Please help me decide on the right lens...

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm planning to purchase an M-A (my first Leica!) from the next batch that arrives at my local dealer, which is supposed to be later this month, and have been trying to decide on a lens for the camera- could very much use your help in doing so! At first I was 100% set on the Summicron 50, but then thought maybe the Summi 35... then I wondered if perhaps the Summi 90 might actually be best for me? I'm coming from using FX Nikon DSLR's where I shoot an 85mm 95% of the time. I also use a 28 sometimes, but truth be told, find it a very odd focal length- not my favourite. I considered the Summi 28, which I hear is very good, but will pass due to the strange (for me) length. I shoot fashion and portraits, so the 90 seems a logical choice, however I just don't know if this system will be utilized in the same capacity or for the same stuff as my D850 setup. But then I wonder "what will I use the Leica for?" and I'm really not sure... I'm not a documentary photographer by any means, much more fashion/portrait/fine art-oriented. That's not to imply that Leica's are only good for documentary work... they are of course used by photogs spanning various disciplines. For reference, see some of my images here: https://imgur.com/a/IgAL76b I guess I'm torn between the 35-50-90. I plan to own all three eventually (and hopefully more), but first can only afford to start with one, which I'll live with for a year before adding a second one. I started out on a 50 with my first camera, but haven't really used/enjoyed the length for several years now- it's neither here nor there, imo. I think the Leica will be used more for environmental portrait work, so either the 35 or 50 should be good, the 50 of course isolating the subject more, ergo taking it further into traditional portrait length. I really don't know... Which would you guys go with? I'm also open to lenses by other brands if you feel there are some solid and worthy contenders! I hear good things about the Zeiss 50 1.5. 

[Advertisement]

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

[ckuwajima]

I’ve been following your double dip into rangefinder and film camera with empathy.

You might choose first the focal length discarding obvious incompatibility like 28mm for .85x viewfinder M-A’s and 135mm for .58x.

Although viable, I would avoid long lenses like 90mm for .58x viewfinder M-A’s, because you might find the framing area too small. I feel that framing area for 90mm ok for my .85x MP, but fair, a bit small, for my .72x M4.

I suppose a 50mm lens would be wise, not too far from your 85mm DSLR perspective, and complementary.

Edited August 13, 2019 by ckuwajima
Grammar

[bags27]

1 hour ago, White Buffalo said:

Zeiss 50 1.5. 

I have that lens and love it. 

Frankly, what I'd do is buy some used Voigtla"nders or even 7 artists. The investment will be quite reasonable and, after a couple thousand shots, you'd get a far better sense of what you want to invest you serious dough for. And you'd still have these lenses for giggles and other focal lengths.

Edited August 13, 2019 by bags27

[Ko.Fe.]

85mm at 95%? I'm not sure why you need Leica. Here is new Nikon SLR as well. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/352116-USA/Nikon_1799_F6_35mm_SLR_Autofocus.html

In the film past PJ used Nikon F something with similar to yours tele and Leica with something like 21mm...

 

 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

85mm at 95%? I'm not sure why you need Leica. Here is new Nikon SLR as well. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/352116-USA/Nikon_1799_F6_35mm_SLR_Autofocus.html

In the film past PJ used Nikon F something with similar to yours tele and Leica with something like 21mm...

 

 

ha! i most certainly don't need a leica- who does in 2019 really?-, i've merely just wanted one for years and have finally got the means, so why wouldn't i? it certainly won't become my #1 workhorse camera and, as mentioned in my op, not something i anticipate i'll utilize in the same way as i do my dslr, but will undoubtedly be something nice to compliment my main rig with. 

[hilm3]

You see really well with that 85! A 90 on a Leica is not real comfortable for me, but I am 90% 50mm shooter. Have you considered a 75mm?

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A Voigtländer 75 sounds like a good choice for you. It is much more compact than a 90, only slightly larger than a 50. Yes, you may have to interpolate frame lines, IMHO no big deal. I was skeptical until I got one and put it to use, and rarely even think of my 90s these days.

[otto.f]

Depends on whether you shoot mainly color or b&w too. Zeiss is great for color and I presume from your story that the 50/1.5 would fit you. My personal association und thus inspiration with M-A would be b&w and a Zeiss on a film Leica will always feel strange for me. So I’d definitely go for the Summicron 35 iv in your place and I wouldn’t spare costs or effort to find a very nice copy and not without having tested it, on a digital M for instance. As in your other thread you are headed to the real analogue M experience, with a nostalgic touch. There’s only one ultimate combination for that and that’s the 35 Summicron iv. This 35 learns you to come close to your subject too. With a 75, for which I would definitely recommend the Summilux75 in the end, you will not easily learn to take that step closer. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

Depends on whether you shoot mainly color or b&w too. Zeiss is great for color and I presume from your story that the 50/1.5 would fit you. My personal association und thus inspiration with M-A would be b&w and a Zeiss on a film Leica will always feel strange for me. So I’d definitely go for the Summicron 35 iv in your place and I wouldn’t spare costs or effort to find a very nice copy and not without having tested it, on a digital M for instance. As in your other thread you are headed to the real analogue M experience, with a nostalgic touch. There’s only one ultimate combination for that and that’s the 35 Summicron iv. This 35 learns you to come close to your subject too. With a 75, for which I would definitely recommend the Summilux75 in the end, you will not easily learn to take that step closer. 

Thank you for your post, Otto- very insightful and much appreciated. 

I shoot a combination of colour and black & white; I would say 50/50. I didn't consider that different lenses work better in either colour or b&w- that's very good to know. You mention that Zeiss on a film Leica feels wrong- can you please elaborate on this? Shooting colour with the 50/1.5 on the M-A you feel would yield strange results? Also, in regards to the Summicron 35- do you feel the IV is better than the later/current model? I was considering the latest one. And wow, a Summilux 75- I never knew such a lens existed! Sadly, that would be lost on me as I never shoot at such apertures- of course I realize I don't have to shoot it at 1.4 and I'm sure it's great at f/2, however it seems like it would be too great an expense for something I wouldn't use to its maximum capabilities. But perhaps it's a possibility... I thought 90mm might be better for me as it's closer to the 85mm I'm used to, but I will look more into the 75 as well. I think, as you suggest, i will most likely start with a Summi 35 and perhaps also the Zeiss 50 1.5 since it's quite affordable. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, hilm3 said:

You see really well with that 85! A 90 on a Leica is not real comfortable for me, but I am 90% 50mm shooter. Have you considered a 75mm?

Thank you! I see several people recommending the 75, which is an interesting proposition for me. I was quite set on the 90 for tighter portrait style shooting with a Leica as it's closer to the 85 I'm used to on my DSLR, however now after so many people have mentioned it I've got good reason to research the 75's some more! Would you say that a 50mm is "quintessential" Leica or would that perhaps be a 35mm?

[Fedro]

4 minutes ago, White Buffalo said:

Thank you! I see several people recommending the 75, which is an interesting proposition for me. I was quite set on the 90 for tighter portrait style shooting with a Leica as it's closer to the 85 I'm used to on my DSLR, however now after so many people have mentioned it I've got good reason to research the 75's some more! Would you say that a 50mm is "quintessential" Leica or would that perhaps be a 35mm?

everyone has their own rules, but if you go for the 75, 35 would be a great match

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Fedro said:

everyone has their own rules, but if you go for the 75, 35 would be a great match

this concept of 'matching' focal lengths- or rather choosing the most complimentary sets- is new and exciting to me. can i ask the methodology behind it? is it merely selecting which focal lengths are farthest apart, within the body magnifications abilities,  or is it something else? 

which magnifications would go best with these sets: 

35-50-75

35-50-90

24-35-50-90

thank you! 

[LocalHero1953]

It's just a question of how you deal with the limitations of primes. If money and willingness to carry and change lenses were not constraints, then you buy as many primes as you can find. Otherwise, for easy walk-around photography, people often carry a M body with two or three lenses - the 'concept of matching' is just the favourite topic on this forum: which 2 or 3 lenses to have!

I also think the 75 FL is a versatile lens that I have often carried around on its own, because I can use it for portraits and slightly more contextual street photography. But if I just want a lens for tight portraits, then I stick with 90 every time. I had the Apo-Summicron-M 75 most regularly on my M240, because I used that camera mainly for travel. Now I have the luxury of a CL and SL, the CL is kept for travel and street (with its zooms), but the SL is what I use for portraiture with the Summicron-SL 90, not the Summicron-SL 75. 

So listen to all the advice you are getting here, but pick the lenses that you actually need for the photography you have in mind!

Edited August 13, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[ChicagoMatthew]

If you want to do environmental portraits I would go with the 35mm summicron or summilux fle. Then add a 90 later, if you feel like you need some length. 

[jaapv]

35-50-90 is the traditional trias.
I think 35 is a bit close to 50. 28 would be a better choice -to me.

The most versatile focal length is without doubt the 50 mm. Using your feet as a zooming mechanism, you can make it to give a mild tele perspective as well as a slight wideangle effect.

[Steve Ricoh]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

35-50-90 is the traditional trias.
I think 35 is a bit close to 50. 28 would be a better choice -to me.

The most versatile focal length is without doubt the 50 mm. Using your feet as a zooming mechanism, you can make it to give a mild tele perspective as well as a slight wideangle effect.

The 35-50-90 trio is my set up, all Leica glass. With the 35 f2 attached I use the camera as a point and shoot using zone. The 50 lux needs more focus accuracy using the RF patch; the 90 f2 even more so. 

Both the 35 and 50 have focusing tabs and I'd be lost without them, especially on the 35 where I focus by feel relative by its position on the 12 hour clock face. The 90 f2 (mine is the V3, no tab) has sush a long focus throw making a tab more or less ineffective. I'm not sure I've seen a 90 with a tab, but could be wrong. 

Obviously I select the lens appropriate to what I plan to photograph. However I find it instructional to shoot consistently with one lens for a period to establish the mental link, to know where to stand intuitively. 

[a.noctilux]

White Buffalo

75mm Leica lens is my only "free" advice to begin with your M-A.

- you wrote that you like "85mm" field

- nice combo M-A+75 because the M-A viewfinder is "special" (different from any other M, closest is M4-P, but without flare) and with 50mm lens you would be (or not)

ennoyed by these four brackets which represent "75" field

- in M-A VF "90" framelines are not comfortable to use/frame

- with your choice of subjects as described above, you "must" be comfortable with "75" field

 

Now I use with "help" of my wife who is "75mm M photographer" with so nice framing with M : I'm jalous 😉.

Historical "75mm" on M for us is long history with love/hate ...

With film like Kodachrome 25/64 ISO, Summilux-M 1.4/75mm was a must, so we used the Lux since 1980's .

Later on with the launch of the so nice Apo-Summicron-M 2/75mm, we bought one and this is my wife's favorite as it's much lighter /smaller, less finder blockage,

but results are at "top" with Lux character preserved and "apo-bite" as bonus

 

Now we are lucky that Leica released for some years now with second version Summarit-M line (cheap for Leica), so the last in our 75 stable is Summarit-M 2.5/75mm which is the one I'd use from now as it's the best handling, small/light/no finder hiding, less flare in contre-jour and nothing to complain in results.

So my first choice for you would be Apo-Summicron-M 2/75mm (this one from Wiki)

Second choice is Summarit-M 2.4/75mm new

or seconh hand to begin with 75 if it will suit you 2.5/75mm

and why not (if you are adventurous enough) this excellent and praised, discontinued since long Summilux-M 1.4/75mm

 

We have some incredible "picture renderings" with the Summilux 75mm,

this one is not "chef-d'oeuvre" but pleases me a lot

with M5 (no 75 framelines = soso framing) and Summilux 75mm

 

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!

 

Paris in 1980's on Kodachrome

 

Arnaud

 

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by a.noctilux

[ianman]

I don't really get along with 35 and 50, although between the two, I'd go for 50.

For their own reasons, many people don't like the 90mm. Personally, I enjoy it. In fact I have three 90mm lenses. An LTM Thambar, the FAT Tele-Elmarit and a Summicron APO. I will almost always have one or the other 90mm with me. The Tele-Elmarit is small enough to fit in a pocket and along with the small 28mm Summaron, for me, that's an ideal walk around combination.

BTW there is nothing that say fashion can't be shot with a wide angle. Sieff, I believe, used a 21mm.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[a.noctilux]

Ian is right, Tele-Elmarit-M (thin) is a 90mm light gem ( which can flare sometimes in adverse light) and hardly bigger than Summarit-M 75mm.

T-E-M 90mm thin in the middle, left is plain "old" Elmarit 90mm

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!

 

return to 75mm 😇

As side note, Smal created a thread for Summilux-M 75mm here

[spydrxx]

I'm not a fashionista, but an important criteria for me is size and handling.  So here is a comparison between the CV 75/2.5 and my usual Nikon 50//2.0. My 35 is miniscule by comparison with both. IMHO this combo makes a really nice kit for everyday use. I keep a 21, special use 50s, several 90s, 135s, and longer on the side for those times they're really needed. I went exclusively with a 35 for a number of years and it still is my favorite. My advice is to start with what you expect to use most, get really familiar with it and build from there.

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!