Losing the 35mm: good idea or big mistake?

[JoshuaR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After a long period of gear acquisition, I've been downsizing and downsizing my kit. Over the past year and change, I've sold four bodies and seven lenses. I've now winnowed it all down to an M10-R with 28, 35, 50, and 90. With this, I can do pretty much everything I need to do as a hobbyist and journalist who mainly photographs people. My main goal in reducing my gear has been to minimize the number of more-or-less inconsequential decisions I'm making.

My 35mm is the Steel Rim Reissue. I love the handling and rendering of this lens. Back when 35mm was the center of my photographic universe, it was my absolute favorite. Since then, though, for many reasons, I've gravitated toward a 28mm and 50mm pair. For the past few weeks, as an experiment, I've had the Steel Rim boxed up and packed away. During that time I've come to love the simplicity of never, ever having to think about what lens to use. With the 35mm out of the picture, it's clear as day when I will use my 28mm (most of the time) and when I will use the 50mm (mostly candid portraits) and the 90mm (telephoto reach). With the 35mm available, a burdensome element of decision-making is introduced. 

I find that my 28mm and the 50mm harmonize very well. (I'm shooting the 28mm Summicron v1, 50 Noctilux f/1.2 Reissue, and 90 Summarit.) Moreover, when I find  that I want a field of view between 28mm and 50mm, I'm happy to crop; I've taken to using the frameline preview to frame lower-distortion "35mm" shots with the 28mm, with the subject kept nicely away from the edges. In theory, the 35mm would be what I'd use on days when I only want to carry the camera with a single lens attached—but 28mm seems to be filling that need just as well, if not better, because I am generally attracted to a wider perspective. If I didn't already own a 35mm, and instead had only 28, 50, 90, I doubt I'd be buying a 35mm. 

I've been looking through Lightroom, trying to figure out if seeing through 35mm framelines, as opposed to 28mm, has produced images that I prefer, and also gauging my own revealed preference. Since 2022, when I got the Steel Rim, I've made around 1,200 "keepers" with it. Over roughly the same period, I've made 1,600 "keepers" with my 28mm Summicron. Throw in the 28mm Elmarit I used to own, and the 28mm number rises to 2,200. Looking at all my M-system images for the last many years, I see that 28mm pictures outnumber 35mm by about 25%. And considering the pictures themselves, I notice that my 28mm pictures tend to be more complex, with layers, multiple figures, interesting compositions, and so on. 

I have the lens boxed up, and ready to send to MPB. If I send it in, I'll either use the proceeds to take my family on a trip, or buy an M6 for a nice three-lens film-and-digital setup.

Do you think I'll regret this? Am I overlooking anything?

P.S. This is the sort of utterly ordinary stuff I'm photographing lately (blue, 28mm; red, 50mm):

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!

Edited 11 hours ago by JoshuaR

[gbealnz]

Do you need to sell it? I have bought and sold too many Leica lenses, nice lenses, and am now of the opinion that I just keep them. If cash is short, then by all means sell. 

But if not, then just leave it boxed, for a while anyway.

Your logic is sound though (to me anyway), and the 28/50/90 combo fits most of your needs.

However, if you do sell, the proceeds being spent as you suggest sounds good too. Somewhere warm by the look of the "blue" photo, LOL. Or the M6, as it "keeps the funds in Leica". I have just started buying a few film M's myself.

[nitroplait]

18 minutes ago, JoshuaR said:

My 35mm is the Steel Rim Reissue. I love the handling and rendering of this lens. Back when 35mm was the center of my photographic universe, it was my absolute favorite.

You are overlooking the importance of above. 

You will eventually cry over selling a lens you loved.

Lenses are the heart of photography. Just like your preference moved from 35 to 28, the reverse may well happen in the future.

It may be harder than you think to re-purchase when you eventually change your mind.
It could be that price development has made it un-obtainable or that your current lens is a particularly fortunate sample variation of the lens that matches your preferences better than any other sample out there.

 

[jigesh]

If it were a "vanilla" 35mm lens that's being overtaken by 28mm, selling would probably be justified. Of course, if you have other plans for that money, no problem with selling a less used Leica. However, in a few months, you may want it again, especially because it also being a character lens (not just a "normal" daily use lens), prices may have risen, and you may end up buying it for more than you sold. Just happened to me. Sold a 35mm Steel Rim Re-issue a year or so ago, only to miss it and buy again last week at higher price than my original purchase price.

[Vanillasludge]

My opinion, based on doing the very same thing:

If you ever plan on going back, selling now will cost you more in the end.  Unless you need the money, keep the lens.  

There’s a chrome 35 Summicron I sold in my past that still whispers “nice job, dumbass” to me across the universe.

Edited 9 hours ago by Vanillasludge
A

[3D-Kraft.com]

A triple like 28-50-90 is usually enough, when your sensor has sufficient crop reserve.

For me, 35mm is the most boring focal length.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My M kit for 40 years (film) was 35, 50, & 90.  Most used was 50, then 35, and 90 a distant third.

With Digital M 35 is now used by far the most, with 50 some an 75 or 90 still not used much, and a bit of 21.

Now I prefer to go out with just a 35, keeping it simple.

I've used Leica M since 1968 and never sold a Leica lens.

[BruceRH]

I am the wrong person to give advice as I have way too many lenses and I tend not to sell once purchased. I am guessing you will get to a point where you want to go back to "when 35mm was the center of my photographic universe" and you will regret selling it. Unless you really need the cash, I say keep it. You can also go out with just one lens to challenge yourself, that lens being the 35 SR which is a unique lens.

[Kiwimac]

There is always a desire to have lots of lenses. 
 

As I get older and therefore more experienced in photography I’ve concluded that for general photography changing lenses is counter productive. 
 

Having lots of lenses just leads to wondering which one you should have for a shot that has long since vanished into the past by the time you decide. 
 

It was fine when I shot Nikon D3 and 4 bodies. I’d carry two on a spider belt, one fitted with 17-35 and one with 70-200. I took no other lenses on any trip or job. The right focal length was instantly available in either the left hand or the right hand. 
 

With M the best lens in many ways to solve this was the MATE.  If Peter Karbe would be so kind as to design a version with Apo and F2, I’d buy it and sell every other Leica lens I own. The original is only f4 which is not a problem with cameras that shoot clean files at ISO 6400 and being but it sucks for subject isolation. 
 

For me, I could live with an M11-P and a Monochrom to match, one with a 35 Lux and the other with a 35 Apo. 
 

Maybe an 18 for very rare needs and maybe a 90 for very rare needs but neither would be essential. 
 

Too much choice is unhelpful in the field I’ve found. Perhaps not in a studio. 

[WideAround]

I would not sale the 35mm, because it was your center of your photographic universe. When you hold it, the 35 has the chance to a comeback. 

Unless you need the money, take the 35 in the box for a while and wait. Sometimes you will have the wish to take some pictures with it - and then it will be a recurrent surprise to you what you can do with this fantastical  lens.

Nethertheless the 28 - 50 - 90 is a great combo even with the M10-R potential to crop .

[Steve Ash]

To me, it would make sense to keep the 28- 50 -90 lens set for any kind of documentary purpose and the 35 lens for a one lens camera walk.

[Stef63]

A lens has many more characteristics than just its focal length.  Counting the number of 28 mm shots versus 35 mm shots as the main reason to keep one lens over the other feels like cutting corners to reach a drastic conclusion.

[Derbyshire Man]

Very personal decision!

I like the 35mm, in fact I can go out for a day with the 35mm FLE1 or APO on my M11P and the 35mm summicron pre-asph v2 on my M11M and be perfectly happy. However some of my all time favourites are on the 21mm SEM and the 50mm summilux FLE2. So I tend to a 21, 28/35, 50 combo (three bodies) sometimes. If raining/AF is going to be helpful then the 28/35 becomes the Q3. 
 

While I could live without a 35 but I don’t think I’d want to, even if just for a single lens single body scenario but it depends so much on what I plan to shoot! I could go out with just a 21mm or 50mm but I’d rarely want to be that limited unless a single use scenario. When it comes to 28mm vs 35mm I like the option for subject isolation and while my CV 28mm ultron 2 f2 is ok it’s not a patch on the 35mm FLE or APO, to get into the same flexibility it would need to be my 28mm summilux and that is quite a lump with inferior ergonomics to the 35’s. 

Edited 5 minutes ago by Derbyshire Man