Choosing One Leica Lens

[Mikeleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess I could use my 35 Summicron V4 for street but once the sun goes down, it gets dark fast and the light can be pretty sweet.

 

One lens, 35mm 1.4 FLE for me all the way baby. A shot from tonight "backstage" from a friend's kid's recital, 1/30th at 1.4, ISO 3,200, M240. 

 

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 February 2, 2017 by Mikeleica

[steamboat]

Thanks so much everyone for all of the great comments and recommendations in response to my post. Still waiting for my M10 to arrive, but in the meantime, I think that I am definitely leaning towards a 35 lens. Now just have to decide which one.

If it were me I'd get either the 35mm Summicon f2.0 or the 35mm f1.4 Summilux asph. When buying a Leica why put an off-brand lens on it?. Or a slow lens?

[Advertisement]

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

[colonel]

TBH, I must confess to having great fun discovering the Summilux 15 asph on my GX8 right  now.. Sorry for the diversion, just to show we should not get hung up on clichés.

 

Ah, I see you are going through a 4/3s phase

 

I loved the Pen-F recently but when you compare with FF its a pretty massive difference IMHO

 

I actually think the 15mm Panny Leica is an excellent lens. Lovely draw. It was perfect for size on the Pen-F and the new 20mp sensor is improved

 

The Leica lenses for 4/3s are excellent. the 42.4mm f1.2, 50mm f1.4 are particularly good. The cost does mount up though !!

[dunhoy]

Get what YOU want that you can afford and not what others tell you - all Leica lenses are more than good enough in all situations for the vast majority of users - there is so much bullsh!t written about Leica lenses.

[Distagon]

Anyone else find this kinda short sighted and odd?

 

I mean, I see rad light in the alleyways at night, especially on a rainy night and I am either longing for a tripod or bracing against a pole or trash dumpster at 1/4 of a second at 1.4 at ISO 3,200.

 

If you gave me usable ISO 100,000 and a 1.4 lens, I sure as heck would find a use for it.

With the ISO capabilities of an M10, aperture becomes a purely creative choice.

That is what aperture ideally ought to be.

It is not so much about exposure as choosing one's depth of field.

Fast sensors do not make fast glass useless: the wide aperture is still important for creative effect.

Rather, high ISO expands the shooting envelope to include slower apertures and broader depths of field in low light conditions.

The ultra-fast lenses were originally marketed as solution to the low light problem, but those were the days of slow film. That marketing from many decades ago still seems to linger in the way people think about fast glass. (And still lingers in the way Leica sometimes talks about its own fast glass.)

Perhaps that is because we are only now approaching the level of really high ISO cameras. And maybe that's part of the reason why camera manufcaturers are putting ISO at our fingertips.

Of course, f1.4 is not needed for many (most?) shooting styles and slower lenses may well be preferrable, but that is a matter of creative habit rather than exposure.

Just my humble opinion, and there are a thousand others that are equally valid.

[Mikeleica]

With the ISO capabilities of an M10, aperture becomes a purely creative choice.

That is what aperture ideally ought to be.

It is not so much about exposure as choosing one's depth of field.

Fast sensors do not make fast glass useless: the wide aperture is still important for creative effect.

Rather, high ISO expands the shooting envelope to include slower apertures and broader depths of field in low light conditions.

The ultra-fast lenses were originally marketed as solution to the low light problem, but those were the days of slow film. That marketing from many decades ago still seems to linger in the way people think about fast glass. (And still lingers in the way Leica sometimes talks about its own fast glass.)

Perhaps that is because we are only now approaching the level of really high ISO cameras. And maybe that's part of the reason why camera manufcaturers are putting ISO at our fingertips.

Of course, f1.4 is not needed for many (most?) shooting styles and slower lenses may well be preferrable, but that is a matter of creative habit rather than exposure.

Just my humble opinion, and there are a thousand others that are equally valid.

 

 

I just don't agree with this, at all.

 

First off, my mentors and instructor have taught me to not get into the habit of saying just the phrase ISO by it self to mean High ISO, just a pointer, K?. Secondly, there is low light and then there is super low light and the new M10 seems to have only gained at most a two stop advantage over the 240, for sure worth the upgrade but not enough to just punt the idea of a 1.4 lens as no longer being needed. 

 

I can't tell you how many times I have been at an 1/8th or even 1/4 of a second in low light that was just plain awesome in how it oozed light onto the subject, a 1.4 lens can often make or break the shot in that case. 

 

I dunno man, maybe people are just not thinking creatively enough to ponder the possibilities of something bomber like a 1.4 lens in lower and lower light. It's by far my favorite light to shoot in and using a rangefinder over AF in a DSLR makes it such a killer combo. 

 

You can't please everyone I guess, good luck to the guy who posted the question, I'm outta' here until I get my M10 later this year. 

[anupmc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For street, there really only 1 IMHO, 35mm FLE 

 

(with M Monochrom ideally  )

 

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!

 

[coup de foudre]

I just don't agree with this, at all.

 

First off, my mentors and instructor have taught me to not get into the habit of saying just the phrase ISO by it self to mean High ISO, just a pointer, K?. Secondly, there is low light and then there is super low light and the new M10 seems to have only gained at most a two stop advantage over the 240, for sure worth the upgrade but not enough to just punt the idea of a 1.4 lens as no longer being needed. 

 

I can't tell you how many times I have been at an 1/8th or even 1/4 of a second in low light that was just plain awesome in how it oozed light onto the subject, a 1.4 lens can often make or break the shot in that case. 

 

I dunno man, maybe people are just not thinking creatively enough to ponder the possibilities of something bomber like a 1.4 lens in lower and lower light. It's by far my favorite light to shoot in and using a rangefinder over AF in a DSLR makes it such a killer combo. 

 

You can't please everyone I guess, good luck to the guy who posted the question, I'm outta' here until I get my M10 later this year. 

 

Before you go, thank you for that.

 

You said exactly what I was going to say, but a lot better than I could have.

 

*************************************

 

I shoot in the dark often and find f/2 limiting on the Monochrom and I don't put a cap on the ISO. I know I'll get more stops (I'm not a picky as some) on the M10, but there is definitely a difference in the way an f/1.4 lens draws light (the old f/1 even more, sees light I cannot see).

 

If I was only to get ONE lens, I would get the fastest one I could afford. It doesn't need to be the newest version or even a Leica.

[duoenboge]

If the prize is not so important: Slux 35 Asph. You will love it.

[jaapv]

Ah, I see you are going through a 4/3s phase

 

I loved the Pen-F recently but when you compare with FF its a pretty massive difference IMHO

 

I actually think the 15mm Panny Leica is an excellent lens. Lovely draw. It was perfect for size on the Pen-F and the new 20mp sensor is improved

 

The Leica lenses for 4/3s are excellent. the 42.4mm f1.2, 50mm f1.4 are particularly good. The cost does mount up though !!

Quite. I bought the lens as I originally got the GX8 solely for the DG Vario-Elmar 100-400, as the FF long solutions are becoming wearisome unwieldy after all these years.

However, I found it to be a much nicer camera than I expected using a Summicron 40, so I decided to  get a dedicated lens - the combo turned out to be a pleasant surprise, both in results and in handling/feel.

As long as one exposes precisely and stays below ISO 800, the results are quite good, I find.

[BerndReini]

The last time this question was discussed must have been all of a week ago. I probably haven't changed my mind since then.

Yes, but this time it is about the M10, haha!

Edited February 3, 2017 by BerndReini

[Distagon]

I just don't agree with this, at all.

 

First off, my mentors and instructor have taught me to not get into the habit of saying just the phrase ISO by it self to mean High ISO, just a pointer, K?. Secondly, there is low light and then there is super low light and the new M10 seems to have only gained at most a two stop advantage over the 240, for sure worth the upgrade but not enough to just punt the idea of a 1.4 lens as no longer being needed. 

 

I can't tell you how many times I have been at an 1/8th or even 1/4 of a second in low light that was just plain awesome in how it oozed light onto the subject, a 1.4 lens can often make or break the shot in that case. 

 

I dunno man, maybe people are just not thinking creatively enough to ponder the possibilities of something bomber like a 1.4 lens in lower and lower light. It's by far my favorite light to shoot in and using a rangefinder over AF in a DSLR makes it such a killer combo. 

 

You can't please everyone I guess, good luck to the guy who posted the question, I'm outta' here until I get my M10 later this year.

 

Of course fast glass allows you to shoot in lower light.

Relying on aperture for exposure just means that your depth of field ends up being constrained.

I'm not sure what's so creative about that.

But there are plenty of equally valid shooting styles and, yes, if one is struggling to expose in low light then fill your boots with wide aperture. I do too.

[Printmaker]

... most of us own(ed) more then one lens at the same focal length, its all character ...

 

I have two 50 Summicrons. One is 45 years older than the other and is magical in the way it records color. The other is the current version non-Apo which I find wonderful on the Monochrom.

 

Flare on the '69 Cron is its biggest sin while sometimes being too sharp is my only complaint with new Cron when mated on a MM. I can and do live with these minor problems.

[exile]

Consider buying a used 35 and a used 50 summicron. Use them both for at least 6 months and then trade up on whichever focal length you prefer most if you feel you are missing something.

Good luck.

[frogfisher]

Thanks so much everyone for all of the great comments and recommendations in response to my post. Still waiting for my M10 to arrive, but in the meantime, I think that I am definitely leaning towards a 35 lens. Now just have to decide which one.

Good choice. How about the Summicron 35 Asph. black paint version? Perfect match, gorgeous look and feel

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 February 5, 2017 by frogfisher

[FrozenInTime]

Map Camera think the 50/1.2 Noctilux is a good match 

 

That heavy compact combination is going to feel fantastically solid.

 

 

Their mini review is here : http://news.mapcamera.com/k4l.php?itemid=30448

 

For me, the M10 with it's enhanced viewfinder is going to really sing with the 28/1.4 Summilux.

[pico]

 

 I'm outta' here until I get my M10 later this year. 

 

Promise?

[Fireboy]

I've decided to commit to OCOLOY for now. M10 + 35mm.

 

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 February 5, 2017 by Fireboy

[Borbarad]

Well if you go one Lens Solution there is only one: 50mm Summilux ASPH.

 

It's also my most used lens.

 

 

Second is my 35mm Cron ASPH. Prefer it the Lux. The Lux has the same issue as the 21mm SuperElmar (which I have) as it is to clinical for me.

 

 

B

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[nsrimanus]

35 Summilux Asph FLE.