Elmarit-S 45mm f2.8 vs. Summarit-S 35mm f2.5 or ??

[ISO100f1.7ss250]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi folks! On my S typ 007 I’m curious who has experience comparing the Elmarit-S 45mm f2.8 and the Summarit-S 35mm f2.5

I’m curious to hear your thoughts but I have an explicit interest in portraits and other photos of humans.

 

Is there a different normal wide lens to adapt that I’m not thinking of that’s a true contender?

Edited October 11, 2022 by ISO100f1.7ss250

[LeicaR10]

ISO100f1.7ss250,  First, welcome to the forum.  Second, my decade plus experience using the S system before I sold my business would only tell you both S lenses that you mentioned are superb.  In fact, all S lenses render in their own unique way and are most excellent.  IMO, best in class.  I know other well meaning S photographers will chime in with their ideas.  But it will be up to you to decide what is best for you.  I offer 2 links that you might consider taking a look to see for yourself what the different S lenses offer for rendering of portraits and environmental portraits/humanity photography. 

Try:  https://onfotolife.com/lenses?lens=Leica

Try:  https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/04/the-definitive-guide-to-leica-s-lenses/

Personally, my favorite S lenses for portrait photography include: S-45, S-70 and S-100.  Others wiill offer their ideas.   Hope this helps.  r/ Mark

Edited October 11, 2022 by LeicaR10

[mgrayson3]

Whichever focal length you want. There are no lenses in the S line less than superb.

[Pieter12]

12 hours ago, ISO100f1.7ss250 said:

Hi folks! On my S typ 007 I’m curious who has experience comparing the Elmarit-S 45mm f2.8 and the Summarit-S 35mm f2.5

I’m curious to hear your thoughts but I have an explicit interest in portraits and other photos of humans.

 

Is there a different normal wide lens to adapt that I’m not thinking of that’s a true contender?

Why a wide angle lens for portraits? A 70 will do a full-length just fine. Are you shooting groups?

[Stuart Richardson]

If you are planning portraits, the 45mm will be better, as it is a longer lens. The 35mm is quite wide on the S (more like a 28mm), and it gives clear perspective distortion. If you are looking for a more general purpose wide angle for environmental portraits, the 45mm is the way to go. It is a hair sharper than the 35mm, but all of the S lenses are so good that the main question is not "which lens is better" rather than which focal length do you need.

[epines]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

If you are planning portraits, the 45mm will be better, as it is a longer lens. The 35mm is quite wide on the S (more like a 28mm), and it gives clear perspective distortion. If you are looking for a more general purpose wide angle for environmental portraits, the 45mm is the way to go. It is a hair sharper than the 35mm, but all of the S lenses are so good that the main question is not "which lens is better" rather than which focal length do you need.

100% agree. I have both. The 45mm is sharper from corner to corner wide open, but both are very sharp, terrific lenses with great clarity. It just depends what focal length will serve your use the best. The 45mm, in my opinion, is much more universally usable. The 35mm is a bit more of a special-purpose lens for portraits, with more of the exaggerated depth that wide lenses create.

[ISO100f1.7ss250]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

Why a wide angle lens for portraits? A 70 will do a full-length just fine. Are you shooting groups?

Thanks for asking. It’s a look I do well with.

 

I have the 70mm and am extremely happy with it - it’s minimum focusing distance is great. I’m worried the 45mm and 35mm have quite long minimum focusing distance.

 

 

[jip]

The minimum focus distance of the 70mm is ~50cm, of the 35mm is ~55cm, of the 45mm it is ~60cm.

[albireo_double]

Both the 35 and 45 are superb. The 45 is considered even better optically; not that it matters to me. The 45 is less often available second hand, and is more expensive. Bit longer and heavier. In the end, only you need to decide what focal length you need for "portraits and other photos of humans". I use a 28mm equivalent lens (35 in the S system) quite often in shoots with models, from quite close. The reason is the enhanced feeling of closeness / intimity provided by this wider focal length. See here (warning...NSFW). But of course, 35mm equivalent (45mm in the S system) is also very useful - I use this quite often in hotel room shoots, like here. Perhaps the most pragmatic approach is to consider what lens pairs you will most likely be using. The S system does not travel very well due to the size / weight of the lenses, so you may want to restrict yourself to buying / traveling with just two lenses. The 45 pairs well with the 100S and the 35 pairs well with the 70. It's the classic 28/50 vs. 35/70 pairing in FF. So if you have the 70 already, I would probably go for the 35 as your next lens.

[rollsman4]

Your work is fantastic. I would think that doing head shots and head and shoulder shots the 70 would be better . Only due to facial distortion with a wider angle lens

  Just my opinion.  TY Dennis

[albireo_double]

Thank you, Dennis. What you are saying regarding facial distortion is of course true, but... I have studied the work of many top end fashion and art nude photographers and seen how ignoring these accepted wisdoms in an educated way often results in images that ultimately resonate most with the audience. I attach a portrait that I took with the 28 Summicron SL, from close up, distortion and all. Of the entire series we shot that evening, the model liked this one the most and posted the first on her Instagram. And I think part of the reason is precisely the distortion - the angle from which the image was shot makes her face look narrower, while at the same time there is that intimacy to the portrait that I mentioned in my first answer above. This example of course does not invalidate the general recommendation regarding longer focal lengths for portraits (and the 100 or 120 would be even more appropriate than the 70, going by that rule). But it does underline my recommendation to the OP to really search his heart and evaluate his creative and aesthetic goals before going for one lens or the other.  Because technically speaking, there is not a lot to separate them. But they are expensive and heavy so unless he wants to buy both, he should settle on the focal length.

 

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!

[BernardC]

19 hours ago, albireo_double said:

I attach a portrait that I took with the 28 Summicron SL, from close up, distortion and all. Of the entire series we shot that evening, the model liked this one the most and posted the first on her Instagram.

We had a similar discussion in the SL forum recently. Shorter lenses up-close tend to make faces look thinner, which corresponds better to how we see ourselves in mirrors. That's part of why the "selfie aesthetic" works: there is a lot of distortion, but it's a type of distortion that humans understand instinctively. It can lead to very intimate images, and it doesn't require models that are starving.

[tom0511]

its like 28 vs 35mm field of view in FF-world. Only you know what you want.

Optically the 45 might be very slightly more perfect. I use the 35 more often, combines great with 70mm, and also its a bit lighter and smaller than the 45mm.

[mgrayson3]

As great as the 45 is, I never use it. It's just a bit too large and heavy for my idea of what a 45 should be 😁. 

[Pieter12]

2 hours ago, mgrayson3 said:

As great as the 45 is, I never use it. It's just a bit too large and heavy for my idea of what a 45 should be 😁. 

And if an S owner complains a lens is too large and heavy, you have to believe it is quite large and heavy!

Of course, it's all relative. For my Hy6. the Schneider AFD 50mm f/2/8 weighs 400g more and is a bit wider, though shorter. And I use it all the time.

[Sarnian]

5 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

And if an S owner complains a lens is too large and heavy, you have to believe it is quite large and heavy!

I like the 'heft' of the Leica S (and I own the 30-90mm!). I recently used a friend's Fuji GFX50S and the body was so lightweight that it felt like a plastic toy! 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Sarnian

[mgrayson3]

3 hours ago, Sarnian said:

I like the 'heft' of the Leica S (and I own the 30-90mm!). I recently used a friend's Fuji GFX50S and the body was so lightweight that it felt like a plastic toy! 

I found the GFX 100 the only balanced body in that line. I couldn't put down the GFX 50 fast enough. The Hasselblad X2D has a bit more heft than the X1D, but the solidity of those cameras makes up for their "light" weight 😆.

But nothing feels as good as an S body with the S24 mounted....

[Jeff S]

On 11/23/2022 at 6:35 AM, mgrayson3 said:

But nothing feels as good as an S body with the S24 mounted....

Yet it’s 150g lighter and thinner (82mm vs 95 mm filter) vs the “too large and heavy (for a 45)” S45. 🤪

Jeff

 

[darylgo]

25 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Yet it’s 150g lighter and thinner (82mm vs 95 mm filter) vs the “too large and heavy (for a 45)” S45. 🤪

Jeff

 

And that's why I pick up the RZ first, do a few reps curling the beast, the S feels so nimble after.  Pentax 67 could also be used.  😁  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

48 minutes ago, darylgo said:

And that's why I pick up the RZ first, do a few reps curling the beast, the S feels so nimble after.  Pentax 67 could also be used.  😁  

I’ve used those.  All lightweight compared to my 8x10.

Jeff