The paradoxes of M lens size

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As an M/SL/S/Hasselblad shooter, I've used not to care about lens size much.  I'm alright with enormous schlongs of Hasselblad and S lenses, even got a 40mm for the 503cw that in turn I got for the 907x digital back for an actual OVF experience.  Most people assume it's a video camera with the CFi 40mm...

But when it comes to M, we want small.  There are vigorous discussions of a difference in say CV 35 APO Lanthar obscuring the M viewfinder.  I used not to care about that.  

But as I got the Leica 35 APO, I've come to appreciate the small size.  It really makes the package work.  Now I started wondering whether I need the new 28mm Summicron, given I have the excellent 28mm Lux.  I've put that on and also took the 24mm Lux along.  Clearly those look bigger and heavier compared to the 35mm APO.  I wonder if the M 35 APO set a new standard for the size that's right for M.

But size not always supercedes function.  The MATE is perfect, and its length has a function.  You don't question that.  Same used to be true with the Noctiluxes, which only grew bigger, from 1.0 to 0.95.  But with the reissue of the 1.2 I'm enjoying it very much, a lot because of its size.  With the primes, however, we do want them small.  How important is the small prime size to you?

[Advertisement]

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

[tsleica]

As I get older..small size is important..

I just dont wanna carry that much stuff around.

 

[ocean2059]

For M system, size is everything to me. Lenses like Zeiss ZM 35/1.4, CV 35/50 APO Lanthar, Summilux-m 24/28 are a bit too big for me. 

[a.noctilux]

I'm glad we have choices, small and bigger Leica lenses.

For many years, I have these choices...

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!

 

Now lesser choices but imperial ...

28mm

[dpitt]

Size is what made me switch from Nikon to Leica. Its only after that switch that I realized I got much more than that in the bargain. I love the RF experience and also the way it changes my way of seeing...

Unfortunately, my first Leica also came with a bug... I am afraid I am hopelessly addicted now.🫣

[KFo]

Size and weight are very important to me.  I see tourists walking around with various CanNikSons and big zooms and have no envy.

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, Al Brown said:

Do tell us what it was... was it a dead pixel line of M8? A corroding front-of-sensor thingy of M9?

If you want to know, it was the coffee stain on my M8. Graciously solved by a upgrade plan to brand new M9 by Leica.
That paid for my current (used) M8 and a few nice lenses at the time because I sold the brand new M9 at a profit.

Then, a few years later, I bought a used M9.
It got a free sensor replacement including full CLA by Leica because of sensor corrosion. It has served me well for 8 years since

I also read the horror stories about Leica Service on this forum, but based on my experience, I have nothing but praise for Leica. Both of my interventions were on a camera long out of warranty. The solution was provided free with the M9 and with the M8 they offered more than its value as a discount for the upgrade to M9.

Also, the turnaround time was only a few weeks. Contact with Leica service was better than expected and I can not see any brand that would have equaled this. KUDOS to Leica.

 

[evikne]

28 minutes ago, KFo said:

Size and weight are very important to me.  I see tourists walking around with various CanNikSons and big zooms and have no envy.

Even with a Leica M, I still feel I have the biggest camera, because the others around me usually just use their cell phones. 😄 It's increasingly rare to see someone using a "real" camera.

[setuporg]

47 minutes ago, evikne said:

Even with a Leica M, I still feel I have the biggest camera, because the others around me usually just use their cell phones. 😄 It's increasingly rare to see someone using a "real" camera.

I got complimented on being “brave” for carrying a real camera…

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, setuporg said:

But when it comes to M, we want small.

Do we?

Size had nothing to do with my choice of the M system - it was all about image quality and a camera that was a camera as I understood it, and not a computer wrapped in plastic.  I love using my M with my 0.95 Noctilux and my 75 Summilux, and would refuse a smaller lens in those focal lengths if the image quality was not the same.

I have the 35 Summilux pre-asph v2 and its diminuitive size is annoying as I’m trying to adjust the aperture by feel - but I put up with it.  I am mystified when people complain about the size of M lenses when none of them are as big as the SL lenses.  You want big?  Try the 90-280 zoom …. Then size matters.

[M11 for me]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb setuporg:

I got complimented on being “brave” for carrying a real camera…

And it is the normal reaction that when someone gets my M11 in hand that the comment is: Oh its quite heavy . . .

Then I tend to answer that its less the weight but the equilibrated balance that is important for always having the camera around the neck or on the shoulder.

[pgk]

Size is related to aperture and performance. So if you want small then generally this limits the aperture (except it seems with 35mm lenses) and there will be  trade off with size and/or price. I'm currently using my camera with 21SEM, and 35 and 75mm Summarits (2.5) which make up a very compact kit which delivers excellent image quality but at the expense of aperture. To me some lenses fit very ergonomically on an M body and generally these are the smaller lenses but this probably appiies to me because of things like personal preference, hand size and carry ability for how I operate. So to answer the question, yes it does but for others it may (does) not. We are all different.

[adan]

I'm generally most concerned with weight. Which usually tracks with size, but not always.

For example, my 135 APO-Telyt (E49) is a bit bigger (total volume) than the 135mm Tele-Elmars (E39/E46) but weighs 50-100g less. My 75mm f/1.5 Nokton is fairly large (58mm filter size) - but weighs the same (~330g) as a Leica 75mm f/2.5-2.4 Summarit or 50 Summilux ASPH (E46).

But I also factor in max. aperture, performance/IQ,* and cost. It's a juggling act.

Same for my 6x6 - I have a Hassy SWC for wide, but for anything else, I now use a Rollei TLR, with a 35g Rolleinar CU lens set to overcome its main functional defect (close-focusing).

..............

*Performance/IQ is its own juggling act: balancing max. resolution in the center; average resolution across the whole frame; color rendering; gross (not optical) contrast; edge contrast/MTF; general tonal "laydown" - and, other things being equal, maybe bokeh.

[Anbaric]

Every M camera feels like a huge ungainly lump that Oskar Barnack would certainly have disowned, compared to a Leica III with a collapsible Elmar you can stuff in your pocket... 😇

But since you probably aren't going to stuff an M in your pocket, for practical purposes it only really matters how much the lens obscures the viewfinder. A larger lens isn't going to make the camera significantly more noticeable than it already is (unless it's a 135 or something), or weigh you down much (unless you carry a bag full of them).

[TomB_tx]

I've always favored smaller lenses: use 35 & 50 Summicrons since 1968 instead of Summilux, and a 90 TE (fat) for its size. These days 35, 50, & 90 2.5 Summarits, and a 21 f4 CV for really wide.

[FrozenInTime]

The M system remains almost unique in the ease of casually carrying two full frame bodies for a whole day, even with super speed lenses; although smaller and lighter the lenses make for a smaller bag and more pleasant day.

The TL/CL system provided good enough image quality and practicality with smaller than Fujifilm APS-C auto-focus lenses.

At the other extreme, the SL system does not lend itself to casual use, let alone two bodies.

Comparing a 50 Summilux in SL versus one in M highlights this.

https://findingrange.com/2019/08/29/leica-summilux-sl-50mm-f1-4-asph-lens-review/

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!

Those 75/1.25 and 90/1.5 M lenses blur the boundary; it would be interesting to know the ratio of images taken with them on M vs SL bodies.

The recent expectation of 5x4 field camera  resolution with a handheld ‘miniature format’ camera does seem to be driving design away from the original M small format ethos; I’m not wanting to play that game anymore and the return to film and classic lenses reflects that.

[setuporg]

I’ve recently come across this intriguing pancake photo that would make an M pocketable!

 

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!

[david strachan]

Personally I prefer a decent size camera and lens.  Too small and fiddly cameras n lenses are difficult to use even for my average size hands.  I find too many controls and tight layouts very irritating.

So I'll stick with my M cameras and older film cameras too.

...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

When it comes to the M system, yes. 

On my travels I walk around with an SL2S with the 24-90, 50/1.4, 90-280 and an M with a 21/1.4, 35/1.4 and the 75/2. And maybe a black paint film M body with the BP 35/2 or 50/1.4.

The irony is that I sometimes feel the 21/1.4 is too big while the SL2S dangles from another shoulder with one of the E82 monsters. 

For my taste, the 75/1.4 and 50/0.95 are the largest lenses I can digest for the M. 

[Jeff S]

I prefer the size and ergonomics of the 50 M Summilux ASPH to the 50 M APO Summicron.  I consider both to be very small (as a former SLR, medium and large format camera user), but the compactness of the latter compromises rather than enhances handling for me.

Jeff