Help me create a Lens Kit for the M-A

[rsolomon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Two lenses are perfect. Summarits are fine. I use 35 and 90 2.5 versions and am happy. Use the 35 mm most of the time and when you can't get close enough, use the 90 mm. Keep it simple and have fun with it.

Well said! I went with 35 & 75 summicrons. Simple , lite, fun.

 

Worst case sell / trade what you've outgrown or don't want anymore.

 

Don't forget situations, desires, needs, environments, tastes, and the world changes - so might you lens kit- not much is locked in forever when it comes to camera lens.

[lencap]

Thanks again for the comments.  I guess rethinking my initial comments, reviewing the many fine suggestions and thoughts from all of you, and looking at my current expected use of the camera I've come to some different ideas.

 

Among them, my original 28/50 lens kit on past Leica cameras also mirrors my lens kit on my film SLR gear from years ago.  I've pretty much always had a 28/50 combo.  When using SLRs I added a longer lens, sometimes 90 or 135, sometimes longer.

 

More recently when moving to digital (Nikon D3300/D5500 - the D5500 is pretty good with a 24MB sensor and no AA filter, but cropped) I got lazy and relied upon the kit zoom lenses that came with the camera.  The zoom lenses were 18-55, which replicated a roughly 28-85 FL range.  The kit lens was then supplemented with another zoom - 55-200, equivalent to 85-300mm FL.  With all the zooms I could get any FL I wanted, and after shooting like that for a few years I now realize that having a combination of a digital camera, which let me shoot as much as I wanted for "free", and having unlimited focal lengths (FL), I had very little shot discipline, leading to bad habits.  When I took the RAW files into PS or LR I realized that the images may look OK on the camera mounted LCD, but really had a lot of flaws if I wanted to print the images and make photographs.  My solution was to upgrade the computer so I could process the images better, or so I thought, and in the end I have several hundred mediocre pictures of various FL, but nothing that excites me or tells a story.  I still have the D5500, good for family gatherings as a quick way to have a record of what happened, but I still don't know how to use all the myriad of settings in the camera, and frankly it's very tempting to put the camera in "auto" mode and be done with it.  So the entire experience is of having a very expensive point and shoot camera/computer.

 

That's not enjoyable, so the solution, for me, is the M-A.  The issue with choosing a lens kit it trying to get away from unlimited FL of the zoom lenses, but at the same time, trying to settle on a base FL for a prime lens.  Over the thousands of digital images I've used all FL ranges, enjoying the ability to zoom to get details of a distant boat at the beach, or a building in the distance (things that a Leica doesn't do very well), and also wide angle shots of people, places and things.  The digital zooms give flexibility, but also take away composition discipline - it's so easy to keep snapping shots.

 

I also noticed that the zooms, combined with a cropped sensor and relatively slow zooms (f/3.5-5.6) make it very difficult to get any images with bokeh, or to isolate a subject with any degree of depth.  I suspect faster prime lenses would help, as would a full frame sensor, but that investment would be extensive, and the shot discipline and composition issues would still remain.

 

So I decided on a small high quality 35mm as my first Leica prime for the M-A, the Summarit f/2.4.  My thought was that a small light lens would be easy to take with me, and the 35mm FL would allow me to zone focus and/or capture more depth of field.  By having more depth of field I could use lower ISO film and shoot at higher speed, allowing me to shoot handheld without a flash.  That in turn would help overcome the digital camera's ability to shoot high ISO without flash, still giving me flexibility on how to frame and take the shot.  What I now realize is that a 2.4 35mm lens is fine for the mission I gave it, but it will limit my ability to isolate subjects, and reduce the ability to get the bokeh look, if that's what I want.  Frankly, I've been moving away from it, gravitating to Ming Thein's cinematic approach to image gathering, but he relies upon extensive dodging and boring in PS, which I will not have available to me when developing film and printing photographs.

 

So that's why I've been asking for opinions.  Do I go with the the 35/75 slower Summarit primes, giving me flexibility in shooting, but less options for subject isolation using bokeh, or faster 28/50 lenses to preserve the bokeh option (especially at 50mm), but adding significant cost and weight to the Leica setup?  What about the 75/90 choice?  Most prefer the 90 for portrait work, but I've used 75-135 FL on portraits and can make any of those lengths work.  I also don't want to have several different diameter Leica lenses.  With the 28/50 combo I can use Summicron/Elmarit lens each with a 39mm filter size.  Sticking with the Summarit line all filters will be 46 - also giving flexibility to expand to the Summilux with same size filters.

 

So that's where I am now - starting with the 35mm - trying to expand my perspective (pun intended), but doing so with the realization that my plans may change as I get further into it.  At the same time, the cost of the Summarit lenses is very reasonable, and even if I decide to change FL in the future, the financial costs won't be excessive.  I don't expect to make changes, I'm just trying to be realistic.

 

Comments are welcome!

[Advertisement]

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

[enboe]

A little more information.

 

In my accumulated horde of lenses, I have the 2.5 and 2.4 versions of all modern Summarit M's.  They all produce very nice images, something not surprising from Leica.  If budget matters, you may wish to consider the earlier 2.5 versions, but remember to include the cost of a hood if not included in the sale.  If there were one item that disappoints me with the 75 and 90 designs, it's the rubberized focusing ring, which turns grey/white with oxidation over time.  If you take a look at the less expensive 90mm 2.5 lenses on the big auction site, you can see the whitening of the focus ring.

 

Now, how about shooting a brick of your favorite film.

 

Eric

[IkarusJohn]

Well, that changes things a bit.

 

With film, you're ISO limited (for that 36 exposures anyway), so having fast lenses is probably more important. Also, having multiple focal lengths available with your SLR, you can (and should) invest carefully and selectively in the best glass Leica has to offer; even if it takes you some years to get there.

 

You have the 35 Summarit, which is a good single lens base. Consider accumulating up to three more fast Leica lenses. Here would be my pick:

 

- 28 Summilux ASPH

 

- 50 Summilux ASPH

 

- 75 Summilux

 

The first is one of the best recent releases from Leica. I had the 28 Summicron ASPH, but the new Summilux knocks its socks off (in my view).

 

The 50 Summilux is a fantastic versatile standard lens, and is the cheapest of the Summiluxes - fabulous on film.

 

The 75 Summilux was Mandler's favourite lens. Wide open, it has smooth bokeh and a lovely soft rendering; stopped down, it is tack sharp. I would prefer this over the 90 AA Summicron.

 

At the wider end, I would stil consider the 21 Super-Elmar. I have the 21 Summilux, and I like it (haven't used it much on film), but it is big and I'm not sure of the benefits of a fast 21 on an M-A, whereas the 21 SEM is compact and a bit of a star, apparently.

 

Good luck, and take your time ...

 

Cheers

John

[Per P.]

On the topic of Summilux vs Summicron vs Summarit... I have noticed that many fine portrait photographers, notably the late great Jane Bown of The Observer, have tended to use f/2.8 as their default. 'Nuff said 

[Mute-on]

If I were you, I would go out and buy the current 50 Summicron. Just the standard version, not the APO.

 

This is the true bargain lens in the current lineup. It is about the same price as the 35 Summarit, but it is a classic Summicron. You will get very effective subject isolation, even at apertures over 2.8 (depending on background), beautiful rendering, and a focal length you are familiar with.

 

Then you need to stop thinking about lenses, get over your GAS, and go out and take photos as much as possible! You will love the M-A experience and it will reconnect you with your passion if you exercise it enough

 

All the best,

 

J

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Analysis-Paralysis has its root in too finely graded options so that the compulsive analyst is stuck in minutiae. 16mm or 15mm, 35mm or 50mm, differences in angle-of-view - it is all irrelevant in an experiential reality.  Gee whiz, your are not at work trying to satisfy an asshole who calls himself a Senior Analyst. But those 'stuck' do  not wish to experiment. They are 'standards' kind of people who wish a guarantee of sorts.

 

Forget about a guarantee! There is no such thing.  Try the extremes that nobody dares. It will stretch your experience beyond the safe-seekers. To repeat my earlier suggestion, 10mm, 35mm, 75mm and be happy or find an acceptable compromise based upon your very own experience.

.

Edited December 30, 2016 by pico

[sblitz]

the point of a wide is not separation but to have a wide area left to right in the frame or in/out like some Bruce Davidson photos he took in his 103rd St. series.  When you get to the longer focal lengths like 75 and 90 there is a lot of separation even at 2.8, its physics I suppose. But as Pico says, experiment and see what works for you .... there is no right or wrong answer here. 

[lencap]

Quick Question:

I'm a "senior citizen" and my eyesight isn't what it used to be.  I am seriously considering using a 35/75 combo, as has been suggested, since I believe the 75FL may be easier to focus compared to the smaller frame lines of the 90.  Either lens will likely be a Summarit f/2.4, to pair the 46mm diameter with my 35mm Summarit lens.  

For those who have experience with the 75 versus 90 FL, is the 75 easier to focus than the 90?  The combination of lower weight and ease of focus is important for me.  Seems like several photographers favor the 35/75 instead of the 50/90 combo.  I'm very experienced with the 28/50 perspective, but haven't used a longer lens on a Leica, so I don't want to make a mistake on choosing the "wrong" FL for the longer lens.

I also realize since getting the 35mm Summarit lens that the frame lines in the M-A work very well for the 35mm FL - big, bright and nearly the full screen outlined for my shots.  For me it's like looking into my old Hasselblad finder - big and bright.  On the 75 FL the M-A gives an "outline" instead of full frame illumination.  It may be a bit harder to frame, but it's still a larger area to use for focus than the 90mm FL.

 

Thoughts?

[Exodies]

The focus patch is the same regardless of which lens is mounted.

[lencap]

Exodies -

 

You're correct, of course.  What I meant was that the small distance between the frame lines and the focus patch is somewhat challenging to navigate with senior citizen eyes.  

[FrozenInTime]

For those who have experience with the 75 versus 90 FL, is the 75 easier to focus than the 90?

 

The 75mm Summicron is exceedingly difficult to focus up close and wide open - more so than the 90mm Summicron.

Perhaps it's the closer minimum focus and the short helicoid focus throw.

I use a Noctilux and 90mm Summicron on x0.68 and x0.72 finders without issue - but for the 75mm Summicron, close in, I need the x1.25 magnifier.

 

Especially on the M-A framing the 90mm is easier due to the extent of the frame lines even though the area is smaller than the 75mm.

[lencap]

Thanks for the comments about the lenses. I should have mentioned I was considering the Summarit f/2.4 lenses for either the 75 or 90 FL. Any thoughts about how those lenses handle and focus?

[michaelwj]

the point of a wide is not separation but to have a wide area left to right in the frame or in/out like some Bruce Davidson photos he took in his 103rd St. series. When you get to the longer focal lengths like 75 and 90 there is a lot of separation even at 2.8, its physics I suppose. But as Pico says, experiment and see what works for you .... there is no right or wrong answer here.

Actually the point of a wide angle is seperation. Where a 90 has the ability to seperate through small depth of field, the wide angle separates by exaggerating perspective. The subject-background relationship with a wide angle brings the subject to the fore, while pushing the background away. While long lens pulls the background forward and renders is out of focus. The subject and background are separated in both cases.

[01af]

The handling difference between the 75 mm and 90 mm Summarit-M lenses is insignificant. I feel the 75 mm is easier to focus but only by a minuscule margin. However I agree to FrozenInTime's notion that the Apo-Summicron-M 75 mm Asph is particularly hard to focus—as a matter of fact, at short distances is is almost impossible to focus precisely; you rather focus just approximately and then have to fine-tune the focus by moving the body back and forth. The Summarit-M 75 mm is much better is this regard.

 

In the Leica M-A, the 75 mm frame lines are just four tiny corners but I still like them better than the 90 mm frame's four lines without any corners. Matter of taste or personal preference, I guess.

 

Anyway, I wouldn't base my decision for a 75 mm or 90 mm lens on handling issues but on my needs and preferred subjects. A 75 mm, on a 35-mm-format camera, can be considered a longish standard lens ... or a lens floating indecisively between standard and short telephoto. A 90 mm most definitely is nothing but a short telephoto.

[jaapv]

Actually the point of a wide angle is seperation. Where a 90 has the ability to seperate through small depth of field, the wide angle separates by exaggerating perspective. The subject-background relationship with a wide angle brings the subject to the fore, while pushing the background away. While long lens pulls the background forward and renders is out of focus. The subject and background are separated in both cases.

 

Except for the Summiluxes 21 and 24, on those you can use both techniques - which makes them quite unique