The Summilux-M 28mm f/1.4 has upset my existing lens kit.

[KanzaKruzer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In 2012, I started building a great four lens kit of 21/3.4, 35/1.4, 50/2, and 90/2 paired with the M240. With the introduction of the Leica Summilux 28mm f/1.4 I am in a quandary what to do. If I were set up a lens kit now it would only include 3 lenses, the 28/1.4, 35/1.4 and 50/2.

 

I normally take the M240 out with either the 35/1.4 or 50/2 attached. My preference for a two lens kit would be the 28/1.4 and 50/2. The most I would take out at one time would be three lenses which would be the 28/1.4, 35/1.4, and 50/2. In special situations the 21/3.4 and 90/2 are needed and I prefer to keep them. I would need to wait at least two years to be able to afford the 28/1.4 if I kept the 21/3.4 and 90/2. I am afraid I would regret selling the 21/3.4 and 90/2 to help fund the 28/1.4. Can anyone relate to this dilemma and provide insight to a resolution? Should I just cool my jets and wait two years, then purchase the 28/1.4 or should I sell the 21/3.4 and 90/2 and enjoy two extra years of use with the 28/1.4?

 

As added background, the M240 is my first rangefinder. I sold all my DSLR equipment to help fund my current Leica setup. As such, I do not have the experience of many on this forum and would appreciate input.

Edited June 22, 2015 by KanzaKruzer

[rsh]

Keep what you have.

[Advertisement]

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

[NB23]

You want us to tell you what to do?

 

And I don't get it. Why suddenly lust for a 28mm lens when a 28 cron was there all along?

 

Yeah, just keep what you have.

[IWC Doppel]

Generally speaking selling lenses in the long term is often not the right thing to do, however if you don't get on with the focal length or rendering, size etc then it's usually the right thing to do. I have sold a number of lenses over the years and bought one or two back again.

 

one option would be to buy an older 28mm and get used to the focal length, an Elmarit for exalmple. You can then assess if you would rather have the 28mm Summilux or perhaps even consider a used summicron, it's a Steller lens. Worst case yo

uu have the hassle of buying and selling an older lens, you shouldn't lose any money. Best case you really like the older 28 and live happily ever after with 35 and 28

[batmobile]

You could consider exchanging the 35mm lux for the 28mm lux, giving you a flexible 21-28-50 set up. I would regard 28-35-50 are much less flexible and contributing little more.

[Peter H]

Is the 35 1.4 inadequate for your purposes? 

 

You say it is one of your two most used lenses. Selling it to fund a focal length you haven't needed till now (despite the fact that the established f2 and f2.8 versions are immensely highly regarded as amongst Leica's very best) doesn't sound sensible. It sounds like GAS, and GAS of the worst kind: GAS you can't readily afford.

 

Fight it! We're here to support you.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think the OP is contemplating selling his/her 35 Summilux (it seems to be the 21 and 90 that are facing the chop). Either way it sounds like GAS but it's a rare Leica user that doesn't suffer from it from time to time. I rather fancy the 28 Summilux myself, even though I suspect it is too large for my liking nor am I particularly interested in F1.4 (other than the extra stop of handholdability it can afford). 

[jaapv]

Is the 35 1.4 inadequate for your purposes? 

 

You say it is one of your two most used lenses. Selling it to fund a focal length you haven't needed till now (despite the fact that the established f2 and f2.8 versions are immensely highly regarded as amongst Leica's very best) doesn't sound sensible. It sounds like GAS, and GAS of the worst kind: GAS you can't readily afford.

 

Fight it! We're here to support you.

Are we? To me it sounds like the lame leading the blind...

[Peter H]

I don't think the OP is contemplating selling his/her 35 Summilux (it seems to be the 21 and 90 that are facing the chop). Either way it sounds like GAS but it's a rare Leica user that doesn't suffer from it from time to time. I rather fancy the 28 Summilux myself, even though I suspect it is too large for my liking nor am I particularly interested in F1.4 (other than the extra stop of handholdability it can afford). 

 

 

Ah yes, you're right Ian. I think I must have picked up batmobile's suggestion. 

 

And I used to argue that they'd never make a 28 1.4, so what do I know?

[MarkP]

Easy decision. The spectacular 2.0/28 Summicron ASPH (or even a 2.8/28 Elmarit) would be a much more appropriate companion for your compact 2.0/50 (rendering, ergonomics, size and weight) than that expensive monster of a 28 Summilux which is completely out of step with your kit and really an exotic and specialised lens).  The 21 and 35 pair very nicely together.

 

You should be able to buy the 28 Summicron for less than what you would have to top up the 21 and 90mm lens sales to get the 28 Summilux. Also, it's not a good time to sell Leica lenses with used prices down.  Or buy an immaculate 2nd hand 28 Summicron.

 

This is indeed toxic GAS!

Edited June 22, 2015 by MarkP

[enboe]

A bit of contemplation is in order.  

 

How often do you find yourself wishing for wider coverage than your 35?  It doesn't sound like often enough to pack the 21 regularly.  Also, is weight a prime, pun intended, consideration?  If no, take your 21 along, if yes, then you may find the 28/1.4 a bit heavier than you expect, heavier than the 35 for sure.

 

How often do you find yourself shooting your 35 at f/1.4?  If seldom to never, then an f/2 or f/2.8 lens may suit you just fine.

 

There is some excellent advice here on not selling glass.  Unless a lens really does not produce images you enjoy, then keep it.

 

If you still need to scratch the 28 itch, there are multiple options at half, one quarter, and one eighth of the price.  The Summicron is superb and will remain so, for around $3K.  The 28/2.8/ASPH is a gem optically, and among the smallest and lightest.  It also uses all those old vintage 39mm filters for creative B&W shooting.  It will run you around $1.5K.  The 28/2.8/III can be had for a song, and produces very nice images with good color rendition as well.  I found a clean example for $750, and if you don't need the extra 2 stops of speed and shallow depth of field, then that may be the way to go.

 

Eric

[01af]

When the 28 mm Summilux triggers your GAS while the Elmarit and Summicron didn't then you don't need a 28 mm lens.

 

Your existing 21+35+50+90 combo is balanced and useful—adding a 28 mm would just clutter it up and doesn't make any sense unless your vision as a photographer is clearly centered around the 28 mm field-of-view. But then, you'd had acquired a 28 mm lens long ago.

 

That said, the new Summilux-M 28 mm Asph sure is a great lens even when 28 mm is not your first focal length ... but ... only if you can afford it. By the way, in two years from now the price sure will have increased by one grand or so.

[KanzaKruzer]

Thanks for the insight. I tend to use the 35/1.4 and 50/2 wide open half the time primarily trying to keep a narrow DOF. The 21/3.8 is normally shot around f/8 for landscapes. The 28/1.4 still has a wider DOF than the 35/1.4, but it better meets my needs than a 28/2. I know I would regret selling both the 21/3.8 and 90/2, so I plan to enjoy what I have and take more photos over the next couple years.

 

My primary DSLR lens kit included four Zeiss lenses: 21/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/2, 100/2 (sold a 28/2 and 35/2 to fund the 35/1.4). I was very happy with that kit and tried to replicate it when I switched to Leica. With the DSLR I favored the 35mm focal length, but my preference shifted to the 50mm focal length with the Leica M. My style may still be changing, so I think it best to continue shooting with my existing four lens kit over the next two or three years to better gauge whether the 28/1.4 should be added to the mix. It will also give me more time to clock more hours on the 21mm and 90mm. If I decide the current four lens kit meets my needs, I may try to pick up a second body which would allow me to switch focal lengths faster and increase my usage of all four focal lengths.

[rodluvan]

Thanks for the insight. I tend to use the 35/1.4 and 50/2 wide open half the time primarily trying to keep a narrow DOF. The 21/3.8 is normally shot around f/8 for landscapes. The 28/1.4 still has a wider DOF than the 35/1.4, but it better meets my needs than a 28/2. I know I would regret selling both the 21/3.8 and 90/2, so I plan to enjoy what I have and take more photos over the next couple years.

 

My primary DSLR lens kit included four Zeiss lenses: 21/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/2, 100/2 (sold a 28/2 and 35/2 to fund the 35/1.4). I was very happy with that kit and tried to replicate it when I switched to Leica. With the DSLR I favored the 35mm focal length, but my preference shifted to the 50mm focal length with the Leica M. My style may still be changing, so I think it best to continue shooting with my existing four lens kit over the next two or three years to better gauge whether the 28/1.4 should be added to the mix. It will also give me more time to clock more hours on the 21mm and 90mm. If I decide the current four lens kit meets my needs, I may try to pick up a second body which would allow me to switch focal lengths faster and increase my usage of all four focal lengths.

 

don't you ever tire of of bokehography and want to try taking photos with some substance? 

[KanzaKruzer]

don't you ever tire of of bokehography and want to try taking photos with some substance? 

Half my 35mm, 50mm, 90mm shots are taken f/5.6 or higher and all of my 21mm shots are taken at higher than f/5.6. The other half of my 35, 50 and 90mm shots are ideal for maximum aperture. The 50/2 APO shots have full substance at f/2 and more than meet my needs.

[hiepphotog]

Since you rarely use the 21mm and 90mm, do sell them and get the lenses that you desire. It is just like the transition you made going from DSLR to this M-mount system. I am a strong believer of a simple approach and get what you want within your reach. I also sold my extensive DSLR system to get something lighter and smaller. Like you, if I have a chance to do it all over again, I would get a 3-lens kit as well. In a way, this would ensure that you would always use these fine lenses instead of leaving them in your dry box. Fine lenses are meant to be shot with. Do indulge yourself . I would get the Lux 28 eventually when I see enough evidence that it can replace my fine Cron. And it might take me, just like you, a year or two as well. Gotta love the new price crash in Leica land.

[Herr Barnack]

don't you ever tire of of bokehography and want to try taking photos with some substance? 

If you would be so kind, please tell the rest of us which f/stop is the line of demarcation that divides "photos with some substance" from "bokehography."  No doubt all of us here want to make "photos with some substance."

 

Or is it best to play it safe and shoot everything at f/16 or f/22, whichever of those two options our lenses offer?

Edited June 23, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[rodluvan]

If you would be so kind, please tell the rest of us which f/stop is the line of demarcation that divides "photos with some substance" from "bokehography."  No doubt all of us here want to make "photos with some substance."

 

Or is it best to play it safe and shoot everything at f/16 or f/22, whichever of those two options our lenses offer?

 

pick up a photography book containing a list of relevant and ground breaking photography, historical and contemporary. perhaps a hundred random samples from the archives of Magnum. try and guess how many of those photos were taken @ 1.4 or even wide open (depending on the lens). try and figure out how big a part "bokeh" plays in them

 

then explore a photography site like flick and frolic in the endless stream of vapid photographs hunting for the perfect bokeh and naught else

 

when you're done, do some thinking. I'm sure you can some up with a reasonable answer to your own question 

[Malvolio]

Keep all of the lenses. I wish I had this "problem"

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

pick up a photography book containing a list of relevant and ground breaking photography, historical and contemporary. perhaps a hundred random samples from the archives of Magnum. try and guess how many of those photos were taken @ 1.4 or even wide open (depending on the lens). try and figure out how big a part "bokeh" plays in them

 

then explore a photography site like flick and frolic in the endless stream of vapid photographs hunting for the perfect bokeh and naught else

 

when you're done, do some thinking. I'm sure you can some up with a reasonable answer to your own question 

Pick up a book of relevant and groundbreaking photography and notice that things like aperture and gear are not even mentioned. Then notice that the photographer used any parameters needed to get the photograph he visualized. Including small or large aperture to obtain the separation or lack thereof needed.

 

Attacking somebody because he expresses part of his photography by wide-aperture separation according to his subject is as useless a generalisation as regarding bokeh-for-bokeh's-sake photography as art.