michaelwj Posted May 21, 2017 Share #61 Posted May 21, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorted my photos after last trip. 75% were shoot with 24mm, over 20% with 75mm, few 35mm (in dark f1.4). No 50mm at all. It sounds a funny combo, but it 24/75 are my most used focal lengths. It actually sounds like a very versatile pairing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 Hi michaelwj, Take a look here Two lens kit travel combo. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Steve Spencer Posted May 21, 2017 Share #62 Posted May 21, 2017 Mine would be WATE and 50 cron AA Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ko.Fe. Posted May 21, 2017 Share #63 Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) For 40 years on film my standard kit was 35 & 50 Summicrons (1969 versions - both small) and 90 T.E. (fat). With M9 and new 50 Summicron and 35 Summarit, files are clean enough to crop either, so 2-lens kit makes sense. I'm comfortable with just the 35, but sometimes do 21 Skopar and 50, or 35 and 90 Elmar-C. I like tiny lenses. I'm agree, 90% . I don't need 90mm for travel. And I'm comfortable with just 35 Summarit and if light is not enough for M-E or M4-2, I'll add little Leica SF26 flash. But for M240 like in OP it is less necessary. Edited May 21, 2017 by Ko.Fe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
happymac Posted May 21, 2017 Share #64 Posted May 21, 2017 35 + 90 = 100% 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted May 21, 2017 Share #65 Posted May 21, 2017 Mine would be WATE and 50 cron AA Somebody remind me again of the advantage of the 50 cron AA over the 50 cron ? I honestly don't mean to be snarkey but for general travel, hiking etc. is there that much of a side by side advantage? I once read on this forum that if you were good in post there is a significant difference......but I didn't understand that comment either. As always I appreciate this forms help and expertise 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted May 21, 2017 Share #66 Posted May 21, 2017 Somebody remind me again of the advantage of the 50 cron AA over the 50 cron ? I honestly don't mean to be snarkey but for general travel, hiking etc. is there that much of a side by side advantage? I once read on this forum that if you were good in post there is a significant difference......but I didn't understand that comment either. As always I appreciate this forms help and expertise The 50 cron pre-AA is a very nice lens, but the 50 cron AA is sharper even stopped down with more micro contrast it also have very few aberrations of any kind and especially any chromatic aberrations either in the plane of focus or in the bokeh. For example even with a bright background you don't see any colour fringing. Some people describe this distinct sharpness with lack of aberrations as clarity. I think that is a good one word description. I also think the 50 cron-AA has better bokeh as well. I think the 50 cron AA is a special lens and it is my favourite. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted May 21, 2017 Share #67 Posted May 21, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would probably go with 10mm + 90mm because they both average as a 50mm lens, and 50 is my favorite focal length. So 10 + 90 is it! 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted May 21, 2017 Share #68 Posted May 21, 2017 I would probably go with 10mm + 90mm because they both average as a 50mm lens, and 50 is my favorite focal length. So 10 + 90 is it! How pedestrian. You need to push the boundaries a little more. As my favourite is 35mm, my ideal two lens kit is 125mm and -55mm. The negative 55mm is great for inside tight spaces, it literally sees around corners 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted May 21, 2017 Share #69 Posted May 21, 2017 35 Cron & 75 Apo, sometimes: 35 Cron & 90 Apo. Yes! Agree prefer 35 & 75 cron. Great coverage and easy to carry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted June 8, 2017 Share #70 Posted June 8, 2017 Due to the lenses I have, it's not easy for me to travel with two lenses only. I prefer to have three, including a 21/2.8, 35/1.4 and 50/2. The 21/2.8 is the daytime lens, the 35/1.4 is the night lens, and the 50 is used any time. My preference for travel is to capture images that show context, hence the 21/2.8. I also really like 25mm and 28mm for daily work, but travel seems to want a 21mm. Having said that, some of my favourite travel images were taken with a Sigma DP1, which is 28mm, and I never felt restricted for landscape photography. For a second lens, I love 50mm. I treat it like a short portrait or detail lens. I'm not sure if I could use a 35/1.4 as a one lens solution on a trip. As I prefer wider in general, I'd be more inclined to get a faster 28, like f2, or stick with 28/2.8. The 28mm Elmarit is a great 'all day' lens for the purpose, being very light and small but extremely good quality. It's not quite fast enough for night shooting, though, which is why I always want that fast 35 if I can. The 28mm Summilux would be the logical - albeit very expensive - candidate, so a Leica Q would be a potential alternative? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 12, 2017 Share #71 Posted June 12, 2017 35 Summilux 90 Macro-Elmar-M with Macro ring 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted June 12, 2017 Share #72 Posted June 12, 2017 When I started using rangefinder cameras in 2010 with a Leica M9, my favourite two-lens kit was 35+90. Within less than a year, I switched to 35+75. From there, I gravitated towards 35+50 which I was using for a few years. A year ago, I noticed that the 28 mm framelines on my new Leica M-A are much easier to see than on M9 or M (Typ 240), so I started to use my previously unloved 28 mm lens more. The M10's slimmer body leads to a better viewfinder—similar to the film M cameras—so for digital I switched from M (Typ 240) to M10. Today, my favourite two-lens kit on M-A and M10 is 28+50. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted June 13, 2017 Share #73 Posted June 13, 2017 (edited) 28 cron asph/50 lux asph for travel (I throw in 90 macro elmar m as well ) 40 summicron/90 macro elmar m for hiking (I stitch/crop to get other FOV) Edited June 13, 2017 by jmahto Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhrads Posted June 13, 2017 Share #74 Posted June 13, 2017 Just came back from two weeks on the road with my M9, I had consciously sent the MM off to Leica for sensor replacement so I didn't succumb to carrying two bodies around. I also consciously chose three lenses to take that I figured I would use. I took the APO 50/2.0, ZM 28/2.8, and a Thin TEM 90/2.8. The idea was to keep light, but have in the bag some options. All said and done the TEM stayed in the bag the entire time, I never mounted it. The 28 came out for one afternoon and the APO 50/2.0 stayed on the camera for 99% of the time. I could easily have just taken the 50 APO, it's an incredible lens, very versatile and a really nice travel lens. I had a ND filter on it most of the time. My lens closet is somewhat full, and I don't intend on getting rid of any of my Leica mount glass, but I could probably exist with the APO 50/2.0 as my only lens if I had to! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick in CO Posted June 13, 2017 Share #75 Posted June 13, 2017 ,If you are a 35 shooter, then a 21mm wide. If a 50 shooter, a 24/25mm. For interiors, tall churches/castles/etc and tight spots a 35 or 50 won't suffice. I find I can crop my 50 to do without a 90 I used to carry. Your idea of a longer lens that stays in the car/room/secure spot until needed is spot on. Have fun! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayD28 Posted June 13, 2017 Share #76 Posted June 13, 2017 Its incredible that this thread is still going since 2014 Love it. And the kicker is I always open this thread to read the newest posts! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted June 13, 2017 Share #77 Posted June 13, 2017 Some months ago, I would say MATE (Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50) and Macro-Elmar-M 4/90 . Now it would just be something else but even lighter : Summaron-M 5.6/28mm and Summarit-M 2.5/50 on two bodies. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpeterson Posted June 15, 2017 Share #78 Posted June 15, 2017 (edited) As a relative newcomer to Leica, who travels a lot, this has been a helpful thread. I have five weeks of travel coming up, and I've decided to take just my 35 and 50. Since getting into Leica a year ago with the acquisition of an M240 last July, I've generally carried three lenses everywhere (35+50+90). Even though with my DSLRs I used to use an 85 a lot, I seldom find myself reaching for my 90 with my M. So home it stays. Edited June 15, 2017 by mpeterson 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 15, 2017 Share #79 Posted June 15, 2017 Two lens travel combo. MATE WATE Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnySixteen Posted June 16, 2017 Share #80 Posted June 16, 2017 For upcoming travel, I can't limit myself to 2. I'll be bringing Zeiss 21/4.5, Leica 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2.8. I am traveling for 20 days with only a carry on bag and still I can justify 4 lenses, an M6 and 20 rolls of film because when you put it all together it's still an extremely compact kit. At least I think so. I'd rather take more than I need than miss an opportunity because I didn't have what I need. I know, not at all helpful for the OP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.