One M lens: Which one??

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/8/2019 at 2:52 PM, M10 for me said:

The fact that there is a Q tells us what the most important focal length is.

I am a person who started with 50mm (in the years 60 and 70 many cameras had just a fixed 50mm attached). It took me a long time to come away from that focal length. When I stared with the Canon gear in the beginning of the 80ies then my first lens was a 50mm of course and then a zoom. The first 35mm I bought only with my digital Canons. Today I can not understand anymore why it took me so long to learn about the beauty of 35 or 28mm.

The fact that The gents (and ladies) in Wetzlar built the Q and Q2 with a fixed 28mm lens rather than a 35mm or a 50mm does say something, even in spite of the Q2's faux digital zoom feature.  When your camera is cropping out many megapixels of information, you are cropping, not zooming.  JMHO.

 

[01af]

If I had to restrict myself to one lens for the Leica M then it would be 50 mm. For a digital M, I'd choose the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph. For an analog M, I'd have a hard time to choose between Summilux-M 50 mm Asph and Noctilux-M 50 mm Asph.

[g2van]

Konica 21-35 M Dual Hexanon. Not cheating. It's one lens with 2 focal lengths.

[otto.f]

20 hours ago, ChicagoMatthew said:

Very nice images. I like the “Leica book” ones. 👏

Thank you! The ‘Leica Book’ refers to a selection of my portfolio I made for a Chinese book to promote Leica photography in China. The book was published in 2010 and my dealer asked me to contribute to it. 

[Guest]

095

[albertknappmd]

50mm f/2 APO ASPH.. it is in its own league..

Albert

Edited August 22, 2019 by albertknappmd

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, albertknappmd said:

50mm f/2 APO ASPH.. it is in its own league..

Albert

Apart from the 095 where it really shines

[Ko.Fe.]

Threads like this are so repetitive...

One lens, one camera was normal years ago and still normal for many.

But these days many also have too many cameras..

I'm still one camera, one lens, but I have too many cameras. I prefer Summmarit-M 35 mm on M-E and Russian Biogon on M4-2.

[FrozenInTime]

5 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Threads like this are so repetitive...

One lens, one camera was normal years ago and still normal for many.

But these days many also have too many cameras..

Sure, it occasionally comes from asking what first lens, but more often wishing of a simpler time reliving the buzz from that first camera as a child.

"Less but better" Dieter Rams 

[a.noctilux]

Less is more ...or less ...

Good thing with Leica M, you can't never go under one lens 😊.

And each answer is the good answer 👌

 

Let's play, we can give infinite answers with argumentations of course.

Edited August 23, 2019 by a.noctilux

[Mute-on]

I actually don’t have a one-M-lens lens. I feel so inadequate

However, if I could only have one M lens, it would certainly be 35mm. I only have 35/2.8 Summarons, and whilst I am very happy with them, for a one and only lens, I think I would like something a little more modern in rendition. This is quite possibly the current 35/2.4 Elmarit, but I’m yet to try one. 

Something to look forward to at least!

 

 

[jaapv]

On 8/10/2019 at 9:55 PM, 01af said:

If I had to restrict myself to one lens for the Leica M then it would be 50 mm. For a digital M, I'd choose the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph. For an analog M, I'd have a hard time to choose between Summilux-M 50 mm Asph and Noctilux-M 50 mm Asph.

I wouldn't. The extra capability of the Noctilux at the wide end does not justify the size/weight and price difference for general photography IMO.

[a.noctilux]

Mute-on,

you would not find Elmarit 35/2.4 (I'm certain it would be called Summarit-M or something like that if it's modern 2.4/35mm), in Wiki

I use now one generation older Summarit-M 2.5/35mm which is a very nice lens and not much more modern rendering than my thrusty Summaron 2.8/35

which I use with pleasure for decades.

Just try one of those Summarit-M when you can.

Those "cheap Leica lenses" are one of the "secret marvels" that sometimes Leitz/Leica launched in the wild :

the last "good surprise" was Summaron 2.8/35mm, before these Summarit-M in my view.

[farnz]

1 hour ago, a.noctilux said:

Good thing with Leica M, you can't never go under one lens 😊.

A pinhole in a body cap?😊

Pete.

[Mute-on]

55 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Mute-on,

you would not find Elmarit 35/2.4 (I'm certain it would be called Summarit-M or something like that if it's modern 2.4/35mm), in Wiki

I use now one generation older Summarit-M 2.5/35mm which is a very nice lens and not much more modern rendering than my thrusty Summaron 2.8/35

which I use with pleasure for decades.

Just try one of those Summarit-M when you can.

Those "cheap Leica lenses" are one of the "secret marvels" that sometimes Leitz/Leica launched in the wild :

the last "good surprise" was Summaron 2.8/35mm, before these Summarit-M in my view.

Yes of course, the Summarit! I was thinking of my 28 Elmarit M Asph.

The Summaron is beautiful in use, and very pleasing, but it does not have the bite of the 28 Elmarit, particularly for colour. I imagine the 35 Summarit would have that modern “bite”. A little sharper, more contrast, brighter colours, yet not “plastic” in its rendition. 

Ill have to try one soon, and find out.  Of course to try, it is most likely I would need to buy.  Therein lies the rub. Not to worry, I still have the 28 Elmarit.  That’ll do nicely for now  

[a.noctilux]

27 minutes ago, farnz said:

A pinhole in a body cap?😊

Pete.

Genius Pete 👍

I've tried out one M cap with home-made pinhole,

not bad at all if we accept the "general 100 % in-focus blurring" same size as the pinhole size.

With bonus, never bother with lens cleaning 😉

and revelations on sensor dust when normal lens like Noctilux saw any.

🕛

Mute-on,

Caution, if you use M film camera, check that the focus roller is at "12 O'clock".

With my Summarit-M 35/50/75 , with some of my older M with the lens focussing cam coupler profiled cheaper way, I have discrepencies,

when the M's focus roller is somewhat offset at left or right.

Edited August 23, 2019 by a.noctilux

[lct]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

The extra capability of the Noctilux at the wide end does not justify the size/weight and price difference for general photography IMO.

+1. Never found a situation where i missed a shot with f/1.4 lenses so far but i don't shoot much at night admittedly. 

[Gregm61]

On 7/28/2019 at 4:28 PM, Herr Barnack said:

Here's a question for M camera photographers (film or digital):  If you were to choose to work with just one M lens, which would you choose and why?

Which focal length?

Which maximum aperture? 

Is the one camera, one lens approach a valid approach or is it an unnecessary limitation?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this!  😉

 

28mm f1.4 Summilux, but I would never limit myself to just one lens. My absolute minimum is a 21-35mm duo, with a 75mm added as a third and the 135 APO to complete the outfit whenever possible/practical.

[james.liam]

MATE. 

If you can afford one (the E55 versions are notably less), you may learn which FL speaks to you most, then you can decide to get a faster single FL. Great travel lens, especially for Monochroms.

Adding a WATE if you then opt for a single, fast 28/35/50 instead.

Edited August 23, 2019 by james.liam

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Herr Barnack]

The MATE and WATE have their disciples, but I have never been one, as the maximum aperture of f/4 leaves me cold.  For me, one of the things that makes Leica M lenses interesting is the availability of small, fast prime lenses that give a photographer shallow DOF at maximim aperture. 

It's hard to say exactly which lens I would choose as a one and only lens but it would most likely be a Summilux - either a 28, 35 or 50.  YMMV.

Of those three, 28 would be my best guess.  I'm not ever parting ways with my f/1.0 Noctilux though.  My best attempt at this exercise would get me down to a two lens kit. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Herr Barnack