A belated thank you to everyone who replied to my question on meters for the M3. Very helpful - I think I'll stick to a separate one. I would like to get a wideangle to complement my 5cm and 13.5cm. Main use: travel and scenics. My choices are: 1) The old 3.5 Summaron with specs. Quite affordable, not so fast of course, but how does it stack up? 2) Old or new Summicron with separate finder. How much better? 3) New Voigtlander with adapter ring. The 15mm might be useful for buildings and interiors, otherwise 25mm. I must admit my initial preference is to stick with original Leica. I would welcome people's thoughts on th

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), October 28, 2000

Answers

An interesting sidebar: the 35mm lenses with "specs" show exactly 100% of the field of view at working distances, which is important if you're using a W.A. to cover a certain large area or number of people. My first series Summicron is a superb performer, even wide open, with that "Leica Look." The Summilux is definitely soft wide open, but if you need f:1.4 it's there. The 3.5 Summaron isn't quite as razor sharp as the Summicron at the edges, even stopped down. I've never had a 2.8 Summiron but recall that Modern rated it level with the Summilux. If I ever have to do it again, I'll pay the extra and get another 'Cron with 'specs.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 28, 2000.

You're asking a question for which the answer is extremely personal. However, that won't stop me from giving mine :-)

I've gone through all of these questions in the following year. Here's the trip I took. . . . I got a M4-2 with a 50, and that was fine--generally the 50 is one of my favorite lenses. The second lens I got was an old 85, for portrait-type stuff, which I do a lot of, but not on the spur of the moment, which is good because it's solid brass and glass, and too heavy to lug around. But I really wanted/like best wideangles, so I thought since the last time I bought any camera gear was in about 1978 and there weren't that many wide-wides at the time, I'd get the 15mm Voigtlanter. Wrong choice: a very nice lens, quite small and sharp, but just TOO wide--put anything near the edges and it really gets dragged out of shape (a real, and BIG problem), which makes it useful only for a certain kind of photo with a central center of interest and nothing around the edges that can get too disturbing. So that one, nice as it is, hardly ever gets used. Nice to have, though, expecially shooting interiors for a real estate friend.

Next, I thought that though I'd never cared for the 35mm length, it might make a nice wide lens, so I got one--the 35/1.7 Voigtlander, since it seemed like the most for the money. Haven't used it for two pix--just not enough difference from 50mm, which length I prefer.

OK, now I'm getting a little nervous and down, having spend $1000 for lenses I don't use, and I still don't have a day-to-day wide angle. Perhaps if I'd started with this thought, I would have just bought the 24mm Elmarit, which is supposed to be a wonderful lens on all counts (except size, in my opinion) and smack between my two favorite lenses of the past, 21 on my OM-1, no longer used, and 28 on the Leica (sold long ago, BIG mistake). But now I don't have that kind of $$$$ to drop on one, if, indeed, I ever had it, so two weeks ago I got the 25mm Voigtlander. Should have done it in the first place. I can estimate distances fine, so that's not a problem, and the overall quality of the lens is great except for wide open at the edges, and I just can't justify $1500 for one stop faster. The length is perfect. When I reflect on how cheap it was, in comparison, I should have done it first. My one real fear: lack of focus coupling has turned out to be a non-issue, even though most of my favorite pix have been at f/4.

Since you have a 50 and a 135, I'd say big jumps don't bother you (I prefer a series of 2X changes, myself) so you should try the 25 Voigtlander. It's certainly the cheapest option for a good modern lens, will show a definite difference from the 50, and is, in general a pretty good length. These days all I'm carrying is the 50 and the 25. If I REALLY needed the money I'd be offering the 35 for sale, since it's proven itself to be completely useless for me.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

I have used a whole bunch of wides with my M3, and here is the run down from my experience.

the 35 f3.5 Summaron with eyes: Compact, sharp when stopped down to f8 to f22. great for landscapes. Not good for low light shooting. All the lenses with eyes have the advantage of close focusing better than regular non-eyes lenses. I thought this was a really nice lens until I got a chance to try the 2.8 version that was highly praised by Leica optics man Bill Maxwell.

The 35 f2.8 Summaraon with eyes: This lens knocked my socks off. It is at least as good as the 40mm Summicron I've used, which is one of the best lenses I've evr shot with. Similar 6 element design to the 40mm. Beautifully made. It is excellent in the center even wide open, making it useful at f2.8. By f4.0 and 5.6. it is as good as any lens I have ever used. Others at the LUG site have said they can't tell the difference from 5.6 down between this lens and the aspherical f2.0 current Summicron. A real sleeper, My recomendation for best 35 for the price for an M3.

The 35 f2.0 Summicron with eyes is also very nice, but the collectors have driven the price up.

The current 35 is of course exceptional, but expensive and requires an expensive finder as well for use on the M3.

I also have the 25 Voigtlander, and it is great for outdoor landscapes, but not that useful for any kind of low light use.

The new 28f1.9 Voigtlander lens is also interesting, but again will require a seperate finder, and as of right now, hasn't been reviewed yet.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), October 29, 2000.

The possibilities are endless. I agree with Andrew in that I was surprised by the quality of the f2.8 Summaron with eyes. In most good lighting, it is more than adequate. I have my own prejudice against the eyes, but that is personal. Incidentally, a lot of people don't know, but you can mount the eye'd lens on any Leica M, and it will still work. It will bring up the 50mm frame and the optics will increase the angle of view. I mention this so as an M3 user, you could get a second body, (M2, M4 or M6), and use the same glass.

One other thing. Take a look at the Voigtlander lens user report in this thread. There is a photographer named Mahesh who posted a site with his photos taken with the 35mm f1.7 handheld... many in low available light. The results are excellent, so this might be another way to go... the chrome Voightlander has that old Leica look.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), October 29, 2000.

One other thing. Take a look at the Voigtlander lens user report in this thread. There is a photographer named Mahesh who posted a site with his photos taken with the 35mm f1.7 handheld... many in low available light. The results are excellent, so this might be another way to go... the chrome Voightlander has that old Leica look.

I can't find this thread or this site- can you point to it for us?

Thanks,

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

I've had excellent results with a Canon 35mm f/2 lens. Others on the LUG have mentioned that they thought that this was the best 35mm screwmount lens that Canon ever made, and Steve Gandy on his CameraQuest site has a similar opinion. It's virtually indestingusable from the 35mm f/2 Summicrons made at the same time.

If you want a small, fast lens, this is the way to go. I use it on my M3 with ease, just using the entire viewfinder, and a bit of guessing (It helps to know that a 35mm lense's vertical angle is about equal to a 50mm's horizontal angle). Haven't missed the framing yet.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), October 31, 2000.

Tse-Sung Wu,

I have copied the post from the thread to here:

Here are some pictures taken with the Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 lens, on a Bessa R. All shots were handheld: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=63145

Regards

-- Mahesh Venkitachalam (mvenkit@hotmail.com), October 28, 2000.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), October 31, 2000.

David

Why not get a 28mm? They offer significant perspective change to the 50mm. In my opinion having a 35 and a 50 is a bit pointless in the same kit - they are so similar. Also Leica have made 28mm for years in M-mount so there are a good many of them available (unlike the 24mm), and they are less expensive than the too-wide 21mm. I would worry about the Voigtlander 25mm a bit when I hear that it is not good inthe corners at full aperture - it is only f4! There is also the 28mm Rokkor-M too which is a "budget" version.

For what it is worth I had a 2.8 Summaron 35 (sans eyes) for my M3 once and I agree with the others that it is a great lens. I had no complaints performance or price wise. Still I always wished it was a 28mm.

-- Robin Smith (rsmith@springer-ny.com), November 03, 2000.

David, If you get anything wider than a 28mm, you will probably experience a sort of "hole in the middle," or gap, between it and your 50. then you would feel the need to fill in the gap with another wideangle lens. I feel that 24-35-50 makes a good progression. And 24mm is wide enough so as to seldom need anything wider. I agree with everyone who gave high marks to the 35mm Summaron.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@juno.com), November 24, 2000.