Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: EinstStein on December 27, 2011, 02:51:07 am
-
If you can choose three lenses for M9, what would they be?
90mm/f2, 50mm/f2, and 28mm/f2 come to my mind, but I'm not sure whether 35mm/2 is the better choice than 28mm/f2.
-
If you can choose three lenses for M9, what would they be?
90mm/f2, 50mm/f2, and 28mm/f2 come to my mind, but I'm not sure whether 35mm/2 is the better choice than 28mm/f2.
Kinda depends on what you'd like to do with the thing. There's nothing cast in stone except even more stone.
Rob C
-
I have an M9 kit which consists of a 35mm f2, 50mm f2 and 75mm f2.8. Wider lenses really need a separate viewfinder and longer lenses are very difficult to focus accurately.
Lloyd Chambers and Sean Reid are the online authorities on the M9 and both have extensively tested a huge variety of lenses. Lloyd's website is http://www.diglloyd.com/ but you will have to subscribe to get access to the detail on Leica. My lens choices were made after carefully reading Lloyds reviews. I started with the 35, then the 75 and finally the 50. All 6 bit coded latest lenses. There is a huge premium for the 1.4 lenses which I could not justify as I rarely use any of these lenses wide open.
-
I would first base it on the focal lengths I like to shoot with. I would get those.
-
I've used everything from a 15 to a 135 on film and digital M's. IMO you can't wrong with a good ol' 50 Summicron (F2) either new or used.
-
Kinda depends on what you'd like to do with the thing. There's nothing cast in stone except even more stone.
Rob C
I agree completely with Rob. Get the lens that you will use most often.
And, I find that the Leica M's are fairly monogamous individuals. With my film M's I rarely attached a different lens to a body. With my new M9 I mostly photograph with a 35 Summicron (with goggles); I do carry a 21 VC, 50 Summicron; and a 135 Elmarit kept for occasional use.
Jean-Michel
-
Kinda depends on what you'd like to do with the thing. There's nothing cast in stone except even more stone.
Rob C
+1 ;D
-
I'd get a 50/2 in any case. You can't go wrong with the 35/2 as a second lens, although I find that focal length a bit boring. I'd recommend 24mm instead, which allows for a more "radical" perspective. Apart from that, I not really sure if a third lens is absolutely necessary (although personally, I somehow ended up with four ::) ;D)
-
I have an M9 kit which consists of a 35mm f2, 50mm f2 and 75mm f2.8. Wider lenses really need a separate viewfinder and longer lenses are very difficult to focus accurately.
no needs of separate viewfinder for the 28mm
-
I visited http://www.diglloyd.com/. His pictures are so so. His recommendation on the "Must Have" lenses are nonsense. 50mm/0.95 must to have? It's a nice lens, so is any Leica M ASPH, but put it in must have is clearly a mis-judge.
-
Hi,
I would choose the new 21mm (or a wider) + 50/2, and if budget allows the new 35/1,4.
-
Hi,
I would choose the new 21mm (or a wider) + 50/2, and if budget allows the new 35/1,4.
Jeanloup Sieff used a 21mm with his M (film) for a lot of work in his day...
I have a 24mm for my Nikon (FF) and I find it a bit too wide for general use, and not really wide enough for exaggerated looks... I really should get myself another 35mm Nikkor again, but this thing never ends. I'll wait.
Rob C
-
I know this is a very "Leica Elitist" comment, but you do know if you only have one Leica you can only put one lens on it at a time...I own multiple Leica M lenses, and most people do, but its important to remember your only using one at a time. And any time you are actually using them, your not going to be carrying all of them, and thinking about which focal length would be best for this situation.....with Leica its typically more spontaneities and in the moment (sometimes its decisive) so just pick one focal length you like, and run with it.
-
People asking others questions about what lenses they should buy seems to me like asking someone what sort of house they think you should live in. [all focal lengths related to 24 x 36 frame]
This is personal stuff, and should be based on the individual’s needs and desires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs). It depends on emotion and utility.
If we’re talking commercial photography, equipment needs to be selected that permits the carrying out of the majority of work; rentals can and do cover the extreme jobs—fisheyes, super-long teles etc.
For personal hobby/recreation, whatever floats your boat is appropriate; if you like street shooting, say, and want a relatively moderate perspective (eg the drawing of the lens doesn’t shout “look at me, I’m an ultrawide!”), lenses between 35mm and 50mm will do the job, with a coverage differential of about 50%, meaning useful overlap.
If you find yourself backing up all the time (beep, beep, beep!) then a wider lens is indicated; I have found 24mm is the widest I can use and retain “normal” perspective (if you keep the camera square on to geometric elements in the frame, and don’t have anything in particular looming up front).
Portraits? Any lens can make for effective portraits, but if the subject is to be large in the frame the lens needs to have a longer focal length than normal to keep noses and chins within reasonable limits. The longer the lens, the further away it is from the subject, and the flatter the rendering; a subject with a long hooter will benefit from a 200mm lens from 12' away!
How to break the rules, Arnold Newman-style (as I recall, this was shot on a Nikon with a 28mm lens):
(http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/anewmanarms.jpg?w=700)
Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WoJOAj9r6w) on how and why this picture was made.
And another Newman with more “normal” perspective; this was the first Newman photograph I noticed, and I was stunned by its design. Still love it after 40+ years.
(http://lubowphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Newman-stravinsky.jpg)
-
People asking others questions about what lenses they should buy seems to me like asking someone what sort of house they think you should live in. [all focal lengths related to 24 x 36 frame]
Well, a house doesn't matter, its just a place where I stay between two fishing or photo trips ;D. Sorry for OT, couldn't resist.
-
Well, a house doesn't matter, its just a place where I stay between two fishing or photo trips ;D. Sorry for OT, couldn't resist.
It's probably not something you chose to do on purpose, but every time I see your handle, I think Alfasud. I had one; great little car with the engine that my previous, even more little X1/9 should have had. Both, of course, hated to go anywhere if it was damp. Maybe it was just Scottish Mist they feared. Ah, Marelli!
;-(
Rob C
-
Well, a house doesn't matter, its just a place where I stay between two fishing or photo trips ;D. Sorry for OT, couldn't resist.
You’re not sorry, or you wouldn’t have posted! ;D Good to see someone not utterly obsessed by photography; fishing can be a bit more relaxing. ;)
We would all produce better work if we concentrated less on gear and specs, and more on thinking about why we photograph. I wonder how many folks (not just on here) are perpetually testing lens/camera combinations, rather than taking photos with a purpose. I used to photograph brick walls occasionally, I must confess.
-
It's probably not something you chose to do on purpose, but every time I see your handle, I think Alfasud. I had one; great little car with the engine that my previous, even more little X1/9 should have had. Both, of course, hated to go anywhere if it was damp. Maybe it was just Scottish Mist they feared. Ah, Marelli!
Rob C
Old joke here in Oz: why are Alfas so fast? So you can get them home from the dealer before they rust! Scottish Mist—some fancy liquor? ;)
-
No one can share the experiences on 28mm/f2 and 35mm/f2? even non-ASPH?
-
I would first base it on the focal lengths I like to shoot with. I would get those.
Missed this post before; +1
Nothing else matters.
-
If I owned the M9, the 50mm lux would be first on my list. Some say the best 50mm ever.
-
I'll second what Dave said. I have 4 asph lenses but if I had to choose only one it would be my 50 lux. Eleanor
If I owned the M9, the 50mm lux would be first on my list. Some say the best 50mm ever.
-
Missed this post before; +1
Nothing else matters.
Especially Scottish Mist - in any bottle!
I used to enjoy Jack Daniel's (is the apostrophe right?) on a single cube of ice in a beautiful Scottish crystal glass... how life changes: no reason for the crystal and even less for the Jack since the cardio banned it completely along with most everything else.
Not said in any 'funny' sense either, but was a time in the late 70s and the 80s when we used to be pretty frequent flyers betwen the UK and Spain - my wife and I would take along two crystal glasses and our own food for the flight, buy a couple of those tiny bottles of wine from the stewardess, and enjoy the damned flight. Bloody terrorists blew all that off the possibilities list, as did the sudden departure of reasons to fly. It's nice being flash sometimes, particularly when you might never come down again safely. Way to go.
Rob C
-
Especially Scottish Mist - in any bottle!
I used to enjoy Jack Daniel's (is the apostrophe right?) on a single cube of ice in a beautiful Scottish crystal glass... how life changes: no reason for the crystal and even less for the Jack since the cardio banned it completely along with most everything else.
Rob C
I’m coming up for the big 60 in a few months, and get nagged by health *professionals* every so often about my liver function number (which is not too bad considering) whilst I pursue my hobby of drinking as much wine as I can afford! Used to also drink (in rough order) scotch, bourbon/rye, brandy, tequila, and now rum. I buy a bottle of Mt Gay once or twice a year, and it lasts a week to 10 days.
It is Jack Daniel’s because the founder was Jack Daniel. Happy new year.
-
Have a 28, 35, 50 and 90... all -chrons
Could live best without the 35, but that's me. Can crop a 28 and of course can use a 50 nearly everywhere a 35 can be used. One nice thing about Leica images is that the clarity and color stand up well to cropping.
-
Not sure why my post invited such far more philosophers than the photographers.
I didn't expect my question to inspire so much philosophical discussions.
I enjoy it, go on ...
Again, any more comments or experiences to share on 28mm vs. 35mm, particularly the version of F2, ASPH?
-
Not sure why my post invited such far more philosophers than the photographers.
I didn't expect my question to inspire so much philosophical discussions.
I enjoy it, go on ...
Partly, I suppose that's because an M9 forms part of a common dream... For many of us, at least, it's as close as we're gonna get!
Rob C
-
Again, any more comments or experiences to share on 28mm vs. 35mm, particularly the version of F2, ASPH?
Until I bought an M9 a 35mm lens was not one I would ever have used, nor desired. But I find the 35 f2 ASPH to be one of the most used of the 5 I have. The 24 is too specific/woide and not at all general purpose enough for me, but great results though. The 50 lux is a recent purchase and I haven't fully got to grips with it (again an alien focal length for me) but so far it has lived up to all of its hype.
The 75 cron I have just let go - stunning results but hated the frame lines and needed/wanted to finance other lenses, and the 90 cron is superb. Yes difficult to focus a first but never fails to disappoint. I haven't had any experience with the 28 but am sorely tempted to try sooner rather than later. It's reputation certainly precedes it. Sounds wide but then I thought 35 would be far too wide.
As many people have said previously there will be only one lens on your camera at any one time and I certainly find myself changing lenses less frequently even when they are in my bag. Very often I will carry fewer, if any, and just "make do" with what I have on the body. Very simple and satisfying way to take photos. Having come from Nikons and zooms it is another world and one I am loving.
Regards
Richard
-
I had 24mm/50mm/85mm/180mm for SLR. For Leica M, I plan to replace 24mm with 28mm because I don't want the external finder, 90mm is the natural equivalent for the the 85mm, and anything beyond 135mm is not practical. I figured I could live with 35mm/f2 + 90mm/f2, but I'm so attempted to the 50mm. With 50mm, 35mm seems too close, so I'm planning the 28/50/90 set.
35/f2+90/f2 or 28/f2+50/f2+90/f2? Can't make up my mind.