoot a lot at f/2 and would rather use f/1.4 many times then going for smaller aperture such as f/2.5. At some point I will go for f/1.4.

Why am I recommending the M9? Because you can use the money for 1.4 lens instead. It is much more beatiful than the M-E (subjective) and more features than the M-E (yes I use them). But I also believe that you will not be dissapointed whatever you go for.

Those are the final words from a newbie in the Leica world.

[edvatza]

There are many possibilities regarding direction to take. After taking in all the recommendations of others, talking to several dealers, and a lot of soul searching, I have come to my decision.

 

As soon as the rest of my Canon kit sells, I will order the Leica M. My local Leica dealer says he was told by Leica to expect a four to six month delivery timeframe. I'm an old man but I guess I can wait six months. I will order the M with the Summarit 35mm, f/2.5 lens. As soon as I can afford it afterwards I will also order the Summarit 50mm and the Summarit 90mm lenses.

 

After that, who knows? I might even look for a nice M3 or M6.

 

Thanks for all your help folks.

 

Ed

[sharookh]

If you are wondering about the performance of the Summarits, this was shot on a Summarit (albeit 75mm) for what it's worth!! I enjoy this lens a lot, along with my 'lux and 'cron.

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!

[paulo_lopes]

Great pic Sharookh!!!!!!

 

I'm +1 delling all Nikon to go for Leica... my choice for start, maybe M9 + Summicron 35

[paulo_lopes]

... just still wondering if the vers.IV or ASPH... but maybe the asph on the M9

Opinions and advices please!!!!!!

[sdk]

Continuing my due diligence.

 

I've had someone I respect tell me the 2.5s are as good optically as any... but mechanically, they are not quite up to par. Therefore I would be better advised to stay away from the 2.5s.

 

Any comments? Thoughts?

 

Ed

 

My 35mm/2.5 Summarit seems as well built as any of my more expensive Leica lenses (like the 28mm/2.8 Elmarit ASPH and 75mm/2 Apo-Summicron ASPH) but it’s better built than my 28mm Summicron ASPH. I have read some minor complaints about the 75mm and 90mm Summarits, but I have no experience with them. Some people don’t like their rubber focus grips, but that does not apply to the 35mm and 50mm designs, which both have focusing tabs.

[inzite]

The summarits (35 and 75) are wonderful if you can accept their min focus distance, they are no less than the summicrons.

 

I gotten quite a few shots I love that were shot by them.

 

35 summarit

 

L1010692 copy by inzite, on Flickr

 

L1010115 copy by inzite, on Flickr

 

75 summarit

 

L1004382 by inzite, on Flickr

 

L1004254 by inzite, on Flickr

[Photoskeptic]

The Summarit's are excellent lenses. I have the 50 and 75. The bokeh on the 50 is terrific wide open. Puts says the 35 is the best of the bunch, but my 75 is wicked sharp. Sean Reid tested all the 75's and the Summarit gave up nothing but speed to the others. As to the 50 versus the 50 Cron, the Cron might be sharper on a pixel level but I don't think it shows up in prints. The Summarit's are smaller and lighter which I think is a good thing, however I've noticed the aperture ring is too easy to move and needs to be checked constantly if you are moving around on the street much.

[pfhrased]

It does come down to just two things - character of the lens, and cost.

I used to prefer the older lens characters, which the 2.5s share - but now prefer the modern character lenses. Big jump in price though.

[MarkP]

It does come down to just two things - character of the lens, and cost.

I used to prefer the older lens characters, which the 2.5s share - but now prefer the modern character lenses. Big jump in price though.

 

Three things...character, cost, speed

[edvatza]

Ah but remember... "speed kills!"

 

Seriously, all my Canon L-glass (now being sold) was f/2.8. I so rarely shot at 2.8 that I often asked myself why I was dealing with the extra size, weight, etc. Even with my X2 and Ricohs, I generally shoot around f/4 to 5.6 with an occasion foray up to f/8. But then again, I don't shoot a lot of low light situations. Besides 2/3 stop from 2.5 to 2.0 doesn't seem that big... at least not until you need it!

[MarkP]

Ah but remember... "speed kills!"

 

No, speed does not kill. It's stoping at the end that does!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pfhrased]

Three things...character, cost, speed

 

There's much less of a speed difference between 2.0 and 2.5 than there is between 1.4 and 2.0/2.5 though.

[MarkP]

There's much less of a speed difference between 2.0 and 2.5 than there is between 1.4 and 2.0/2.5 though.

 

Obviously .

 

I was just completing the holy trinity of lens characteristics .