Yet another 28mm vs 35mm question (M10, newbie)

[aamwgm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm still new to the Leica ecosystem and have acquired an M10 (used) with an Elmarit 28 ASPH (brand new). I've had this setup for a month and due to budget constraints, would like to stick with just one lens for a while.

I was shooting as wide as 24mm (eqv.) on the Fujifilm X-T4 before this, so 28mm feels like home to me. Its a great focal length that I feel lends itself very well towards guiding the viewer. However, I'm having quite some trouble (I don't wear glasses) seeing the 28mm framelines on the M10. Sure, I can peek and find the lines on either side, but by the time I've composed properly on one side, I've lost sight of the other; and I see the effect on the final picture. It also makes shooting quickly (so far), very hard, I have to spend some time composing the shot and ensuring both sides are to my liking. I've missed shots in the process.

I've used the frameline selector to see what the 35mm framelines would look like and they are much better. I've shot with the 35mm before, and even tried a used 35mm summicron (ASPH) earlier. However, I found it to be pretty dull (low contrast, flat, but it was a used copy, so I'm not sure if that's normal). And I think by moving a little, I can make the 35mm look more like 28mm (in most cases). The extra stop of light will also be welcome since I do hit the Elmarit's limitations during the winter months, indoors.

I'm in a fix and would like some advice from people who're more experienced with rangefinders than I. Am I overreacting at this stage of my journey, or should I switch?

I still have 4 days to return the Elmarit (which is in pristine state), but I cannot seem to make up my mind.

Edited February 18, 2024 by aamwgm

[Advertisement]

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

[dpitt]

For me the true rangefinder experience includes seeing outside the frame. Even without glasses you can not do that with 28mm.
You could shoot with a 28mm external optical view finder. As long as you do not need to focus like with zone focus, that will be much more comfortable.

This is one of the reasons that I do not like 28mm on my M9. I would rather use a 21 mm with OVF, or use a 35mm or even 40mm with 35mm frames. Since I wear glasses now, that is a no-brainer to me. 35mm or 50mm is best, a Summicron 40C is a good compromise if you like vintage rendering. I have mine modified to bring up 35mm frames and that works great. YMMV

With todays PP software stitching is very easy, so for static subjects 2 portrait mode 35 or 40 mm will do if the scene can not fit inside a 35mm frame.

 

 

[burchyk]

I find 28mm is pushing it when it comes to built-in viewfinder with 0.72x magnification. Even though I do not wear glasses, I still can not see the whole frame at once without scanning around. Got used to it over time as I got more familiar with the 28mm angle of view, which lets me pre-compose before I even put the camera to my eye. Had an external finder but eventually ditched it, too much faff.

For me 35mm and 28mm are not interchangeable. 35 just does not provide the sense of depth/perspective that the 28 has.

28mm Ultron:

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!

 

[costa43]

Personally I would go with the focal length you prefer to use rather than the more convenient framelines. In time you will adapt and it will become 2nd nature. For critical focusing, the framelines are not 100% accurate anyhow. Saying that, I do agree that 35mm and for that matter, 50mm offer a more enjoyable ovf experience. Do you have experience of the 35mm focal length? 
 

Another idea is to return the Elmarit (a great lens) and pick up a 28mm and 35mm Voigtlander option, of which there are plenty. You can then figure things out from there.

Best of luck in your decision making. 

[adan]

Definitely the case that many of us (including me) find the built-in 28 frame lines fairly useless.

Unelss one is a chameleon and can roll one's eyes around independently. 🤪

I use a Leica SLOOZ all-metal 28mm finder for the 1970s or earlier in the accessory-shoe - the way Leica intended a 28 to be used, up until they tried to shoe-horn in the 28 lines in 1981.

But there are many such accessory 28 finders from over the decades around (Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Voigtlander - at a minimum), often less expensive than Leica's.

 

 

 

[evikne]

For a beginner, I think 35mm makes the most sense. Unlike 28mm, you get to experience what it's like to see outside the frame lines. Perhaps the most classic and versatile of all focal lengths. A 35mm Summicron ASPH will give you more leeway with DOF and selective focus in addition to an extra stop of light (and a good copy shouldn't be "dull"). But I understand that it's hard to give up a nice new Elmarit. Sorry for not making your decision easier.

Edited February 18, 2024 by evikne

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, adan said:

I use a Leica SLOOZ all-metal 28mm finder for the 1970s or earlier in the accessory-shoe - the way Leica intended a 28 to be used, up until they tried to shoe-horn in the 28 lines in 1981.

This. Shoe horned ... it feels the same as using the EVF or a reflex. Yes, you can preview before taking it too the eye. It is what happens when you have the camera to the eye which makes the RF so unique to me. The Leica 28mm external VF helps and I prefer it too, but of course even that is not the same when you need to focus first with the RF and then switch to the external VF.

Maybe the only really good 28mm solution is the 0.58 RF that can be custom ordered on some film models.

[hansvons]

6 hours ago, aamwgm said:

I've used the frameline selector to see what the 35mm framelines would look like and they are much better. I've shot with the 35mm before, and even tried a used 35mm summicron (ASPH) earlier. However, I found it to be pretty dull (low contrast, flat, but it was a used copy, so I'm not sure if that's normal).

35mm is probably the easiest to use and most versatile focal length. It’s arguably THE Leica M focal length par excellent because the RF system works highly accuratly and conveniently with 35mm. If I were to begin using an M, the 35mm Summicron ASPH would be it. It’s a staple in the M system, sharp and with some soul. 

The 35mm Summarit f 2.5 is equally sharp, if not sharper, and shows no flares, even when directed towards the sun. But it's almost half the price, a kind of Leica sleeper. I own both and they make 80% of my photography. (I also own the Voigtlander 35mm Nokton f1.4 SC, which is by design a low-contrast and flary modern interpretation of the V1 Summilux as a speciality lens that take care of another 15% of my photography).  

The 28mm Elmarit ASPH and the 35mm Summicron ASPH are not low-contrast vintage lenses but the sharp and contrast-rich pinnacle of film-era M lenses, quite similar to the 50mm Summicron V4 and V5 in their rendering. The 35mm Summarit was designed in the same vein (also an ASPH design) but targeted for early digital M users as a budget-friendly alternative. 

I’d take a sharp second look at the 35mm Summicron ASPH, or save some money and get the Summarit.

Edited February 18, 2024 by hansvons

[LeicaR10]

Aamwgm,   I sent you a PM so not to derail your OP thread.  r/ Mark

[TomB_tx]

I agree with hansvons - 35 is the most versatile lens for Leica M. After using a 35 Summicron for decades, I've also switched to the 35 f2.5 Summarit for its amazing images, small size, and great handling. It's my normal M10 lens. (The newer Summarit 2.4 35 is basically the same lens in different body.)

Edited February 18, 2024 by TomB_tx
typo

[pippy]

4 hours ago, adan said:

Definitely the case that many of us (including me) find the built-in 28 frame lines fairly useless....

Interesting!

Not sure how this will help the OP but Leica's F/Frame Digi-M bodies used to have viewfinders which had a 'magnification' ratio of 0.68 and with these cameras (IMX) using 28mm framelines was, absolutely, a piece of cake.

Having just checked, by way of contrast, it seems that the M10 (-on?) series use a 0.72 v/f so perhaps Leica needs to re-think v/f magnification for those potential customers who like to shoot with a 28mm and prefer using the OVF to a Visoflex?

Philip.

[JoshuaR]

I shoot a lot of 28 and have been using Ms for years, and I also find it challenging. You’re not alone!

On a practical level, I think it makes a lot of sense to begin your rangefinder journey with a 35 or 50.  I wouldn’t sell your Elmarit; just buy a Voigtlander 35. Practice with that and then move to 28. The other suggestions for 35s in this thread are also really good.

On a conceptual level: I don’t use the 28 on an M in the way you describe. I don’t frame 28mm pictures up in a careful way. I get in close and snap, trusting my judgment about framing and chance. My basic move is to make sure that my subject fills the viewfinder, as I see the viewfinder. If it fills my field of view, there is almost always enough room around it.

I frame more carefully with 35, and more carefully still with 50. So the progression is not just widest, wide, short tele, but also loose, careful, and very carefully framed.

 

[dpitt]

7 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

I frame more carefully with 35, and more carefully still with 50. So the progression is not just widest, wide, short tele, but also loose, careful, and very carefully framed.

+1
The same goes for focusing, from loose to careful.

[aamwgm]

Thank you for all the suggestions, there's a lot to learn for me here.

I'll lay out my current thinking process:

• I think the "visual signature" of a 28 appeals a lot to me. I've used 35 in the past and I like its FOV too, though. IMHO: a 28mm captures the dynamism of a shot (leading lines etc.) very well, and it captures images that look like scenes from movies, the 35mm captures images that are like paintings. That is just my 2cents.
• I'm very satisfied with the lens so far, it delivers what I like in spades. I'm concerned that switching to 35 will be disappointing because the Elmarit sets pretty high standards in contrast and image quality. I'm not sure the Summicron 35 meets that (my past experience using a used lens was not too convincing, but maybe that was a bad copy).
• I'm not satisfied with the framing experience, at all. I'm trying keeping both eyes open, but that's taking a lot of practice. It almost feels like Leica don't want you to be using 28mm on their recent bodies without buying some sort of an EVF, which, to me, defeats the purpose of a rangefinder (IMO), I'd have stayed with the cheaper X-T4 if I were to use an EVF.
• 28mm is harder to compose with, but its something I enjoy learning. Fine, you get lesser usable shots, but I'm a hobbyist, and it doesn't matter as long as I enjoy the experience, which I do.
• I find the relying on luck aspect of the 28mm intriguing (liberating, even) as well as confusing. Sure, I do understand the framelines are an approximation, but I think its still less approximate than just composing based on judgement.

---

Having said all of this, I can happily live with a 35mm for a better overall experience, as long as the lens meets the same level of performance as my Elmarit.

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, aamwgm said:

and it captures images that look like scenes from movies, the 35mm captures images that are like paintings.

From a cinematographer's point of view, I cannot corroborate that. The 25 - 27mm range is the most-used focal length in filmmaking. Please note that we are talking S-35mm here, which approximates 35mm in the FF format. The 28mm (that would be 18mm in filmmaking) is highly expressive and often used for introductory long shots or surreal close-ups. It's also the focal length of phones. 

But I get what you mean by a movie scene's dimensionality and a painting's flatness. In my experience, that has much to do with how you set up a scene's dimensionality. A clear vanishing point and the avoidance of negative spaces add to dimensionality, plus adding things to the foreground and background in different layers is also essential. Lastly, keeping the shot in a medium-distance (2-4 meters) ballpark would be attributed to a medium-long shot or a medium close-up- adding to the desired movie feeling. Light is essential but often overstated when people talk about cinematic images. Just make sure that you don't have the sun behind your back and that your subject's eyes shine.

[evikne]

I encourage you to keep your Elmarit, as you seem to like it very much. Unless you buy some sort of additional viewfinder or EVF, just use the full viewfinder window and don't bother with the framelines. That's accurate enough for a loose composition. You'll miss out on the M's unique advantage of being able to see outside the framelines, but you can buy a 35 or 50mm later.

Edited February 19, 2024 by evikne

[aamwgm]

25 minutes ago, hansvons said:

From a cinematographer's point of view, I cannot corroborate that. The 25 - 27mm range is the most-used focal length in filmmaking. Please note that we are talking S-35mm here, which approximates 35mm in the FF format. The 28mm (that would be 18mm in filmmaking) is highly expressive and often used for introductory long shots or surreal close-ups. It's also the focal length of phones. 

But I get what you mean by a movie scene's dimensionality and a painting's flatness. In my experience, that has much to do with how you set up a scene's dimensionality. A clear vanishing point and the avoidance of negative spaces add to dimensionality, plus adding things to the foreground and background in different layers is also essential. Lastly, keeping the shot in a medium-distance (2-4 meters) ballpark would be attributed to a medium-long shot or a medium close-up- adding to the desired movie feeling. Light is essential but often overstated when people talk about cinematic images. Just make sure that you don't have the sun behind your back and that your subject's eyes shine.

That is very interesting; thank you. However, my research seems to have yielded articles like these. In particular, as a hobbyist, I want to recreate that "look" in my images (I'm not too particular about the outcome, but I am about being in control). Some notable cinematographic masterpieces that inspire me are Better Call Saul and Drive. And its very hard to find any literature on how these were shot, but they seem to have been shot pretty wide. Wider than 35mm? I'm not sure. It seems to me that 28mm on my camera comes closes to this kind of "look". Maybe the aspect ratios are also at play here.

[evikne]

4 minutes ago, aamwgm said:

Maybe the aspect ratios are also at play here.

I often crop my 35mm shots to 16:9 aspect ratio. This often gives a very cinematic look, and it can look much wider than 35mm.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[aamwgm]

1 minute ago, evikne said:

I often crop my 35mm shots to 16:9 aspect ratio. This often gives a very cinematic look, and it can look much wider than 35mm.

I'd like to avoid cropping (and post processing, in general). With that in mind, I think 28mm yields itself pretty well to a "wide look" at the default aspect ratio.

[Sebastian S]

wouldn't give a lens away if you like it and permanently use it. instead of i would start with some of the 35mm budget options, there are plenty very good ones out there.