Choosing a wide angle lens for an MP3 LHSA

[harleyboy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a MP3 LHSA with a 50mm f1.4 lux. I have the chrome version. I would like to get a wider angle lens for the camera. I find when I am in the street the 50mm is very limiting. The MP3 only supports 35, 50 and 90 in the range finder. If I go wider than 35mm will need to get a viewfinder. Which is not that big of a deal...other than the extra cost.

 

My gut it telling me I want something wider than 35mm but I am looking for advice. If you could only have two lenses with the MP3 what would you get and why?

 

Here are the choices:

 

 

Leica 24mm f/2.8 ELMARIT-M

 

Leica 24mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M – this thing is $6K!

 

Leica 28mm f/2 SUMMICRON-M – I can get this one in silver and black.

 

Leica 35mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M

 

The F1.4 24mm is very pricey.

 

Thoughts and advice would be appreciated

 

Thanks

 

Mark

[NZDavid]

I have the 2.8/24 and it is excellent. Resolution and contrast are superb. The 1.4 indeed looks incredibly expensive. the 3.8 version may be worth considering. I'd definitely also get a 35 Summicron or Summilux sometime. I have got good results from the 35 'cron ASPH, but an older 'cron would also pair well with your MP3.

[lars_bergquist]

I would say that 35mm is too close to 50mm to be a real alternative. Most experienced photographers have treated 35mm lenses more or less as 'short standard lenses', and many have simply not bothered with the 50.

 

The definition of 'standard lens' is 'equal in focal length to the diagonal of the image format'. This for instance is true for the classical standards of 105mm for 6x9cm roll film, and 135mm for 9x12cm plates and cut film. The 35mm diagonal is 43mm. Leica '50mm' or '5cm' lenses have been 52mm from the beginning. So you can see that 50 and 35mm lenses are about symmetricaly grouped around the 43mm diagonal as 'long' and 'short standard lenses'.

 

If you want to keep your 50mm--which is a very useful lens for most general photography--then the obvious alternative is 28mm. It is wide, but has a natural look and is not problematical in use. If you do think that you can afford a 28mm Summicron ASPH, then there is simply no better. It is a superlens, fully up to the technical performance of the 50mm Summicron.

 

If you do choose 24mm, then you will occasionally miss the f:2 speed unless you are willing to hock your wife and pump some iron to enable you to buy, and carry, the big Summilux (which in my considered opinion would have been more useful as a f:2 lens). If f:2.8 is enough, then the Zeiss Biogon 25mm is a less expensive but very excellent alternative. And Zeiss accessory finders are also less expensive than Leica, but very good indeed.

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

 

(P.S: I do own the 50mm Summilux ASPH, the 35mm Summilux ASPH, the 28mm Summicron ASPH AND the Biogon.)

[tgray]

I'd go (and did go) with the 28 Summicron. I think 28+50 is a great match. You'd have to deal with the lack of frame lines in your M though. I guess you could get it modified to have 28 frames added, or you could use an external finder, but I like shooting 28 with the internal finder on my Ms.

[Riccis]

I have an idea... Sell me your MP 3 kit and buy yourself two used M6s a 50 lux and a 28 cron.

 

Cheers,

[budrichard]

You need to put a 35mm Lux and either the 24mm or 21mm with finder on your camera and determine what suits you.

I opted to have the 35mm Lux ASPH which is my normal lens rather than the 50mm Lux and a 21mm f2.8 ASPH with finder on my 0.85 M's. I really like the 35mm Lux for its 1.4 aperture and view. The 21mm with anything that meters internally like your MP3 is slow as you have to use the normal finder to meter and then the 21mm finder to compose. I use the 21mm on my M7's for that reason. The framing on a 21mm and 24mm is also going to have to more precise because if the film plane is not parallel to the plane of the scene you are photographing, distortion will result. Frankly , I prefer an SLR with 24mm or wider lens at this point in time.-Dick

[peter_n]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You have a 50 and the 28 pairs with that. I use a 24 and love it but there is too big a gap between it and the 50. You can use the whole of the VF for the 28, framing is approximate on Ms anyway. A 28 brings up the 90 frameline on an MP3. My personal choice in 28mm is a Konica M-Hexanon 28/2.8. Once I tried that I got rid of the other 28s I was trying. Pic below.

 

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!

[Finnkare]

I'm a bit unsure about the usability of a 24/25 on a Leica, other than with the .58 finder. Scale focusing can be a bit too risky, especially @1.4. On the other hand, some people scale focus their folders with 50mm@2.8 or even 100+mm@3.5 or something...

 

What I'm trying to say is that a 21mm is safer to scale focus and a 28 is frameable with the .72 viewfinder. It's a matter of taste if 21mm is too wide or the gap between 21 and 28 is too short. One can buy either and see if he/she still needs the other.

 

I have got along with the combination 21-40-135 for some time now already. Could also think of changing the 40 to a 50 and the 21 to a 24/25 or a combination 18-28. But I have for now liked the simpleness of three lenses, big gaps between focal lengths (just about extremes included) and a very wide angle.

 

I have always found the 35 an ackward focal length. Its visual effect is not that wideish and not "natural" either, and it's still quite useless in selective focus. So too "in-between" in my opinion. Furthermore, for me, it's too close to 50 if you already have one.

 

 

So, for the choices you gave, I'd choose the 28 (without an external finder) if it is wide enough for you. If not, then either of the 24s, according to your budget and matter of preference in physical lens size.

[alun]

Mark,

 

As others have said, do test if you can and see what suits you. Oddly, I disagree with most that has been said about the 35 (in my case a 35/2): it *does* offer a significantly different field of view to a 50. It can (certainly at f8 and above) be comfortably and rapidly scale-focused. It offers a superb combination paired with a 50.

 

Try toggling to the 35mm framelines and looking att he kind of shots you would frequently take, from the distance at which you are comfortable working.

 

Good luck.

[stunsworth]

Oddly, I disagree with most that has been said about the 35 (in my case a 35/2): it *does* offer a significantly different field of view to a 50.

 

Same here, whether using a film M or the M8. Mind you, I think the same about a 28mm and 35mm too.

[alun]

Same here, whether using a film M or the M8. Mind you, I think the same about a 28mm and 35mm too.

 

Exactly so!

[andalus]

Consider the new 24 Elmar 3.4. I know it's not that fast but it sure is less expensive than the 24 1.4. I have had it a month now and think the results are fabulous. I usually shoot with the 50 Lux ASPH. It's my go everywhere lens, but that 24 is super when I want/need to get a wide angle.

[ddp]

It all depends on your shooting needs of course. I had a 21 for some time, but felt that the 35 Summilux was wide enough for most of my needs in the M range. As far as the 35 being too close to the 50 - I don't see that really. But I have a 75 Summilux and think THAT is too close to a 50 and will likely sell it and go back to a 90. As the MP3 is a 35-50-90 body anyhow, and my main user - I can easily live with those 3 lenses.

[Guest darkstar2004]

Take a look at the 28mm lenses.

 

I chose the 28/2 over a 35mm as my wide glass because on my MP with the .72 viewfinder, 28 is the widest lens that you can use without getting a shoe mounted viewfinder. It also uses very nearly 100% of the viewfinder, whic the 35mm does not.

 

With the 28mm mounted, anyything in my viewfinder will appear on my negative or chrome. I liked that concept, along with not having to use a shoe mounted viewfinder. If you pick up an M6, M7 or MP body some day, this will come in handy.

 

Also, the 28 has a crazy amount of depth of field stopped down and has a more normal perspective (less distortion) than a 24 or 21. For my uses, 28mm is wide enough for inside shooting unless you I'm in a very small room.

 

Just my thoughts...