Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

35mm 1.4 ASPH FLE, if Leica Q?

dancook

By dancook
in Leica M Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

dancook

dancook

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the Leica Q, and M10 with 50mm 1.4 - and I'm happy to strap both to my body.

 

I have a lovely silver 35mm 1.4 ASPH FLE, but it hasn't had a look in - I intended it to be my walkabout, but with 28/50 - I never think to use it.

 

I shoot wedding, events, street, travel.

 

I'm also planning on getting 24-90 on SL.

 

25998304218_fbc85b1957_z.jpgL1500587 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

Do I sell such a pretty lens...? 

 

It could get a look in if I left the Q at home sometimes and just took the M10 - that means having to carry the lens, switching lenses when needed, but who does that? :D

Edited by dancook
Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter H

Peter H

Posted
Posted

Sometimes you might want to carry just one camera with just one lens. Apart from the liberating convenience , the simplicity and consistency of vision can be creatively inspiring.

 

In which case you have the perfect lens for the job.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
lucerne

lucerne

Posted
Posted

I do! And on this India trip I left the Q at home. On two previous trips I found the Q limited my creativity, I have three lenses for the M10 and take two appropriate lenses for each excursion. I'm far happier now. IMHO the Q is not such a great travel camera. It's a compromise between weight and performance and isn't any use for scenes demanding 50-75mm. Cropping is not a substitute for frame filling and I suspect that user complaints of noise in shadows recently on this forum may be a problem caused by images having been pre-cropped and then cropped again.

I aim to fill my frame.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dancook

dancook

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I do! And on this India trip I left the Q at home. On two previous trips I found the Q limited my creativity, I have three lenses for the M10 and take two appropriate lenses for each excursion. I'm far happier now. IMHO the Q is not such a great travel camera. It's a compromise between weight and performance and isn't any use for scenes demanding 50-75mm. Cropping is not a substitute for frame filling and I suspect that user complaints of noise in shadows recently on this forum may be a problem caused by images having been pre-cropped and then cropped again.

I aim to fill my frame.

 

For about a year, I had just the Leica Q - and enjoyed it for travel. Used it for New York

https://danielcook.com/2016/12/03/new-york

 

I noticed I have 15 pictures of my wife in that album, yet when I went to Venice and used the M10 - I had barely 1 photo of her in the album

https://danielcook.com/2018/01/06/venice/

 

The Q must be more carefree  :D

Edited by dancook
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
lucerne

lucerne

Posted
Posted

For about a year, I had just the Leica Q - and enjoyed it for travel. Used it for New York

https://danielcook.com/2016/12/03/new-york

 

I noticed I have 15 pictures of my wife in that album, yet when I went to Venice and used the M10 - I had barely 1 photo of her in the album

https://danielcook.com/2018/01/06/venice/

 

The Q must be more carefree  :D

My interpretation of your experience would be that carefree photography is the opposite of slow and considered framing hence you preferred quick shooting. That's fine but not my preference.

Each to their own - of course.

I know that The Q gets every shot. No question about that.

The M gets many shots, but for me there is a greater satisfaction with each good shot, and I do like to independently manage the exposure and pull in the subject. Unfortunately I can't carry two bodies and accessories so I have to take the body I enjoy most. It's the M10. I had the m240 but never enjoyed it. My first M was the M9-P which I also loved.

Not sure if I'll hold on to the Q. This trip has confirmed to me that the M10 is easy to use.

Enjoy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dancook

dancook

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My interpretation of your experience would be that carefree photography is the opposite of slow and considered framing hence you preferred quick shooting. That's fine but not my preference.

Each to their own - of course.

I know that The Q gets every shot. No question about that.

The M gets many shots, but for me there is a greater satisfaction with each good shot, and I do like to independently manage the exposure and pull in the subject. Unfortunately I can't carry two bodies and accessories so I have to take the body I enjoy most. It's the M10. I had the m240 but never enjoyed it. My first M was the M9-P which I also loved.

Not sure if I'll hold on to the Q. This trip has confirmed to me that the M10 is easy to use.

Enjoy.

 

I like the speed and versatility of the Q, but the M10 for creating compositions - maybe in time I will only use the M10 - i've only had it 3 months and it's my first rangefinder.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
geetee1972

geetee1972

Posted
Posted

It's a very expensive lens to have as an ornament. If you like and use 35mm but not enough to justify tying up £4k in one lens, sell it and buy something like a Zeiss 35mm biogon or Voigtlander 35mm Ultron. Heck with the change you could buy a second hand M9 or MM and have something permanent to mount it on!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
phongph

phongph

Posted
Posted

Hi Dancook!

1. I think your M10 silver & M35 Lux fle silver the very nice combo!

2. IMO, SL 601 and SL 24-90 for Activity, Event, Wedding!

3. Both camera M10 & M35 Lux and SL601 & SL75 Apo for portrait, street life ...

 

It means no space for Q!

 

Ps: My set is SL601, SL 24-90, M10, M35 Lux, M75 Lux ( I will trade M50 Apo for SL Apo 90 f2).

Have a nice day!

Thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dancook

dancook

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Seems like a waste of $5,000 if you don't use it to me...

 

Indeed, about £3000 on the used market - 

 

I think the hood has also put me off the lens, because it makes it a good inch longer, I did read today though it's not that necessary only to protect the lens - I will remove the hood and try to use it, then see how I go from there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff S

Jeff S

Posted
Posted

Trade it for a clean used MATE. Then you don’t need anything else besides your M10 and you’re set for 28/35/50.

 

My first M lens decades ago was a 35 Summicron. Never been without a 35 since, but doesn’t mean It always comes along.

 

Whatever gets the pics.

 

Jeff

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
rpittal

rpittal

Posted
Posted

Love your NYC pics Dan! I think your Q worked very well in that setting. When traveling, I tend to use the Q or M246 (with 35FLE and 75 Summilux) in urban environments and either an SL (with 50SL and/or 24-90, rarely 90-270), or the M246 (and the same 35FLE and 75 Summilux) in rural areas. I prefer to use the Q as a small walking around camera when don't have all the time in the world, and the M246 when out by myself and not as rushed. For the first few years with the M246 (and when I had a M240) I used the EVF almost exclusively, but now find the M246 with OVF (after lens calibrations) very liberating and easy to use. I have way too many lenses for the M, but these are the two I usually gravitate to. I recently traded my older 35preFLE for the 35FLE due to finder blockage now that I use the OVF mostly (use hoods). Focus shift and blockage not issues when using EVF obviously. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...