35 or 50mm for M240?

[XVarior]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good choice. I have a 35 and a 50. The 35 stays on the camera 90% of the time. I wish that I'd have purchased a 90 instead of the 50.

 

or a 75 ;-)

but don't regret it, 50 is a must have or must keep anyways.

[indergaard]

Good choice!

 

As much as I love the 50mm FL, and the 50 Lux ASPH, my advice would have been a 35mm lens also.

 

I've been using 50mm for years as my only FL. I've had the Lux 50 and Noctilux 50 ASPH's for many years. As of today, though, I prefer the 35 Lux FLE to both of them. The Nocti is sold, but the 50 Lux isn't - I just love it's rendering, more so than what I've seen from the 50 APO.

 

But the 35mm FL is a lot more versatile than 50mm. In every way. If I'm not sure what types of pictures I'm gonna make, or if I'm traveling, or just bringing my camera with me wherever I go: The 35mm Lux FLE is the first pick - always. If I'm going out to dinner with my fiance, friends or colleagues - the 35mm is always on the camera. Low-light shooting? The 35/1.4 FLE is better in low-light than the Noctilux 0.95/50 ASPH! It's much easier to hold it steady with much slower shutter speeds. The one stop advantage of the Noctilux doesn't make it better for low-light photography at all, due to much more increased chance of camera shake, the 50mm focal length requires much faster shutter speeds, and due to the extremely limited DoF. The 35/1.4 is the winner in every case except for portraits.

 

I only attach the 50mm when I know that I want or need it now. Or when I want to exclude subjects from my frames and focus on simplistic images, or images where the subject - and only the subject - is in focus.

 

I also have a 21mm/1.8 which I also love. Currently the 35mm is my first choice, followed by the 21mm and the 50mm in the last spot.

[Advertisement]

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

[dugby]

Good choice!

 

As much as I love the 50mm FL, and the 50 Lux ASPH, my advice would have been a 35mm lens also.

 

I've been using 50mm for years as my only FL. I've had the Lux 50 and Noctilux 50 ASPH's for many years. As of today, though, I prefer the 35 Lux FLE to both of them. The Nocti is sold, but the 50 Lux isn't - I just love it's rendering, more so than what I've seen from the 50 APO.

 

But the 35mm FL is a lot more versatile than 50mm. In every way. If I'm not sure what types of pictures I'm gonna make, or if I'm traveling, or just bringing my camera with me wherever I go: The 35mm Lux FLE is the first pick - always. If I'm going out to dinner with my fiance, friends or colleagues - the 35mm is always on the camera. Low-light shooting? The 35/1.4 FLE is better in low-light than the Noctilux 0.95/50 ASPH! It's much easier to hold it steady with much slower shutter speeds. The one stop advantage of the Noctilux doesn't make it better for low-light photography at all, due to much more increased chance of camera shake, the 50mm focal length requires much faster shutter speeds, and due to the extremely limited DoF. The 35/1.4 is the winner in every case except for portraits.

 

I only attach the 50mm when I know that I want or need it now. Or when I want to exclude subjects from my frames and focus on simplistic images, or images where the subject - and only the subject - is in focus.

 

I also have a 21mm/1.8 which I also love. Currently the 35mm is my first choice, followed by the 21mm and the 50mm in the last spot.

 

I totally agree, and have the above similar experiences with my similar collection of lenses:

35FLE, 50FLE, (and also Zeiss Planar 50mm f2, and Voigtlander Color-Heliar 75mm f2.5)

 

My 50FLE has such a super fine DOF that I find I use it for special occasions with a tripod. So for general 50mm running around / family shots I use the Zeiss Planar.

 

---------------------

 

But my really sweet travel combo, is the 35FLE and Voigtlander 75/2.5

 

When on-the-go, the 35FLE is much much easier to shoot and get "keepers" (than my 50FLE), as described above, I also think the 35FLE is a couple of stops faster than my 50FLE.

 

But the other surprise is the ultra low cost (and ultra light weight) Voigtlander 75/2.5. This lens captures such high quality images and is so light-weight and small, it makes me feel-like I am achieving my goal of travelling with a single lens (35FLE), with the ability to whip out the 75mm for those few times that I need a high quality telephoto shot.

 

As Sean Reid also found, this Voigtlander 75mm at a fraction of the cost of other 75's,.... is worth while.

[jmahto]

I'm buying M240 on Mon. and still can't decide whether to get 35 or 50mm lens. I shoot nature, landscapes, but also street photography mostly without close-ups of people. I also compose still life nature shots and close-ups in an urban environment where I can get close to or far away from the subject without attracting attention. I also photograph architectural monuments, ruins, and objects in museums.

 

I really need good advice on which lens would be better for me to start with as I can only get one right now. I'd like to know advantages and disadvantages of both.

 

And is it really true that some new M240s come with dust and oil smudges on the sensor? How does one deal with it?

 

I just took the plunge over the weekend myself and can attest that it came with clean sensor. You can see my other thread for my impressions.

 

For lenses I use 15, 28 (most used), 50 (2nd most used, mostly for shots with only one person), 90, 135 and longer Rs.

[tedlipien]

My dealer inspected the camera and assured me it was perfectly clean. I've settled on 35mm as my first lens. Thank you for your useful advice.

[tedlipien]

Great advice on 70mm. This may be my next purchase. Camera arrives today. I've settled on the 35mm lens.

[A Almulla]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Camera arrives today. I've settled on the 35mm lens.

 

Congrats on your purchase and may that lens grow old with you.