Paring down lens selection. Opinions if you please.

[JamieDumont]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back for another round of GAS-related questioning. Before I begin I know that there is no objective "right answer", I'm just looking for opinions into what others would do in my situation.

I currently have an M2 and M10-R, along with a 21 SEM, 35 FLE and 35 FLE II — more on this in a moment — and a 50 Cron V5. There's also a 35 Voigtlander Color-Skopar which I'm unlikely to sell because its worth keeping for the money I'd get back.

When I left professional photography I planned to slim down my collection to the 35 FLE that the two bodies shared. One camera(ish) and one lens.

The FLE was bought because I liked the FLE II, but found the close focus and hood annoying in use; plus it was showing signs of the aperture blade issues of early models. Unfortunately the FLE I, despite being a great example does not work nicely at all with the M2. Between a not-quite-tight lens mount (recently rebuilt, nothing more to do) and fairly stiff focus, the lens audibly racks back and forth as you focus. The heavier focus throw also has dampened my enthusiasm on the M10-R. In short, after buying the FLE to be my "one and done" it's my least favourite lens and is going to be sold for certain.

I tried a 35 Cron ASPH II and loved the focus weight, but the size was comparable to either FLE with the hood mounted and not meaningfully lighter, all whilst being softer than either FLE. Add the fact that trading a Cron for an FLE would be pretty much a straight swap with UK dealers at the moment, I felt it wasn't worth the trade.

Reviewing past work where I used 35 extensively, I noted that I was often resorting to portrait orientation and jaunty angles to get the vertical coverage I wanted. Signs that a wider focal length could be needed. The 21 on the same shoots created an exaggerated perspective that was too much. I've been 28-curious for years, but never tried one on my M cameras.

With regards to the other two lenses — I love the 21 and have taken a couple of my favourite photos with it, but the success rate is low and I don't think any of those photos would be appreciably better or worse with a 28mm. The 50 Cron V5 is a lovely lens, and perhaps the one I underrate the most. It's been sidelined in this quest for a one lens kit because I definitely need something wider some/most of the time, but I do love the 50mm field of view.

The FLE II is currently away with Leica being serviced and having any issues with the aperture blades covered off. I've been deferring any lens decisions until it returns.

Whilst it's been away there is the prospect of going back to professional-ish work — my images would be a component in my work, but I wouldn't be commissioned anymore. Plus, there may be an opportunity to look after an open studio next year — I wouldn't be taking photos, but it would be handy to have more studio appropriate kit than a single 35 when needed.

I bought a Nikon Z8 and 24-70 to cover off a future trip that will 100% need weather sealing. Plus I figured it could be a handy "utility camera" for when I need to scan negatives, autofocus or rent lenses > 90mm or just to rent out in the studio. Outside a macro lens for scanning work, I'm not overly keen on dropping cash into another lens system. It's a fantastic camera, and I have more appreciation for it as a tool than any other mirrorless I've tried (Sony A7R4 and A7R5, Canon R6 & R5). I still romanticise using the Leica's for everything but the more grown-up part of me recognises the Nikon is undoubtedly better at just getting the job done. The 24-70 has shown that I work best between 28 and 50, but when the extra range is there I'm usually at 24, 50 or 70.

My conundrum is the Leica kit. It needs slimming down because it's not earning its keep. I don't think one lens works for me as much as I love the simplicity. That one lens probably should be a 35 and I can't find a 35 I love enough to be the only one.

Two lenses, with a 50 and 28mm, might work however. I'm contemplating trading the FLE I for a 28 Cron, and eventually selling the 21 SEM and FLE II, if the 28 & 50 combo work. I'd have a 50 for studio or portrait work and a 28 as my everyday lens, and that 35 Color Skopar for when I do just need a small 35.

I'm on the fence enough that I could sell all the Leica kit, all the Nikon kit, some of it, none of it, etc. I've been putting off making a decision for too long now.

So, what would you do in this scenario?

 

[JoshuaR]

I'm not a professional—more of an advanced hobbyist. I'm a journalist, and I take pictures as part of my reporting and writing process, and also photograph my family, etc.

I've been through a similar process to what you describe. Until recently I had an M10-R and an SL2-S. I recently sold the SL2-S and its L-mount lenses and replaced it with a mint M4-2, returning to the digital M + film M pairing that's worked so well for me in the past. I determined that I didn't ultimately need a "utility" camera. If I photograph my kid's soccer game, I'll just use a 90mm; if it rains, I'll hold an umbrella. I just enjoy using the Ms too much to use anything else. If this turns out to be a misstep, and I need a utility camera again, I plan to buy a Z camera and a zoom, instead of an SL camera.

As for M mount lenses, I used to be an exclusive 35mm shooter. Over time, I've migrated to 28mm + 50mm as my everyday kit. I encountered the exact issue you describe. It turned out that, for various reasons, my preferred working distance changed. I found myself closer to my subjects. 35mm felt suddenly tight. For a while I used a 28mm Summicron v1 and 50mm Summilux ASPH. Now my two main lenses are the 28 Cron and the 50 f/1.2 Noctilux reissue. I own a 35 Steel Rim Reissue, which used to be my main lens. I'm reluctant to sell it because I love the way it renders. I use it on my M4-2, or when I want a small M10-R. On the M10-R, I tend keep the 28mm mounted, and sometimes crop. On either side, my 28 and 50 are flanked by a 21 SEM and a 90 Summarit. I rarely need the 90. I use the 21 a lot, for very wide scenes, and have gotten good at framing without using the viewfinder.

Basically, I'm saying that it's quite reasonable to think about a 28 and 50 pair. 28 and 50, plus a very small 35 for when size matters, can work very well. I would have no issue selling one or both of your expensive 35s to make fund the shift. Because your M2, like my M4-2, has a viewfinder best suited for 35mm, you might find yourself gravitating toward the same system I use: 35mm on the film camera by default, 28 and 50 on the digital one. It's a nice setup!

Edited September 27 by JoshuaR

[jankap]

2 hours ago, JamieDumont said:

Back for another round of GAS-related questioning. Before I begin I know that there is no objective "right answer", I'm just looking for opinions into what others would do in my situation.

 

You should shut off the GAS addiction. It also seems, that you do not work with post-processing. A 21 mm picture can be cropped to 28mm easily.

I use the 15mm R, no problem to crop the picture. We should not be sharpshooters. The picture is the goal, not the tool used.

Have a look at the pictures taken at 6 June 1944. Did they care, if it was 50mm or 28mm? I even suspect, that some pictures were manipulated by the labs to make them more dramatic.

Edited September 27 by jankap

[jankap]

Thanks, Scrapbook.

[JamieDumont]

"Advanced hobbyist" probably describes where I find myself too. No one is paying and making demands of my photos anymore. Much like you Joshua, my photos accompany writing work, document family life or (if the studio thing comes off) are tangential to what I'm actually paid for.

Much like you, my working distance has decreased as I've got more comfortable and initially used a 50mm equivalent, shifting to 35mm when I started using an M and now feeling the 35 is tight for a lot of the situations I find myself in. I had considered that the M2 could use the 35 Color Skopar — the M2 being perfect for 35 long being a reason against getting a 28 — whilst the M10-R used a 28 and 50 combo too. Good to know that's a setup that is working for you.

---

I'll disagree on the notion of cropping the 21mm to 28mm. Beyond aiming to reduce the number of lenses I own — and I don't want to centre on a lens that always needs its output cropped — I believe that lenses and focal lengths are intentional choices. I post-process extensively (briefly trained as a colourist and retoucher) but beyond minor adjustments I leave the frame largely as I found it in camera. The 3.4 aperture of the SEM also would be unworkable in some of the lighting situations I encounter. The Summilux often got used at 1.4 to keep ISO and shutter speed reasonable (in the absence of IBIS), so a Cron would already be a compromise.

---

I think my issue is less about specific lenses, but the concept of letting go of some of them. That would restrict my options; but that's largely the point of this exercise! There's a very real sunk-cost fallacy at play.

 

[jankap]

3 minutes ago, JamieDumont said:

I'll disagree on the notion of cropping the 21mm to 28mm. Beyond aiming to reduce the number of lenses I own — and I don't want to centre on a lens that always needs its output cropped — I believe that lenses and focal lengths are intentional choices. I post-process extensively (briefly trained as a colourist and retoucher) but beyond minor adjustments I leave the frame largely as I found it in camera. The 3.4 aperture of the SEM also would be unworkable in some of the lighting situations I encounter. The Summilux often got used at 1.4 to keep ISO and shutter speed reasonable (in the absence of IBIS), so a Cron would already be a compromise.

 

 

What I meant is, that if I have a 21mm on the camera  and the scene needs a narrower view, I take the picture and crop at home. The perspective is the same, the pixel number is less of course.

[JamieDumont]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 minutes ago, jankap said:

What I meant is, that if I have a 21mm on the camera  and the scene needs a narrower view, I take the picture and crop at home. The perspective is the same, the pixel number is less of course.

Of course. I do the same. However it's usually a case that I find myself with a 35, wishing for a 28 and no room to backup that half a step. Because the 21 is quite a commitment and specific in its use, I rarely carry it as my daily or only lens.

[farnz]

Jamie,

The discussion I hear you having (with yourself?) here seems to be more about lens haptics and how they work physically for you - nothing wrong with that by the way - but it does rather sideline another important consideration: how they each render.  When I first started with Leica (more years ago than I'm comfortable remembering!) my 'perspective' was along similar lines so, say, all 21 mm lenses would offer the same field of view and the main difference in terms of their pictures would be the widest aperture, ie 'glass' is just 'glass'.  The same for all [add focal length of choice] mm lenses.

My perspective now has changed significantly and I view lenses as different 'paint brushes' that paint or render a picture differently according to properties bestowed by their optical formula, eg Sonnar versus Double Gauss, by their age, by their element coatings, and by the cocktail of chemicals in the glass they are manufactured from. 

For example, a 2015 (Double Gauss) 50/2 Summicron v5 lens will produce markedly different pictures from a 1947 Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2 (Sonnar) lens yet they are both 50 mm f/2 lenses.

The rendering that you might prefer is, of course, entirely subjective but the rendering might enhance or detract from a particular subject so perhaps your calculations might benefit from including such (seemingly ephemeral) factors.

The other point I noticed is that you say "My conundrum is the Leica kit. It needs slimming down because it's not earning its keep."  Why should it need to?  You've replied to Joshua that "No one is paying and making demands of my photos anymore." so it sounds as though none of the rest of your photographic equipment is 'earning its keep' either.  You've laid out the money for the gear that you have so (presumably) it's not costing you anything unless you or someone else has earmarked its perceived value for a new dining table or conservatory or swimming pool etc.  If it has been earmarked then perhaps that's a different discussion.

If you view the above as total piffle I'm quite okay with that.  At the very least I might have offered you a slightly different perspective that might help.  There are many examples of how different lenses render in The View Through Older Glass thread that might also help you.

Pete.

[Eoin]

Personally I love the Summilux 35 FLE v1 and I'm struggling with a decision to upgrade it to the FLE v2 or APO Summicron. GAS vs Need.

Have you considered the Summilux 35 ASPH pre FLE?, very similar to the FLE and perhaps smoother in the bokeh when compared to the FLE.
Also the Summicron 35 ASPH v1 with the clip on hood is much smaller than the v2 with the screw in hood, a very capable lens.

In your situation, M10R's resolution, a nicely priced 28 Summicron ASPH v1 or if you're lucky a v2 would be my choice to pair with your Summicron 50.

I've been shooting the 24 Summilux on the M11M for a project I've been working on for almost a year, but the shooting style is up close with background context.
I can understand why Alan Schaller uses this combination a lot, great do it all lens when combined with the M11M resolution.
 

[TomB_tx]

I think Pete has great advise above. For over 40 years my M kit lenses were 35 & 50 Summicrons (1969) and 90 TE. On film probably 70% 50, 25% 35, and 5% 90. Now on digital M 85% 35, 20% 50, and scattering of 21, 90, 135. As a mechanical engineer I stay away from FLE lenses - unnecessarily mechanically complex. Now on digital the Summarit 2.5 35 & 50 are my main lenses - identical handling and ideal size for me. The Summarits are the last Leica lenses I'll buy - if I "need" anything else it will likely be Voigtlander. I have the new VC 35 & 50 f1.5 lenses for my film Ms for their speed, and I love their rendering. Both have some focus shift but not much issue on film. On M10R at f2.8 to 4 it can affect closeups.

Do you ever consider other lenses than Leica?

[Chris W]

My all-time favourite lens is a 1980's 35mm F2 Summicron. It produces rich colour and is quite sharp, but also has a bit of character. 

I've had a 50mm for years and never used it much, but I'm starting to enjoying on my M10, and now M11.

I understand what you are saying about the 35mm Voigtlander, but why keep something that never gets used? Someone else might love using it.

I don't really see owning three 35mm's, maybe two at a pinch. Only there thing I'd add is try to keep your lens haul to a minimum. My current mantra is one in, one out.

[lct]

1 hour ago, Eoin said:

Have you considered the Summilux 35 ASPH pre FLE?, very similar to the FLE and perhaps smoother in the bokeh when compared to the FLE.
Also the Summicron 35 ASPH v1 with the clip on hood is much smaller than the v2 with the screw in hood, a very capable lens.

+1 for the Summilux 35/1.4 asph pre-FLE. Just beware than some copies of it may suffer from focus shift. My 1997 copy has none apparently but it has been 6-bit coded and calibrated in 2023 by Leica.

As for the Summicron 35/2 asph v1, i've used one too, it is a very good lens indeed, but i prefer the v2's smoother OoF rendition. I've replaced its hood by the 12550 one of the Elmar-M 50/2.8 together with its 14285 hood cap. No visible vignetting so far.

Left: Summicron 35/2 asph v1 + original hood & cap
Right: Summicron 35/2 asph v2 + 12550 hood & 14285 cap

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!

 

 

 

 

[JamieDumont]

2 hours ago, farnz said:

The discussion I hear you having (with yourself?) here seems to be more about lens haptics and how they work physically for you...how they each render.  

[...]

If it has been earmarked then perhaps that's a different discussion.

[...]

If you view the above as total piffle I'm quite okay with that.

Rendering does come into it, but I'm already pretty confident in what I like. I've ruled out APOs and their ilk because I find them unnecessary in both sharpness and spend for the photos I take. At the other end, I find character lenses become distracting - it becomes a photo about the lens, not the subject.

I tend to err towards "thin glass" that doesn't have too much of a signature. Hence the predominance of 35 and 50 in my kit. The 21 SEM is an aberration only because it can be distortion free, and relatively transparent when composed well. Similarly I try to avoid using wide apertures unless it's for light gathering purposes. I try to avoid "crutches" in my equipment and therefore photos, which I think is why I've put off the 28 for so long; it has a look that I can easily identify of across systems and genres.

The financial earmarking is a factor, mainly because they don't earn money. I can justify them when they contribute to an income. My camera insurance is also more than I'd like. There's no financial pressure to sell, but when I don't use something often — particularly in the case of Leica — you begin to ask "what else could this money be doing for me?".

I absolutely don't view it as total piffle. I know that everyone has their opinions and preferences and each is as valid as the last. I genuinely welcome the insight!

2 hours ago, Eoin said:

In your situation, M10R's resolution, a nicely priced 28 Summicron ASPH v1 or if you're lucky a v2 would be my choice to pair with your Summicron 50.

That's the idea I'm leaning towards. Possibly switching the 50 Cron out for a Lux in time as they are supposed to complement each other well.

2 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

As a mechanical engineer I stay away from FLE lenses - unnecessarily mechanically complex. 

Do you ever consider other lenses than Leica?

I too have developed a distrust of FLE and the double-cam that allows for close focus in recent lenses. Compare either FLE to the 35 or 50 Cron and they feel different. You can feel the additional complexity in the weight of the focus mechanism.

I have considered and previously owned lenses other than Leica. What has pushed me towards Leica in recent years are the predominance of minimum focuses closer than the rangefinder coupling which has irritated me on the FLE II (rules out the Voigtlander Ultron range) and the lack of repairability. After I dropped a nearly-new Voigtlander 50 APO onto a concrete floor, my insurance were only interested in a replacement rather than a repair because there was no clear repair path. I had to send a nearly new lens — that probably just needed the equivalent of a CLA — to my insurer to be destroyed (likely repaired and resold, but "destroyed" was what I was told). Considering I aim to only own one or two lenses, I don't feel both of those being Leica is unrealistic.

1 hour ago, Chris W said:

I don't really see owning three 35mm's, maybe two at a pinch. Only there thing I'd add is try to keep your lens haul to a minimum. My current mantra is one in, one out.

The aim is actually to sell all 35s, maybe with the exception of the Color Skopar to keep for emergencies or use on the M2. I simply can't get on with either FLE as a one-lens-only kit, and don't see it being part of a two lens kit.

1 hour ago, lct said:

+1 for the Summilux 35/1.4 asph pre-FLE.

Love the idea of one, but the images I've seen from them just confirm that I'm not a 35 shooter. Could I become one again? Only if I found the right lens, and I'm not sure any 'lux is that lens after my frolic with the two FLEs.