Next lens?

[4pipes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m enjoying my first Leica experience with my M10. I have the 35mm Sum fle and the 50mm Cron. I wear glasses and have no problem with the finder lines. No plans to by the EVF. I can to go wider or tele with my next lens. Which direction best accommodates the viewfinder lines?

Edited October 2, 2017 by 4pipes

[jdlaing]

I’m enjoying my first Leica experience with my M10. I have the 35mm Sum fle and the 50mm Cron. I wear glasses and have no problem with the finder lines. No plans to by the EVF. I’d can to go wider or tele with my next lens. Which direction best accommodates the viewfinder lines?

28mm

[Advertisement]

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

[stephan54]

28 or 75mm

 

I like the 28 as it fills the ovf so there is no guessing. The 50 lux and 90 summarit are in principle sufficient, but I like the perspective the 75 gives. Next on my shopping list.

Edited October 2, 2017 by stephan54

[Eoin]

If you have 35 & 50 already, a couple of steps back with the 35 will give you 28 and a couple of steps forward with the 50 will give you 75.

 

A 21 Super Elmar or a 90 summicron / summarit would give you more options IMO.

[Jared]

I’m enjoying my first Leica experience with my M10. I have the 35mm Sum fle and the 50mm Cron. I wear glasses and have no problem with the finder lines. No plans to by the EVF. I can to go wider or tele with my next lens. Which direction best accommodates the viewfinder lines?

 

 

I'm not certain exactly what you mean by, "which direction best accommodates the viewfinder lines?"

 

In general, most people find it fairly easy to achieve accurate focus with a Leica viewfinder camera up to about 50mm.  Above that, experiences vary quite a bit.  The tolerances for hitting the depth of focus on a 75mm, 90mm, or 135mm are quite tight, and you're working at pretty low magnification.  Still, most people have little trouble with a 75mm at f/2.8 or above, with a 90mm at f/4 or above, and with a 135mm at f/5.6 or above.  Below those apertures you will have some people swear they hit perfect focus every time, while others admit to struggling.  Sources of error include:

 

- Poor eyesight

- Lack of magnification in the viewfinder

- Short baseline between the viewfinder and the rangefinder patch for determining parallax

- Incorrectly calibrated lens

- Incorrectly calibrated camera

- The narrow depth of focus range of longer focal length lenses

- Different standards from person to person on what constitutes acceptable focus

 

Personally, I am comfortable with my 75mm at f/2.8 or above (and f/2 if I'm being really careful) and with my 90mm at all apertures, but it's an f/4 lens.  With my 135mm, I really wouldn't choose to use it without the EVF.

 

As far as the viewfinder lines themselves... Since you wear glasses, I'd be a little worried that you would struggle to see the entire field of view with a 28mm lens.  You can test that out on your M10 without buying a lens--just pull the little lever on the front of camera to the side till the 28mm frame lines pop in and look to see if you are comfortable with the view.  Most people with glasses can't quite see the frame lines all the way around, but get close enough to just consider the entire frame to be the field of view.  That works pretty well at most subject distances.

 

The 75mm frame lines are a little odd in the M10.  They are sort of a "compromise" and don't as clearly delineate the frame as the other sets.  They work just fine, but the are a bit less obvious and so some people don't like them.  I think the intent was to avoid cluttering or confusing users of the 50mm frame lines since that is just about the most popular focal length on a Leica.

 

The 90mm and 135mm work fine, but the 135mm lines are getting awfully small.  Frankly, though, the depth of focus is more likely to push you towards an EVF than the frame lines are.  

 

Wider than 28mm requires you abandon the viewfinder.  You can add an accessory optical viewfinder on the hot shoe, use the EVF, or use the screen on the back of the camera.  Depending on the type of photography this can be either a minor nuisance or an absolute deal breaker.  Probably the biggest issue is that effective use of ultra wide lenses requires very careful composition near the edges of the frame since the depth of field is large and its really easy to accidentally incorporate distracting elements into a picture.  That means for lots of ultra wide shots the accessory optical finder just won't cut it, and you would need either the EVF or the screen on the back of the camera.  You'd be surprised how big a change in your image you can make just by shifting the camera a centimeter or two in one direction or the other when shooting ultra wide.  

 

I personally don't care for the 28mm focal length all that much.  I tend to take much better pictures at either 35mm or 21mm.  That's me, though, and there are lots of people who "see" the world quite naturally at 28mm.  Purely from the perspective of what works best with a rangefinder, I'd say a 28mm would be the next obvious choice.  

[phongph]

Hi 4pipes!

I have got M10 and some M lens. I also wear the glasses. I have used the EVF Visoflex 002. It made easier to focus by the assitance of Peaking and manification with my M75 Lux and my friend ‘s Nocti 0.95.

I think EVF Visoflex 002 on M10 will make You more choice of wise or tele lens.

Have a good day!

Thanks!

[stephengv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suggest the 28mm. 

[mdemeyer]

Agree with those that feel the 28 is pretty close to, although certainly different from, the 35. But also as a glasses wearer, seeing the 28 framelines requires “looking around” with glasses on.

 

You didn’t say what subjects and style you favor, so meaningful opinions are hard to give.

[4pipes]

Agree with those that feel the 28 is pretty close to, although certainly different from, the 35. But also as a glasses wearer, seeing the 28 framelines requires “looking around” with glasses on.

You didn’t say what subjects and style you favor, so meaningful opinions are hard to give.

I think I’ll go wider, I have another camera I’ll use for tele and sports.

[Jared]

I think I’ll go wider, I have another camera I’ll use for tele and sports.

 

 

In that case, the 28mm is the widest where you don't need an accessory viewfinder.  Since viewfinder compatibility was one of your requirements, that's the way you should probably go.  Now, which 28mm?  I have only ever owned one 28mm in M format.  It was the previous generation 28mm Elmarit Asphere (current until a couple years ago).  It was an absolutely fantastic lens.  Extremely small, light, and easy to control.  Mine had just a little image shift when focusing which I occasionally found annoying, but it never impacted performance that I could detect.  If anything, the lens is a little bit too small, making it hard to find a point to grip it when you want to change lenses.  I believe the newest incarnation is very similar in size and image quality, though Leica claims to have improved the flatness of field.  Frankly, I never had issues with the previous version with regard to field flatness, but I tended to use it stopped down for landscape photography.  The newest version comes with a metal hood rather than the older plastic one--definitely an improvement aesthetically though it probably makes no practical difference.  Neither lens hood is very good at preventing stray reflections--they are really to keep the lens from being knocked about.  

 

I don't know anything about the Summicron or Summilux lenses at 28mm, but I can't think how you would significantly improve on the Elmarit in any regard but speed/depth of field control.  Others can chime in if there's something special about the Summicron or the 'Lux at this focal length.

[stephengv]

In that case, the 28mm is the widest where you don't need an accessory viewfinder.  Since viewfinder compatibility was one of your requirements, that's the way you should probably go.  Now, which 28mm?  I have only ever owned one 28mm in M format.  It was the previous generation 28mm Elmarit Asphere (current until a couple years ago).  It was an absolutely fantastic lens.  Extremely small, light, and easy to control.  Mine had just a little image shift when focusing which I occasionally found annoying, but it never impacted performance that I could detect.  If anything, the lens is a little bit too small, making it hard to find a point to grip it when you want to change lenses.  I believe the newest incarnation is very similar in size and image quality, though Leica claims to have improved the flatness of field.  Frankly, I never had issues with the previous version with regard to field flatness, but I tended to use it stopped down for landscape photography.  The newest version comes with a metal hood rather than the older plastic one--definitely an improvement aesthetically though it probably makes no practical difference.  Neither lens hood is very good at preventing stray reflections--they are really to keep the lens from being knocked about.  

 

I don't know anything about the Summicron or Summilux lenses at 28mm, but I can't think how you would significantly improve on the Elmarit in any regard but speed/depth of field control.  Others can chime in if there's something special about the Summicron or the 'Lux at this focal length.

 

 

I totally agree. 

[pgh]

I also have a 35 and 50. My next purchase (and honestly, I think my last Leica lens) was the 135 3.4

I haven't had problem nailing focus wide open (3.4) with it. You have to be more deliberate sure, but IMO your best best is the 90 (or 135 if you're up for a challenge.)

There are very few people who can make 28mm or wider look good, (way more people who think they can though) - 35 is even a challenge-  and the world is sorely lacking in medium telephoto images imo - it's an underused perspective and has a lot of great possibilities. 

I might have entertained the 90 if I didn't already use the very nice Contax G 90mm 2.8 Sonnar on my Sony cameras - so I have that FL when needed - but I got 135 because the 90 was increasingly feeling a little bit too close to my 50 - it's longer, but the 135 provides a more obviously different point of view. 

[Vec]

I started right where you were two years ago -- I had a 240 with 35 and 50 lux lenses. I went to a 21 SEM that I picked up used from a local camera shop. I don't wear glasses so my experience will differ, but I was able to frame fairly accurately by looking through the finder way past the lines. Not perfect, but the extremes that I was able to see matched up more-or-less with what the lens delivered.

 

I'm confident enough with the setup that I went out and shot an M7 with the 21 and used the same technique and it worked well enough for my taste.

[sblutter]

If you just have to have another lens, I agree your next should be a wide or a tele

 

However, you've already got the 2 most common lengths

 

I'd shoot a bunch with those 2 for months or even a full year.  Then let your vision / needs lead the way from there.  Years ago in art school the mantra was 'learn just 1 lens thoroughly!'.

 

You can also pick up all those lengths used to lessen the commitment.

 

PS:  After 40 years of shooting M's I have about 12 lenses, from 21 to 135, plus a full Visoflex III set-up.  90% of my 'keepers' were shot with a Summi f:2.0 50 Ver 4 from 1987 - gorgeous rendering that just feels right to me.  Lenses can express a lot of intent.

 

And yes, of course I have a 2nd copy of the exact same lens for 'just in case', was from Ebay - perfect condition ($1300)

[TomB_tx]

For 40+ years I had only 35, 50, and 90 lenses for my M4 and found it adequate. But I did also have an SLR for very long and wide lenses.

I do have a 21mm f4 that I carry for my M9, but I prefer to use a Sony A7 with a compact SLR 20mm, and also use the A7 for 135-400 mm.

The M models are at their best from 35-90.

[earleygallery]

If YOU don't know which lens you want it simply means you DON'T need any other lens right now.

 

Wait until you identify your own needs rather than buying something just for the sake of it.

[Eric1]

the lens chooses you.

[rramesh]

There are lots of lenses you can acquire, but patience is a good thing.

 

Become familiar with the lens you have. Use them and get to know them. Be one with them.

 

Overcome any limitations in framing by thinking with your feet. Use them. You want wider, step back. Else, step closer.

 

At some point down the road, evaluate your limitations and then decide if and what you need to acquire. You can use only one lens at a time. All others become baggage or ornaments.

 

This way you will enjoy your experience more.

Edited October 6, 2017 by rramesh

[shootinglulu]

28

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mirekti]

24mm Elmar is a beauty which I keep in my bag together with 35mm and 75mm.