Twos company threes a crowd

[NJH]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have 3 lenses in my bag; 28-50-90. It has surprised me but I am becoming obsessed with 28mm, if I can only use one lens it will always be a 50. I am at peace with that. I also find that even if I don't use 90 very often many of my favourite shots are taken with a short telephoto.

 

My Dilemma is this: If I carry all 3 lenses I can't think of a single time I have switched between all 3. My brain just doesn't work like that and seems to be comfortable with switching between 2 focal lengths.

 

I am therefore thinking that less is more and its more natural for me to either go with just the 50 or to partner the 28 with a short tele but then the 90 is just to long. The gap between 28 and 90 inevitably seems to result in some missed opportunities, happened this way the past weekend in fact. I could have got that 50 out of the bag but constant lens changing is a no go for me, probably loose more opportunities than are gained.

 

Therefore I am coming around to thinking that for me a nicer pair is my 28 elmarit ASPH with a 75 Summarit and when I want something 50 and different/faster I have my 50 Sonnar. If I had the money the 50 would be a Summilix.

 

What say you? I can't surely be alone in coming to these conclusions.

 

Another conclusion I am fast coming to is I don't really like carrying a bag all the time as dipping in to it is a big distraction, as I am shooting film I am tempted to get a bessa 4m and then just have my M6 over one shoulder and the 4m over the other. Less mucking about.

 

Cheers

Neil

[IWC Doppel]

I prefer to chose one lens when I go out and 3 or so for a weekend, I really like keeping them close together, like 24,28 and 35. Or 28,35 and 50. Even though I have a dozen lenses the longest I use is 75mm. It's whatever works for you

[Jeff S]

Therefore I am coming around to thinking that for me a nicer pair is my 28 elmarit ASPH with a 75 Summarit and when I want something 50 and different/faster I have my 50 Sonnar. If I had the money the 50 would be a Summilix.

 

Or you could consider adding a 35, giving you various two-lens options, e.g., 28/50 or 35/90. [Or you could pick up a used MATE (28/35/50), if speed (and possible service issues) aren't a concern.] These 4 focal lengths (I gave up on 75 early on) have served me well for decades with M's, film and digital, cropped sensor (M8.2) and 'FF'.

 

Whatever works for you, and that can certainly change over time. For me, a bag is only for transport to the shooting location (unless walking all day) or if weather dictates. After that, the camera goes over the shoulder and that's it, other than maybe another lens in pocket or pouch if the mood strikes. I've tried 2 cameras at a time, but generally don't like it.

 

I've never had a problem keeping the bag with another lens or two in the car if I'm going to diverse locations in a day. I have insurance to cover loss anyway. If it's just a walk from the house, easy to just pick one lens and go.

 

No rules. And many opinions. The only ones that matter are yours, based on your needs and preferences.

 

And remember that it's easier to crop if you're missing a longer lens than it is to run fast backwards and hope there's enough space and time if you're missing a wider one (ok, no debates on changing perspective, or unchanging focal lengths, etc).

 

Jeff

[NJH]

That is pretty much where I am getting to Jeff, except I used 35 with the X100 and then with a 28 on the M8 and just got bored of it. Looking back at my X100 images for example so many of them ended up being cropped to 50 or so and you just know there will be times when you can't stand back any further to get the shot.

 

It would be interesting to hear if guys who carry 3 or more lenses actually will ever swap around that many lenses whilst on a walkabout or on location or whether that is just the lenses in the bag in the boot of the car.

[NJH]

Sorry I forgot to add you're probably right Jeff and in a years time I will likely want to shoot 35 a bit again then it makes sense to pair it with a 90. I did this for a short while in m4/3rds when I had the 20 f1.7 and the 45 f1.8 (40/90 pair equivalent). That was a great little kit.

 

Not cheap this hobby is it

[Jeff S]

 

Not cheap this hobby is it

 

But you needn't spend much for a used 35 that will probably suit just fine.

 

Or, don't buy anything and figure out how to best use what you have.

 

Or, sell one and have only two. I did that for years….no lack of picture opportunities.

 

Options.

 

And stop reading the forum until you get in a good groove.

 

Jeff

[Guest Mr. B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The majority of the time I go out with my 35mm on my M6 and carry my 90mm in my small bad along with around three rolls of film in addition to the roll in my camera. I find that most of the time I don't even use the 90mm, but ocassionly I do. Sometime I switch my 35mm for my 50mm. I never carry more than one additional lens in my bag unless I am traveling on an extended trip. I own five lenses for my leica! but never carry more than two when I am shooting locally.

Mr. B

[Nick_S]

I also think you might add a 35mm lens for an additional two-lens combination. Then you can choose between 28 & 50 if you will be photographing closer subjects, or 35 & 90 for when you think you might want the moderate telephoto lens and perhaps some more flexibility at the wide end. On the other hand, some photographers like Don McCullin have preferred 28 & 135 mm lenses with less interest in focal lengths in between.

 

Nick

[Richardgb]

Having used a 28mm Distagon as 'normal' on a Contax, my first choice of lens with my M9 was a 28mm Summicron, which I used exclusively for several months while waiting for a 75mm Summicron partner. I shoot more with the 28mm than any other lens (I now also have a 18mm and 50mm); when out and about for most eventualities its usual partner is still the 75mm.

 

I find the 28mm is good for 'close', single-row groups, with little noticeable distortion provided no-one is sticking their arm or leg towards the camera, and the lens is not too wide for flash coverage. The framelines in the M9 are not easy to see though - there's always more in the image than appears in the viewfinder.

[thighslapper]

 

My Dilemma is this: If I carry all 3 lenses I can't think of a single time I have switched between all 3. My brain just doesn't work like that and seems to be comfortable with switching between 2 focal lengths.

 

Cheers

Neil

 

I have the same disease ...... it also happens with the MM.....

 

Stick a 50 on the camera and you unwittingly start seeing the world as 50mm ..... and just subconsciously seek out the subjects that fit well with this focal length.......

 

Same with the MM .... you start looking at the world as a pattern of tones and light/shadow ..... and unnerringly choose things that will look good in monochrome.

 

The only problem comes with something so remarkable that you have NO CHOICE but to use another focal length ...... and then you curse the fact you have no other lenses.....

 

I have solved the problem by getting an XVario ...... which produces at least as good as the M9 .... and hump the M+lenses only when it is mission critical .....

[Stein K S]

I guess I have obtained the same disease as quite a few of the above. No bag... and only MAYBE a second lens in the pocket. The primary lens that I can never leave without, is the 35... and the potential second lens is a 28 or a 50 depending pretty much on location.

 

My 90 is rarely used and a change towards the very nice 70 cron is getting increasingly tempting. However, can suspect even this to be a slight "GAS attack" since I do not think that I ever will leave the basic setup mentioned on top (28-35-50).

 

Good luck in searching for your preferred set-up... a continuous & fun part of it all!

 

Stein Kjetil

[Dougg]

....

It would be interesting to hear if guys who carry 3 or more lenses actually will ever swap around that many lenses whilst on a walkabout or on location or whether that is just the lenses in the bag in the boot of the car.

Around home I just head out without a bag, the camera and one lens over a shoulder. This is also typical on vacation, where I'll either leave the bag behind or have it in the car trunk in case I want a different lens.

 

I seem to carry a 90 a lot more than I use a 90. I recall a trip to Spain with a CLE, mostly alternating between a 25 and 40 depending on where we were going, both very useful. I'd grab the Bessa L with a 15mm in very tight quarters or, say, inside the cathedral in Seville. I had the 90 but put it on for only one shot that was later discarded.

 

Last fall in Hawaii I had the M240 with 28, 50, and that same old 90, which wasn't even touched. The 28 was used only in the terminals and on the plane, otherwise I just left the 50 on and did not carry other lenses or the bag.

 

90 just seems too long for me, while I do find a 75 more useful.

 

Another relevant recollection is a long walkabout in Old San Juan, Puerto Rico. I carried my bag with two Contax G2 and 28, 45, 90. I did find it handy to just grab the camera with the desired lens already mounted. Again I didn't touch the 90 but you never know in advance, right? I was switching the bag from shoulder to shoulder and I was so sore later I regretted the bag.

 

Anymore I like to keep it fairly simple, carry no bag or tripod, avoid switching lenses in the field, adjust my vision for the gear at hand.

[michaelwj]

I seem to carry a 90 a lot more than I use a 90.

 

This seems to be a prevailing trend around here.

 

I've so far avoided a 90. In my SLR days,I remember I had to intentionally mount the 85 and go and take shots with it. I put it down to guilt about owning a lens that I hardly used. I have only a few keepers from it, and non on the walls. I feel the same would happen with a 90.

 

OT, I'm a one lens at a time kind of person, but could probably stretch to two for a weekend away or holiday. A 28-75 doesn't seem like a bad idea, I think it is becoming increasingly popular: Leica Lens Review: 75mm Summicron f 2.0 | Adam Marelli Photo

 

Michael

[Printmaker]

I've often pondered the same. When I travel, I often just take my 35 and 90. And I tend to use the 35 for 90% of my photos. I also have a 50 which I use even less than my 90 so it usually stays home. I've considered getting a 75 but really don't want to sell my 90 (Elmarit M) because it is such a great lens. I keep telling myself that a 75 Summarit would slip into a jacket pocket and free me of the bag just like my old TeleElmarit once did. So one is in my future.

 

Having a 28 (so close in size and angle to a 35) combined with a light weight and compact 75 would seem to be the perfect way for you to go.

[Herr Barnack]

@NJH,

I too have a 28/50/90 set. I too have found that the 28 has taken over - that happens as your shooting style and/or choice of subject matter changes. I know that Cartier-Bresson used a 50 for most of his work. For me, it is too long for street photography.

 

The 50 causes me to back up to get proper framing, leaving room for passers by to walk between my subject and my camera, blocking my shot and causing me to miss the monment. With the 28, I get close enough to my subject to leave no room for interlopers.

 

My most used lens is the 28, followed by the 50 and then by the 90 - but there are some situations where the 90 is a must have lens. Most of the time I don't use it much, but when I need it it is often all I use. I keep it around for those situations; sometimes there is just no getting the shot without a short tele.

 

That having been said, my 28 is my walkabout lens for a one lens one camera light and fast kit.

[MarkP]

Unless I have a specific reason for which I want to use other lenses my usual combination in 28 Summicron & 50 Summilux (often with the spare lens in a very small padded LowePro P&S pouch such as an Apex AW30 with the inner tongue cut out). I love this combination - very versatile. My third lens is then a 21 SEM or 90 Macro-Elmar. The 90 is so small that if I'm taking a small camera bag it's an irrelevant addition.

[payasam]

From the mid 1960s my dream was an M2 with a 35/2 and a 90/2.8. I bought my first interchangeable lens camera, an SLR, in 1974, with 28, 50 and 135 lenses. In less than two years I had replaced the kit with a 35-50-100 one. I found that I could not manage without the 50 in the middle, not least because it was always the fastest of all: and, in my opinion, the most flexible. That selection of lenses continues with my current M6 and Nicca. But there is much to be said for the Leica CL's brace of 40mm and 90mm. Today there is the option of the Bessa R3x with 40mm and either 75mm or 90mm. When I was far more active than I now am, I often carried two cameras, with different length lenses mounted. If I were to do that now I'd have too many half exposed rolls. I do not actually like to change lenses, but I treat it much as I treat a blood sugar check or the clipping of toe nails.

[wda]

I have 3 lenses in my bag; 28-50-90. It has surprised me but I am becoming obsessed with 28mm, if I can only use one lens it will always be a 50. I am at peace with that. I also find that even if I don't use 90 very often many of my favourite shots are taken with a short telephoto....

Cheers

Neil

Fewer lenses on an outing gives you freedom. Why not just try your 28 plus 50 for a few local outings and note the opportunities when a 90 would have been useful? Don't confuse speed with focal length. If you enjoy using your 50, then stick with it. If you clearly need extra speed, think about upgrading. Remember a 50 Summarit is a good faster option with compact dimensions.

[payasam]

I don't understand. It doesn't seem to me that Neil has confused speed with focal length. How can anyone mix up two different things?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wda]

I don't understand. It doesn't seem to me that Neil has confused speed with focal length. How can anyone mix up two different things?

OP clearly inferred a possible upgrade in his phrase, "and when I want something 50 and different/faster I have my 50 Sonnar. If I had the money the 50 would be a Summilix." No confusion, just an added qualification in his argument.