Need help building an R system

[Ruhayat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everyone. I recently acquired a secondhand Olympus E1, mainly so that I can use Leica R lenses, and also because to my eyes its Kodak sensor has a closer colour signature to the M8 than the newer Olympus E520 and E3. I have also just bought my first ever Leica lens -- a 50mm Summicron-R, and it's giving me great results; makes me seem like a better photographer than I actually am.

 

My question is, where do I go on from the 'standard' 50mm Cron (which seems to be the starting point for most people)? I generally like to shoot events and people in candid situations, not so much posed portraits. For street shooting I thought I'd stick with my Digilux 2 and Ricoh GR-D. A recent experience shooting a wedding for my cousin as a favour recently shows I'll need a zoom lens, too, but I thought that could be handled by the Zuiko 14-54mm.

 

I have a budget to buy only one more lens for the next 6 months to 2 years (depending on economic situation). So help me spend my money best, please: should it be a shorter focal range (28mm Elmarit or 35mm Summilux?) or longer (60mm Macro or 135mm Elmarit that someone is offering right now)? Oh, the Olympus has a 2x crop factor.

 

Any thoughts? Bearing in mind that I will still have my Digilux 2 with me as a backup camera.

 

Thanks very much.

[Advertisement]

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

[Nitnaros]

I think for events/people you would want in addition to the 50-cron you have (which has a 100mm field-of-view on your camera, so moderate tele) a (much) wider lens to incorporate some of the surroundings people are in.

 

Like a 35mm on a regular 35mm film body.

 

That would translate to a 15mm or 19mm on the R - both are fairly expensive.

There is also the 21mm and the 24mm and the 28mm you mentioned.

 

I would vote for the 19mm/2.8, if budget allows that, giving you effectively a 38mm FOV. It would do well for lots of event work as long as you are not in a tight indoor setting.

 

I use a 15/35/60 setup on a R9-DMR.

 

Peter

[Ruhayat]

Thanks, Peter. The 19mm is a bit beyond my budget (US$1000 -- can only stretch to US$1200); I might have to make do with the 24mm or 28mm Elmarits. My plan is to use my funds for now to build up the lens collection first. Eventually I'll get a full-frame body to host them (R10, maybe?), so they'll go back to their normal lengths.

 

Another possibility someone mentioned to me: get the 24mm as a 'normal' walkabout lens (48mm effective focal range, so would be close to normal on SLR), and then later sell off the 50mm Summicron and get the 60mm Macro instead. What do you think?

[Angora]

If you like to shoot people but portraits are not your style, then I'd recommend a 35 (if your camera is full frame) or instead a 28 (if there's some crop coef.).

 

I got an old 28, bought a few Euros on eBay, and I'm very happy with it. Compact and light, on top of that.

 

For your budget, you can also buy a 60 at the same time. I never had it, but it is well regarded on the forums. You get the macro possibility as well.

Or, if you want something longer, a Cron 90 (said to have a nice quality/price ratio). Or a 80, but that's more expensive.

[Nitnaros]

Agree to the idea that the 60mm is more attractive than a 50mm-cron.

 

I personally want the macro more than the one stop advantage of the cron.

If I would get a 50, it would be the lux.

 

I personally plan to do without a 50mm - went the 60mm route and really like that lens.

 

I am planning to build out my lens collection to 15/35/60/80/180.

 

Peter

[Ruhayat]

Thanks, guys. So it seems a 60mm Macro is in my future. Too bad there's no Summilux-R in 28mm -- the extra stop would be useful indoors, and the two lenses would just about cover me nicely (although a 35mm @70mm effective in-between would also be useful!). I had lots of shaky pics with the SLR indoors, they're trickier to handhold than the Digilux 2, which is still workable at 1/30 (or 1/8 even). But I guess for now the 28mm Elmarit and 50mm Summicron it is, then.

 

I think eventually I'll go 28 Elmarit/35 Summilux/60 Elmarit/90 Summicron. The 2x factor is a minus at the shorter end, but a tremendous bonus at the longer end, I must say (300mm f2.8 for around US$600, anyone?)

[Geolux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI:

I have been using Leica cameras for more than 55 years. I have used an enormous amount of film, and have photographed all kinds of subjects in color and B&W. I loaded bulk film in the Leica Cassettes, and have printed both B&W and Color. The following all relate to the 35mm film format. For digital, use your own judgment. I find the 90mm lens to be the best one for me. And the single most useless lens is a 135 mm. Through all the years, I have not used a 135 mm lens for a total of more than 10 or 15 shots, if that. And don't worry whether the lens is an elmar, elmarit, summicron, summilux, ASPH, or whatever. In my experience, they are all more than satisfactory. Anything beyond satisfactory is just for bragging rights. If you have the money, and you want bragging rights, then be my guest and spend your money and be happy. I have owned many dozens of Leica Lenses - for screw mount, bayonet, and R. I have never been disapopointed. But, to answer your question, after the 90mm, I then use the 28mm or 19mm lenses. and then the old 180 APO f 3.4. On several occasions, on extended travel, I have used nothing except an old R-4 with a 15mm Super-Elmar, and I have been mighty well pleased. I have projected many 15mm super-elmar kodachrome slides from a Pradovit auto-focus projector on a huge white plaster wall more than 10 feet wide and the results were stunningly great. If you are a great photographer, then regardless of the lens used, the results are likely to be very good. But if you are a lousy photographer, then, the results are ... well you get the idea. And for a final thought, the best, and most indispensable accessory is the little Leitz Table Tripod with a ball head. That has gone everywhere with me, and is really one of the best things that has ever existed in photography.

 

Best wishes George Butler minerals@att.net

[Ruhayat]

Hi George,

 

true, I agree that image quality (in overall terms) is dependent on the photographer. That said, I do think that using good equipment can make a difference even for an average photographer. A bit like how using a better hammer helps you get fewer bent nails -- it's not just a question of technique, but a good tool will/can assist in you getting good technique by giving a firmer grip, ergonomic shape, etc.

 

Similarly with lenses, I find. Composition-wise, the pictures I take with the Olympus kit lens and the Summicron would be the same, but I have to say, shooting the way I usually do, the Leica lens does make the image have a certain specialness compared to the same composition shot with the Zuiko zoom. I'm not saying the Zuiko is bad, but rather just to say that using a better lens does make a difference to the overall 'feel' of the photograph.

 

Of course, using good equipment can sometimes also make an average amateur like me feel a bit more confident, which would have a direct effect on the shots I make.

 

Thanks for another vote for the 15 and 19mm. Must admit those lenses never crossed my mind until now.