michaelwj Posted October 28, 2016 Share #41 Â Posted October 28, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Exactly..."morals of convenience", I call it. Far, far too much of it. Â cheers ... I think everyone will find that a 35mm lens is more morally convenient. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 Hi michaelwj, Take a look here Let's revisit the one lens debate- 35mm or 50mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted October 28, 2016 Share #42 Â Posted October 28, 2016 I think everyone will find that a 35mm lens is more morally convenient. Â Especially big noses lovers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred09 Posted October 28, 2016 Share #43 Â Posted October 28, 2016 I'm recently switched to Leica M9 from a Nikon kit, and started out with a 50mm. I could most certainly have survived with it, and I was incredibly happy with the pictures i was taking, not to mention the weight I had shed from my old kit. Â Curiosity got the better of me though and I ended up getting a 35 summilux, which I find I prefer - but keep in mind there's added bias due to the convenience of the extra f stop advantage too. Regardless of low light performance I also like the 35 as it's a little more compact if you don't use the hood. In saying that I regularly switch between both lengths. Â Moral of the story? You'll take great photos with either, but I think the 35 length is more convenient. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted October 29, 2016 Share #44 Â Posted October 29, 2016 I would not say this. 50/2 v4:Â https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-4RKCr3w/0/X3/5020v4_L1005236-X3.jpg 50/2 v5:Â https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-BvXmk5v/0/X3/5020c_L1005235-X3.jpg The moment I read ottof.'s post I thought of these demo shots. Thanks for re-posting them! Â s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 29, 2016 Share #45  Posted October 29, 2016 The moment I read ottof.'s post I thought of these demo shots. Thanks for re-posting them!  s-a  ah, that Leica glow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted October 29, 2016 Share #46 Â Posted October 29, 2016 I would not say this. 50/2 v4:Â https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-4RKCr3w/0/X3/5020v4_L1005236-X3.jpg 50/2 v5:Â https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-BvXmk5v/0/X3/5020c_L1005235-X3.jpg I could post two shots from film demonstrating the opposite but that's a lot of work, let's believe that I had a bad copy of the newest and I will not spread this rumour again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdfloresjr Posted October 30, 2016 Share #47  Posted October 30, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have been lucky enough to have both the Summilux 35mm and the Nocti f0.95 50mm.  During my first year with the M240 I only had the 35mm, which proved very versatile for street photography and allowed me to cull at least two dozen great images worthy of exhibition, out of approximately 4,000 shots.  In my second year with the 240 I bought the Nocti and used it as prime lens for three months:    A) While the 50mm is heavy and cumbersome for street photography, it takes great portraits    and shows the most minute details of a person's face.  It can actually see through a    woman's makeup in addition to seeing what the human eye cannot see at night.    Your focus has to be dead-on with the 50mm because of the narrow DOF, so a higher   level of technical skill is required.  It's a very demanding, unforgiving lens pretty much   like the 80's air-cooled 911 Porsche Carreras.  I can live with either one as my ONLY lens for the M240.  NOTE:  The opinion expressed is from an emerging photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted October 30, 2016 Share #48  Posted October 30, 2016 ah, that Leica glow Ha! But you must admit that is a pretty harsh test; enormous illumination level difference across a very sharp edge. If the V4 and V5 are the same formula (glass and element shapes) the difference is down to coatings alone, and maybe some internal baffling. And as ottof. posts upthread another test might very well show a different outcome.  I always thought that "Leica Glow" was (mostly) the result of other optical properties, like spherical aberration. But that's far beyond my ken. To be honest I don't care. Either of those lenses would work for me exactly as I need it to work. (I, taking pictures off some empty New Mexican highway, and not I, on some wedding job paying 20% of my annual income, with Bride Mom breathing down my neck about getting the proofs.)  One man's minutia..., s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 30, 2016 Share #49  Posted October 30, 2016 I don't shoot film anymore but far as my copies are concerned, 50/2 v5 has always had less flare than 50/2 v4 on digital. As for the "Leica glow" i don't know what it means exactly. To me glow is the name given to halos produced by some legacy lenses (and perhaps the new Summaron 28/5.6) around highlights as can be seen here: https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-V6rk4XF/0/X3/L1005422c1si-X3.jpg (35/1.4 pre-asph) but YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.