One version of each focal length?

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, pippy said:

First was taken on the 50mm purely as a 'safety-net' pic just in case the seated figure got up to leave. Second, using the 35mm, was taken a handful of seconds later after I had given the scene a little bit more consideration

Great example. The 35mm shot is by far the more compelling story. Absolutely agree. On two levels. 

First, moving your feet/camera instead of your focal length is the difference between tracking and zooming/cropping. Entirely different thing. Feet change perspective, focal length the framing. Needless so say which is more important. 

Secondly, defaulting to one focal length is desirable as vegetative previsualisation is much easier to obtain. Why’s that? Because shooting without thinking will take you to the next level. No moving your feet, no wondering what to do, no re-framing and lens swapping because all of that is done unconsciously and quickly. Only your subject’s action, focus and exposure may require some attention (already hard enough).
 

Hence it makes much more sense to own multiple lense of the same focal length than to own a set of primes from 21 - 90, unless you are a filmmaker or you need various focal lengths for different jobs, e.g. architecture vs product shoots. But it‘s interesting how fast one unlearns previsualisation skills when changing focal lengths regularly. 
 

BTW, I use 98% of the time 35mm and own two 35mm lenses for two M cameras. I might get another 35mm lens at some point, or not. The option to choose different characters of the same focal length can be a motivator and drive the story. Motivation is essential to photography. That's why gear matters. 
 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[NigelG]

9 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Crikey!  You’re selling you M60s?

Or maybe one with a 28Lux and one with a 50Lux…😉

[pippy]

8 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The thread started by questioning the sense in owning multiple lenses in the same focal length, not cropping or perspective changes by moving one’s feet...

I’ve rarely owned more than one version of a limited number of focal lengths for the M......less is more for me.

Yes; I do appreciate that was the point of the OP, Jeff, but before I wrote my piece the question as originally posed had already been answered a couple of dozen times. I merely picked up on one aspect which hadn't been discussed to illustrate a point raised earlier on.

As far as having more than one lens in any particular f/l goes I agree that this situation can be more of a hindrance than a help if the lenses concerned deliver the same 'look'. For myself there isn't any problem when choosing from my 50's as they are all rather different animals. Of my three 28mm lenses there are two which render in a similar fashion but as one is two stops slower than the other (f5.6 against f2.8) this factor will usually be taken into account when deciding which to take.

The most difficulty I have is with my 35mm lenses. Of the three there are, again, two which render in a similar way. This is excellent news for those days when I want to take a 35 on each body(*) and is the prime reason I bought them both in the first place. If I only wish to take one 35 then I have to make a choice and although I don't really like playing the 'favourite' game I almost always end up choosing the same one. This 'First World Problem' gives me Guilt Pangs......😸......

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Ah, but conversation is so much more fun when you let it drift!

Sometimes a 'drift' can be illuminating. Certainly I find the rambling musings of others can inform me of things which had never previously occurred to me with regards some particular point or other. Once the OP has been answered sufficiently then so long as the thread isn't derailed by going completely off-track (Ho!Ho!) I think all's fair-game.

Philip.

* I'm very fortunate in having one which shoots in colour and one which shoots in monochrome (I don't have any difficulties switching between the two).

Edited December 4, 2023 by pippy

[NigelG]

Danny at AGF Camera had delivered so I can try out the 28Lux before consigning at least 4 other 🙄 28s for sale…

 

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, pippy said:

Yes; I do appreciate that was the point of the OP, Jeff, but before I wrote my piece the question as originally posed had already been answered a couple of dozen times. I merely picked up on one aspect which hadn't been discussed to illustrate a point raised earlier on.

 

It wasn’t meant as a criticism, just an introductory comment so that I could switch the topic back to something I chose to discuss. Best to let it drift back and forth, as typical. 😉

Jeff

[fotografr]

On 6/7/2023 at 7:42 PM, lct said:

At the risk of beating a dead horse, all lenses of the same focal length have not the same character and may not fit for the same purpose. An obvious example is lenses made for macro. As excellent as a Tessar 85/4 may be it cannot compete with a Macro-Elmar 90/4 on close ups or macro shots. Also, one may prefer the look of photos taken with a triplet lens compared to a double gauss or vice-versa. Or with a Sonnar vs a Planar or a Summicron. Or the glow of a Summilux pre-asph vs that of a Nokton SC. Also, an ultra-sharp lens may not fit well for portraiture, or a soft lens may not fit well for landscapes, etc.

That's all true, but how does one know prior to going out to shoot what situations might be encountered? So do you take a whole array of lenses in order to have what you think you'll need for any situation? I much prefer to go out with a minimum of equipment. I've got myself down to two M bodies and six M lenses, but when I head out I invariably just take one body and one lens--usually the M10M with 50mm Summilux asph. I honestly don't know why I can't just take the plunge and get rid of everything else. 

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Jeff S said:

It wasn’t meant as a criticism, just an introductory comment so that I could switch the topic back to something I chose to discuss...

No; of course not, Jeff, nor did I take it as such I assure you.

In point of fact I did hesitate to post both my original comment post and, slightly later, that where the comparison images were shown because I knew that neither was addressing the OP but decided that, on balance, they might be of some interest to a few members despite their somewhat tangential content.

Philip.

[Jeff S]

16 minutes ago, fotografr said:

…but when I head out I invariably just take one body and one lens--usually the M10M with 50mm Summilux asph.

Same usual combination here, and my subjects, compositions and pic/print renderings still vary greatly.  So it’s the only 50 I own. 

But I still need to sell my M9M.  Just can’t think of any gear I’d want to trade it in for, which has typically been my approach rather than outright sale.

Jeff

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Jeff S

[lct]

12 minutes ago, fotografr said:

That's all true, but how does one know prior to going out to shoot what situations might be encountered? So do you take a whole array of lenses in order to have what you think you'll need for any situation? [...]

I have not as many lenses as bottles of wine, unfortunately 😉 but i choose them the same way, more or less, depending on the use i expect to  make of them. Preferably Zeiss or modern Leica lenses on landscape for instance, Mandler's or CV's "SC" on portrait, etc. I may also choose 2, 3 or 4 focal lengths multiplied my two for high contrast and lower contrast lenses. Typically Leica 35/1.4 FLE + CV 35/1.4 SC v2,  Leica 50/1.4 asph + ZM 50/1.5, Leica 75/2 apo + CV 75/1.5, etc. YMMV.

[fotografr]

9 minutes ago, lct said:

😉 may also choose 2, 3 or 4 focal lengths multiplied my two for high contrast and lower contrast lenses. 

Why not take a lower contrast lens and if you need to bump it up a bit stick a yellow or orange filter on? 

[lct]

31 minutes ago, fotografr said:

Why not take a lower contrast lens and if you need to bump it up a bit stick a yellow or orange filter on? 

Two reasons: i shoot mostly colors and even superb lenses like Leica 50/1.4 v3 or ZM 50/1.5, for instance, don't render the same as a Leica 50/1.4 asph no matter the tweaks i may make in PP.
Edit: To compare again with wines, your question sounds a bit like why not take a Bordeaux and if you need some Bourgogne flavor, why not dropping a bit of sugar in the bottle 😄 Just kidding.

Edited December 4, 2023 by lct

[M9reno]

Recently I caught myself lusting after none other than a 28 Summilux, reading online reviews, browsing eBay and dealers for prices.  Then after a couple of days I remembered that I bought the lens last April (!!!!), and had forgotten all about it, partly because I have continued to use my other 28's.  It has been a busy and at times difficult year, which might explain things, but this strange experience left me with a mixture of shock and even shame of the "what's-wrong with-me" variety.  I am also of course delighted to have discovered my "new" lens!

[NigelG]

2 hours ago, M9reno said:

Recently I caught myself lusting after none other than a 28 Summilux, reading online reviews, browsing eBay and dealers for prices.  Then after a couple of days I remembered that I bought the lens last April (!!!!), and had forgotten all about it, partly because I have continued to use my other 28's.  It has been a busy and at times difficult year, which might explain things, but this strange experience left me with a mixture of shock and even shame of the "what's-wrong with-me" variety.  I am also of course delighted to have discovered my "new" lens!

Mmm love that “I spent £5k/€5k/7$k and I forgot” meme.🤣

Sounds like my wife and handbags 😉

Seriously - just testing out the 28 Lux and I’m already in love…and realised that if I sell all (or tbh actually most cos I’ll keep a couple of outliers) of my existing 28s I’ll cover the cost makes me realise the level of investment in having multiple M lenses of the same focal length to get that individual factor of “rendering” or “smallness” or simply “all-around performance” (looking at you 28 Summicron ASPH v2) is an expensive proposition in itself….

 

[JoshuaR]

To me, it's all about what I'm photographing. If I'm out having adventures, taking pictures of new things, I'm very happy to have a simple kit, probably 28 / 50. But if I'm just living ordinary hobby life at home, taking pictures of the usual subjects—my wife and children, my town, the seasons, and so on—then it's very nice to have different lenses (and bodies) to keep photography interesting. My kit is 21 SEM, 28 Cron ASPH v1, 28 Summary, 35 Cron v3, 35 Steel Rim Reissue, 50 Elmar-M, 50 Lux ASPH, 75 Color-Heliar. So I have duplicates in 28 / 35 / 50, but they're meaningful duplicates that make hobby life fun. And I can use them across my M10, M10M, and M6, which creates a huge amount of variety. I feel like with this kit I can construct many sub-kits that range from minimalist to weird. 

[M9reno]

1 hour ago, NigelG said:

Mmm love that “I spent £5k/€5k/7$k and I forgot” meme.🤣

Honestly, I felt really ashamed. 😂

[fotografr]

6 hours ago, lct said:

Two reasons: i shoot mostly colors and even superb lenses like Leica 50/1.4 v3 or ZM 50/1.5, for instance, don't render the same as a Leica 50/1.4 asph no matter the tweaks i may make in PP.
Edit: To compare again with wines, your question sounds a bit like why not take a Bordeaux and if you need some Bourgogne flavor, why not dropping a bit of sugar in the bottle 😄 Just kidding.

I'd like to continue this discussion but unfortunately I can't. We're having dinner in an hour and I need to bring six bottles of red up from the cellar and open them to breathe. I'm just not sure which one will be quite right for the chateaubriand. 😉

[pippy]

16 hours ago, hansvons said:

...moving your feet/camera instead of your focal length is the difference between tracking and zooming/cropping. Entirely different thing. Feet change perspective, focal length the framing. Needless so say which is more important...

...it makes much more sense to own multiple lenses of the same focal length than to own a set of primes from 21 - 90, unless you are a filmmaker or you need various focal lengths for different jobs...

Thanks for your reply, hansvisions, and it could be posited that these points you raise merit their own thread. It would be a great deal of fun to discuss these aspects over a glass of wine (or two)...

As far as Tracking / Cropping and Perspective / Framing goes my own view is that each approach shares equal importance and validity. For f/l decisions I belive that the pair of images posted earlier illustrate precisely why it is desirable to be able to select the appropriate f/l  to capture the desired image and that, for me, merely relying on using ONE f/l is not the correct approach.

As stated earlier; this would be Fun to discuss!

Philip.

Edited December 5, 2023 by pippy

[pippy]

44 minutes ago, fotografr said:

We're having dinner in an hour and I need to bring six bottles of red up from the cellar and open them to breathe. I'm just not sure which one will be quite right for the chateaubriand. 😉

The '59 Pomerol. But you should have brought them up earlier.

Philip.

Edited December 5, 2023 by pippy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

6 minutes ago, pippy said:

The '59 Pomerol. But you should have brought it up earlier.

Philip.

Not sure a claret is the best choice, Philip.  I think the 1973 Romanée Conti would be a better match with the beef!

[pippy]

6 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Not sure a claret is the best choice, Philip.  I think the 1973 Romanée Conti would be a better match with the beef!

Do you really think so, John? I'm not familiar with the '73.

Philip.

Edited December 5, 2023 by pippy