T lens or M lens?

[hansdampf23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd like to buy a tele lens for my T. At the moment I have the standard zoom and the Summicron. A possibility would be the new T 55-135. It has AF and is build specially for the Leica T, but I haven't heard anything about IQ and have seen only Leica's marketing pictures yet. So I am a little bit concerned. Another possibility would be a M Summarit 75mm or 90 mm. The price including the M adapter is almost the same. I think this glasses are compact and not heavy, specially the 75mm. I think the IQ will be better than the zoom. Both glasses are faster but are MF. May I ask the forum, which one would you buy?

[thighslapper]

The t zoom quality is excellent. You will have no complaints.

 

AF is fine and relatively quick.

 

The main issue for me is the size and weight of the lens ...... particularly at 135 .... compared to the compact nature of the camera.

 

I spent a week walking in the mountains of Tenerife last month and only used it for a few dozen images out of several thousand ....... in reality the long end of the 18-56 seemed enough ...... and the 11-23 was used extensively ..... very useful indeed and is an excellent performer.

 

I also took my M with the 21/3.4, 50/2 and 75/2 and used the two combinations on alternate days. The M results are as expected noticeably more consistently better when viewed big in LR ..... but at normal viewing sizes the T images compare very favourably.

 

Did prove useful for the recent eclipse though (see landscape posts) ..... and it will probably be fine for birds in the garden ..... but I can't see me carrying it about often ....

Edited March 26, 2015 by thighslapper

[Advertisement]

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

[tom0511]

I own the 55-135 and the optical quality seems very good.

It would be useful to have image stabilization when using such a relatively long lens on a relatively small body. Thats the main downside IMO.

It works nice for portraits at the short end.

[Carbon111]

For what it's worth, I found the 35mm Summarit to pair beautifully with the T.

I hardly ever take it off:

More Leica T Black And White Shots...

http://carbon111.blogspot.com/2014/11/driving-in-rain.html

Edited March 26, 2015 by Carbon111

[FeralCoton]

I got a 50 cron for my T and it is great. The T lenses are true Leica lenses, but the M series seems a notch or so up. Manual focus is a major difference as is lens speed. I tried the T Tele Zoom and it was much nicer than I expected

[hansdampf23]

I own the 55-135 and the optical quality seems very good.

 

It would be useful to have image stabilization when using such a relatively long lens on a relatively small body. Thats the main downside IMO.

 

It works nice for portraits at the short end.

 

 

Thank you for your answer! May I ask you to show any examples?

[hansdampf23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The t zoom quality is excellent. You will have no complaints.

 

AF is fine and relatively quick.

 

The main issue for me is the size and weight of the lens ...... particularly at 135 .... compared to the compact nature of the camera.

 

I spent a week walking in the mountains of Tenerife last month and only used it for a few dozen images out of several thousand ....... in reality the long end of the 18-56 seemed enough ...... and the 11-23 was used extensively ..... very useful indeed and is an excellent performer.

 

I also took my M with the 21/3.4, 50/2 and 75/2 and used the two combinations on alternate days. The M results are as expected noticeably more consistently better when viewed big in LR ..... but at normal viewing sizes the T images compare very favourably.

 

Did prove useful for the recent eclipse though (see landscape posts) ..... and it will probably be fine for birds in the garden ..... but I can't see me carrying it about often ....

 

 

Thank you for let me know your experience. I am concerned because of the weight too. The M 75/2.5 is very compact. I think, i have to try at the shop.

[Clemgill]

The 21mm f:3.5 Super-Elmar is a killer.... Makes a 30mm equivalent.

Compact, easy to focus and unbelievably sharp.

[vikasmg]

I'd like to buy a tele lens for my T. At the moment I have the standard zoom and the Summicron. A possibility would be the new T 55-135. ... May I ask the forum, which one would you buy?

The 55 to 135 Vario Elmar is probably your best choice unless you need a wider aperture.

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!

[Don Morley]

I think these super pictures speak for themselves. W:)ell done and thanks, Don

[hansdampf23]

The 55 to 135 Vario Elmar is probably your best choice unless you need a wider aperture.

 

 

Thank you very much for those great examples. The zoom seems to be a good choice. It looks like it's fast enough for interesting pictures. Next wednesday I will visit my dealer to take a look - and maybe to buy...

[IkarusJohn]

Those tele images are great.

 

I would say though that you should think very carefully about why you need a tele and what for. The reason I put it this way is that I have been down the tele route, and I came to the conclusion that there are limits handheld, and the sweet spot for me was 180mm f/2.8 - anything longer, I didn't use.

 

What I also found was that a good prime was WAAYY better than most zooms available at that time. Sure, I needed to move my feet around to get the composition that I wanted, but that was a good thing. And finally, an M lens will always be better made, last longer and hold its value better than a T lens - it will also be useful if (when) you buy an M camera.

 

Cheers

John

[vikasmg]

Thank you Don.

[vikasmg]

Thank you very much for those great examples. The zoom seems to be a good choice. It looks like it's fast enough for interesting pictures. Next wednesday I will visit my dealer to take a look - and maybe to buy...

 

That lotus plant on our terrace has been going quite a while and yields a flower or two every fear months. For comparison here is a pair of similar pictures taken with a Leica M, probably with a 90mm Summicron (the lens data doesn't show up because the lens is not coded while my 75mm Summarit is). There was a fair bit of cropping done on these two so the resulting image is roughly equivalent to slightly smaller than APS-C though definitely more than 4:3

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!

Edited March 30, 2015 by vikasmg
Spelling correction

[hansdampf23]

Those tele images are great.

 

 

 

I would say though that you should think very carefully about why you need a tele and what for. The reason I put it this way is that I have been down the tele route, and I came to the conclusion that there are limits handheld, and the sweet spot for me was 180mm f/2.8 - anything longer, I didn't use.

 

 

 

What I also found was that a good prime was WAAYY better than most zooms available at that time. Sure, I needed to move my feet around to get the composition that I wanted, but that was a good thing. And finally, an M lens will always be better made, last longer and hold its value better than a T lens - it will also be useful if (when) you buy an M camera.

 

 

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

Thank you, John. These are just my thoughts now. Im looking forward to wednesday.

[tom0511]

M first impression is the T-Tele-Zoom is optically very good. I dont expect a big if any IQ advantage using Primes besides the wider f-stop.

IMO it really comes down if you want the flexibility of the Zoom (IMO its like 2 lenses , a nice portrait lens at the short end for closer distances, end a Tele lens at the longer end) and AF (if you also take images of kids or dogs I see it as an advantage, even though we do know the AF is not blazingly fast).

On the other I agree a used 75/90/135mm M lens will be a little faster and will probably hold its value better.

 

I am a fan of M lenses on the M, but have tried to use them adapted on mirrorless cameras like m43/Sony A7 and Leica T....I am just not a big fan of using manual lenses on those cameras. Focusing without magnification is sometimes critical, with magnification is slow: activate magnification, focus, come back to full image, frame, hope that distance has not changed, take image.

On the M I allmost allways use the rangefinder for that reason. But for Tele its hard to nail focus with rangefinder.

So IMO I much prefer to have an AF lens on the T.

[bencoyote]

M first impression is the T-Tele-Zoom is optically very good. I dont expect a big if any IQ advantage using Primes besides the wider f-stop.

IMO it really comes down if you want the flexibility of the Zoom (IMO its like 2 lenses , a nice portrait lens at the short end for closer distances, end a Tele lens at the longer end) and AF (if you also take images of kids or dogs I see it as an advantage, even though we do know the AF is not blazingly fast).

On the other I agree a used 75/90/135mm M lens will be a little faster and will probably hold its value better.

 

I am a fan of M lenses on the M, but have tried to use them adapted on mirrorless cameras like m43/Sony A7 and Leica T....I am just not a big fan of using manual lenses on those cameras. Focusing without magnification is sometimes critical, with magnification is slow: activate magnification, focus, come back to full image, frame, hope that distance has not changed, take image.

On the M I allmost allways use the rangefinder for that reason. But for Tele its hard to nail focus with rangefinder.

So IMO I much prefer to have an AF lens on the T.

 

 

Maybe this is more of an M question than a T question but when operating with a telephoto lens how often are you actually operating in a range where focusing matters?

 

I have one M lens 50mm that is kind of tele when on the T and I began in photography with digital AF lenses and the thing that using MF with a mechanical focusing system is that I spend basically in one of three modes:

1) at infinity because what I'm trying to capture is way out there - a subset of a landscape. It doesn't matter if I'm focused on this mountain top or that mountain top, it is all infinity. Or my seats are so bad that every player on the field is past the hyperfocal distance. Focusing doesn't matter.

2) at a fairly constant distance - like a portrait where the distance between myself and the subject stays basically the same. This is my most common use case for the 50mm M lens where I use it like a 75mm for its f1.4 narrow DOF.

3) zone focused where I have plenty of DOF latitude between me and my subject and focusing really isn't that important.

 

So my question is this just me and learning to adapt to what I have or is there something fundamentally different about my photography? When other people use telephoto lenses how much does focusing really matter?

[tom0511]

Maybe this is more of an M question than a T question but when operating with a telephoto lens how often are you actually operating in a range where focusing matters?

 

I have one M lens 50mm that is kind of tele when on the T and I began in photography with digital AF lenses and the thing that using MF with a mechanical focusing system is that I spend basically in one of three modes:

1) at infinity because what I'm trying to capture is way out there - a subset of a landscape. It doesn't matter if I'm focused on this mountain top or that mountain top, it is all infinity. Or my seats are so bad that every player on the field is past the hyperfocal distance. Focusing doesn't matter.

2) at a fairly constant distance - like a portrait where the distance between myself and the subject stays basically the same. This is my most common use case for the 50mm M lens where I use it like a 75mm for its f1.4 narrow DOF.

3) zone focused where I have plenty of DOF latitude between me and my subject and focusing really isn't that important.

 

So my question is this just me and learning to adapt to what I have or is there something fundamentally different about my photography? When other people use telephoto lenses how much does focusing really matter?

 

Focusing matters a lot. Slightly wrong focus will have a much bigger influence on sharpness than the slight difference between different lenses.

Regarding 50mm on the T...I have not checked. But I use both an AF 35mm (Sony) and a MF 35mm lens (Loxia) on the A7II and even at 35mm the manual focused images can be slightly off sometimes. It might be the case that my kids move faster than a typical portrait "victim"

[bernie.lcf]

 

So my question is this just me and learning to adapt to what I have or is there something fundamentally different about my photography? When other people use telephoto lenses how much does focusing really matter?

 

If you are using a 50mm at f1.5 and your camera is not on a tripod and the subject is not sitting, you will end up focusing quite a lot to make sure the right things are sharp. I found this quite difficult using a Voigtländer 50/1.5 on a T.

 

If I compare T to M8/M9, I am quite able to nail focus for the Voigtländer Nokton or a pre-asph Summilux at f1.5 and f1.4 using the rangefinder. On the T, I struggle.

It probably takes me the same amount of time, but the M gives me confidence while the T does not. I am never sure if this was it and I end up having to do some analysis on the built in screen of the T.

 

My 2c...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[hansdampf23]

Well, now I bought the M 90 2.5 and I think it was an easy and fast decision.: The zoom is IMO too big for the T and I haven't liked the IQ so much. It isn't bad but... On the other side the M lenses are compact and the IQ is a lot better than the T-zoom. The focusing is easy, fast, almost as fast as the AF. I used the Visoflex abd had no problems. Unfortunately I had to make a decision: 75 mm or 90 mm: I took just the longer one. The difference between 56mm (standard zoom) and 75 mm isn't so big, so I took the longer one...