Hello everyone, I am a new Leica owner and have fallen in love with the M6. Having read all the postings on this forum, I have been able to learn quite a lot from everyone. I currently have a two lens combination of 35/50. I mainly take travel/portraits/landscapes style shots (in fact, I usually tend to walk around with my camera and take shots as they appear to me). I too am thinking of getting a 90mm Elmarit to complete my outfit. My question is, how often do everyone on the forum use your 90mm lens?

How many photographic opportunaties will I miss by not having one with me?

-- Tommy Chung (dr_tommychung@hotmail.com), February 24, 2001

Answers

I use mine frequently; I have an M6 (pre-TTL) and use a 5 lens combo -- 15, 28, 35, and 90. The 90 is actually longer than you think, and produces definite telephoto effect, (ie compression and blurry backgrounds) that work very well for both portraits, and landscape/scenery stuff. I use the Elmarit, which has heft, but is economical in size. They seem easy to buy second hand (which is what I did) at, by Leica standards, resaonable prices. I say, go for it!

-- MARTIN DAVIDSON (MARTIN@FOXCOMBE1.DEMON.CO.UK), February 24, 2001.

I used to use mine all the time, though I'm using it much less now, probably because I'm shooting mostly people I know and feel OK about being right in their face. I think, however, that it's absolutely necessary to have one--but consider if you might want a fast one. With something longer I like to use a higher shutter speed in lower light situations, to keep camera shake at a minimum, and mine (which is an 85/1.5) gets used at f2 all the time. Canon made some nice 85s which are relatively cheap, if you're not sure--my thing when I'm not sure is to buy a cheaper lens than the Leica line and see how I feel about the focal length, first.

The other thing you might like to get soon is a "real" wide angle. The 25mm Voigtlander is cheap enough that you might buy it "just because", whereas you'd probably have to think hard about the considerably more expensive 24 Elmarit.

With the addition of those two lenses, you'd pretty much have a nice kit---I don't hear about too many people who habitually prefer a 135 on a Leica RF camera.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), February 24, 2001.

I once did a survey of five years work. Of the pictures that I considered successful, 96% were evenly divided between the 35mm and 50mm lenses, the other 4% was virtually all with 90-105mm, and only two pictures were made with something wider.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), February 24, 2001.

In my "typical" set-up of 35,40,90mm's, the 35 gets most of the use, especially for "street" shots. Next is the 50. My 90 'cron is used exclusively for portraits and rarely. It is a great lens though.

-- Jean-David Borges (jdborges@home.com), February 24, 2001.

oops! that "typical" should have been 35,50, 90... Sorry...

-- Jean-David Borges (jdborges@home.com), February 24, 2001.

Typing error, that should have read 35,50,90

-- Jean-David Borges (jdborges@home.com), February 24, 2001.

A few years ago Leica brought out a magazine called 'Leica-Magic Moments' devoted to the M series. Over 85% of the photos were take with the 35/50 the remaining 15% divided between everything else. The telephoto (really) is the domain of the SLR. Look at this way. For the new price of a 90 F2.8 M, you could buy a good USED R3/R4 with a 90mm Summicron. Exactly what I did and I still find it accounts for 10% of my photos. But when I want that tight, telephoto look, it is way easier with the groundglass of the SLR.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 24, 2001.

I would love to go back in time and have the hindsight from my Leica experience in the last dozen years. If I could, I would use the money that I have spent on my 90mm lens and put it towards either a 21mm or 24mm lens. At least 90% of my Leica M photography is covered by the 35mm and 50mm Summicrons. I have tried to love the 90mm lens, and it is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used, but I can't embrace it fully because of the handling. I won't reiterate all of the comments about balance and stability, (look through the old threads), but for me, I have arrived at the point where I believe the rangefinder camera "peaks" at the 50mm lens.

All of the attributes that made the Leica famous, stealthy profile, speed of use, intimate proximity, and viewing around the finder frame start to decline with the longer lenses. With the shorter lenses, the pictures just seem to happen. With the 90mm lens, it seems the process is expanded, resulting in less spontaneity.

I have started to drag an old Nikon FM2 around with me keeping a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor lens on it. The SLR is, I believe, at its best with the medium telephoto... it is still small, focusing is fast and composition is easier to accomplish than with the postage stamp sized frame in the M. I'm sure there are people that love the 90mm lens on the Leica, and I'll never sell mine, but since you asked, I use it very little. The money would have been better spent on something wider than the 35mm lens.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 24, 2001.

I have a 90mm and would not like to be without one but I must confess I seldom use it. 99.99% of my photography is with the 35mm lens. I also dislike changing lenses. I do not know why, wish I did, but once a lens is mounted, I tend to work the scene for that lens rather than mount another. Lazy, or not particularly bright, comes to mind but it is the way I am. When I want to use the 90mm, I mount it to another body. Fortunately the M cameras are small and light so it is easy to do.

Whether or not you miss photographic opportunities depends on how you see the world around you. Many famous photographers are associated with one focal length. Harvey and Frank with the 35mm and, of course, good old Bresson and the 50mm. You will have find out for yourself.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), February 24, 2001.

If I were to do a survey of photos I've taken over the years, it would change quite a bit depending on the period. There's a three year period where almost all I used were 21 and 85, about 3:1 , about six years that were entirely 28 and 50 4:1, the last year, which is about 60% 50 and balanced otherwise between 24 and 85. The two lenses which I've always owned which almost never show up in use are 135 and 35. I keep wanting to see what people like about the 35, but to me it gives just about the blandest point of view possible, and the only time I've ever used it is when I'm shooting something like a party or a wedding, for pay. Wide angles are incredibly popular in the journalism set, which is where my photo roots are. I haven't looked at a National Geographic lately, but I bet 24s dominate. I've always thought of 35/50/90 as the prototypical 50s lens set--mild and inoffensive, but not particularly interesting. Just me, of course.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), February 24, 2001.

I use it more on my M3 than on my CLE, (nice big frame line on the M3) and when you need to bring the subject in a bit closer, sometimes there is no substitute. I enjoy tight portraits, and the ability to focus one meter with a 90mm gives the highest magnification of any Leica M lens (comparable to the dual range at minimum focus)without any perspective distortion you'd get with the 50. I also use mine to isolate an interesting detail in a landscape. Maybe I'm not a wide angle type of guy, but I use my 90 more than my 25mm, and see very little use for anything wider.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 24, 2001.

I also do mostly travel/scenic with the M, and although I own a couple of 90's, it is the 135 that I would choose if it were my only telephoto. The 135 works just as well (or better) as a candid portrait lens, and it is more useful than the 90 for highlighting architectural details and isolating pieces of distant landscapes. I use an older accessory-shoe-type 135 bright-line finder to circumvent the M6's small 135 frame. Any of the 135's, right back to the 50's coated Hektors, are superb lenses. The Tele-Elmar and of course APO- Telyt are beyond superb. I think very often the popularity of a focal length is more a result of the psychological effect of the viewfinder frame size in the M than the pictorial usefulness. Witness that 35mm and 50mm are the #1 and #2 M lenses in terms of user preference, but not popular with SLR users, where the 85-100 range is often cited as the most popular.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 24, 2001.

I've owned 2 90's (a Summicron & Elmarit), did'nt use either very much and don't have either anymore. While the medium telephoto is my favorite perspective, I don't find them very useful w/ the Leica M. I find composition suffers because the framelines are small and there is no viewfinder magnification. But, the biggest issue for me is the impact the 90 (Summicron & Elmarit) has on handling. It really diminished the superb handling that made me love the Leica M so much to begin with. However, I'm considering the 75mm Voigtlander which is smaller, lighter, has a bigger frameline and (for my purposes) a more useful perspective when matched w/ the Leica M.

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), February 24, 2001.

With a one-body kit, 15/35/90 lenses, I use the 35 70% of the time and the other two are evenly split for the rest. I recently added a second body and a 24 to the kit, will probably go for a 50 as well soon, so it's getting more complicated to figure.

Circumstances and subject requirements have an effect. When I'm on travel, I like having the longer lens with me for those images which can only work well with it. I use the current series Elmarit-M 90/2.8 ... it's a stunningly good len and reasonably priced. I couldn't justify the price jump to the Summicron-M 90/2 APO for my use.

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), February 24, 2001.

I have the 21, 28, 35, 50, & 90 focal lengths. The 28, 35, & 50 get the most use. On a recent trip to New York City, I considered leaving the 90 home to save weight & space. I was glad I brought it, even though I only used it for maybe 5 shots out of 250 or so. The shots I used it for, were good ones, mostly architectural details. I ought to use it more, to simplify compositions & concentrate on the essentials. Mine is an Elmarit I bought new around 1960, not the current Elamrit-M. It is nevertheless tack-sharp.

Best Wishes,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 24, 2001.

I use a 50 most often on my M3, but I also use a 90 Summicron on a regular basis, especially for portraits. Much will depend on your individual shooting style.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 24, 2001.

Mike, really nice shot. Did you use a flash? Was it natural light? The color of her complexion, hair, scarf, windows, and jacket really make the shot. What kind of film?

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), February 24, 2001.

Thanks, Bob. It was all natural light on a thickly overcast day (no reflectors). It was shot on a roll of Ektachrome 100HC than had been stuck in the back of a freezer for about 7 or 8 years. I rated it at EI 160 and had it push processed one stop. I pushed it to further increase contrast and really bring out the textures of the various materials.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 24, 2001.

I use my 90 'cron M mostly. I like photography portraits and theater works. Cannot do without them. If I travel I will use my 21 and 35 more.

-- Kenny Chiu (amchiu@worldnet.att.net), February 24, 2001.

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. It seems like everyone has a 90mm and some use it more than others for various reasons. I better get to the shop and see how it handles for me.

Tommy.

-- Tommy Chung (dr_tommychung@hotmail.com), February 25, 2001.

As a member of a Leica Postal Portfolio I recorded the focal length of every lens used by each member for 1 complete year. 81% of the pics were taken with 50mm, 11% with 35mm, 6% with 90mm, and 2% other (mainly 135mm) Hope it gives you some clue.

-- Anthony Brookes (gdz00@btinternet.com), February 25, 2001.

I purchased a 90 f2 APO primarily for some indoor portrait/stage work, which is my my daughter at her guitar recitals -- hence the need for moderate focal length, f2, and a quiet camera. Ironically, in response to Al Smith's post above, I used my Nikon gear at the first recital and was embarassed by its noise and the associated terse looks I got from the instructor! This experience was one of the reasons I got started shooting with the M -- I needed something quieter than my Nikon! Tommy, you stated "I mainly take travel/portraits/landscapes style shots..." I use my 35 and 50 a lot for travel, as well as a 24. The 24 is also a great landscape lens. To answer your question, the 90 really only gets used for portrait and candid work. If I could only have three lenses, and wanted to do travel/portraits/landscapes, I think I would keep a 24/35/90 combo over a 35/50/90 combo -- but then again, for travel, the 24/35/50 combo is tough to beat. Hope this helps!

Jack

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 25, 2001.

I use the 90 relatively infrequently, maybe 1 in 10 shots, if that, although it has cost me the most, as I have upgraded to a .85 body for the better viewfinder, and sprung the bucks for a brightline finder.

The 50 is my favourite, by far, serving as my primary environmental and non environmental portrait lens. If had a 75 (which I've borrowed and used quite a bit), I can see working with the 75 over the 90, which is really a head and shoulders, and loose head-shot lens. But the quality of the Elmarit is phenomenal.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 26, 2001.

I find this interesting - 30 years or even 20 years ago the answers would have been different, I wager, with many more people weighing in for the longer lenses and fewer wide angle devotees. The M3 frame lines speak volumes for what people liked back in 1954, but now there are super wides everywhere. Partly this of course is due to the increasing availability of these types of lenses. I find the current interest in super wides less interesting. I have a 21mm but rarely use it, and I consider the 50/90 combination to be superbly useful for most of the time. 28mm is about as wide as I go. Also the whole concept of the ultra-wideangle as being good for landscapes strikes me as a generalization that is not all that helpful. Many landscapes, in my opinion, benefit from selecting details rather than necessarily "including everything". So I consider the short telephoto an essential landscape lens too. I think you should seriously consider the 90mm lens. I am also surprised that so many M users want to add a separate viewfinder which seems to me to be an ergonomically undesirable option.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 26, 2001.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks ultrawides aren't the greatest landscape lenses. I own 15mm and 21mm for Leica M, plus 17mm (Tamron SP) and 21mm for Leica R, and use them primarily for shooting narrow streets and interiors. I also find the 28mm the widest I'm comfortable with in landscapes, and for this reason the widest I own in Hasselblad is the 50. I like landscapes that portray a scene the way the human eye sees it, and less than 28mm the spatial proportions smack of wide angle use no matter how carefully you set up the shot. Using telephotos in landscapes would seem to violate this precept, but in fact the brain can unconsciously "select and crop" a visual image in much the same way, and 90-135mm don't compress the way 180 and longer do. As for using a bright-line finder for 90/135 on an M, it is a hindrance in street shooting, but for landscapes, which is a slower pursuit, the BL finder does more good than harm.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 26, 2001.

I have the 90 mm APO and although I don't use it as much as the 35 or 50, I will never part with it. When a longer focal lgth is needed, the 90 APO delivers! Tack sharp and light weight. IMO it seems to be easier to use on the 0.85 than the 0.58. I feel that I have the best all-round setup with the focal lgths listed above.

-- Don M (maldos@home.com), February 26, 2001.

If you don't have a 90 then you're not missing any shots. You'll only miss the shots if you have the lens. New lens/more film?

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 26, 2001.

Ahh, I love focal length discussion. I will point out immediately that I am a nikon SLR user, however, I feel these comments may apply. My kit comprises of 24/50/55micro/85/105/180. When I work out my previsualized compositions, then I find that the 55 sees most use, with the 50 close behind. the 85 next, then the 105. The 24 and 180 see little use for planned shots. For spontaneous shooting, the 24 and 105 take care of almost everything, with either the 50 or 55 in a pocket.

IMHO, those who consistently compose well find themselves gravitating towards normal focal lengths.

If I were more journalistic, I would demand leica's superior wide- angle performance. For planned shots, normal to short tele's will usually do the trick. There are always going to be occasions where this may not ring true, but on the whole, that's how I feel.

If I were trying to keep my load light and quiet, go for the 90.

But I would second the recommendation of an fm+105. Inexpensive, fairly lightweight, DOF preview sure is cool, and focusing is easy. Darn sharp lens too. Same for AI and later 85's.

Hope this maybe stirs some thought.

-- Mike DeVoe (karma77@att.net), February 27, 2001.

"IMHO, those who consistently compose well find themselves gravitating towards normal focal lengths."

I think the definition of normal has changed over the years and now tends to mean a 35 more than a 50. As for good composition, who knows! Certainly, the big names of the past tended to use 50's a lot, but lenses and fashions change.

I have used the 24/35 combo about in the ratios 40%/60%. I recently bought a 90 and will be interested to see how much use it gets. Probably depends more on the subject than anything else, I could see using it exclusively for certain projects. I think it'll be a specialist lens for me, though. I like to be (and am often forced to be) very close to my subjects and the wide angles are best for that.

Rob.

-- Robert Appleby (laintal@tin.it), February 27, 2001.

I don't keep up with hardware stuff so forgive me if I get the focal lengths wrong.

I mostly photograph nature. The Leica that I carry is an M3. I have a tele-elmarit 90 f/2.8 which looks nearly new. Nice size and produces great photographs. It looks nearly new because I seldom use it. I mostly use the 50 f/2 and the 35 f/2. Yes, I have adjusted to the lack of finder lines.

When I want medium telephoto I use my F2 [prism] with either the 85 f/2 or 105 f2.5. Both are good. They are different than the Leica lenses, and the film choice is important [we are talking about color film here]. I also use one of my Nikons for wider stuff. I have a 28, 24, 20, and a 15. The 24 fits my vision the best. If I really want to isolate something important. I use my 8 x 10 with a 300. It is all a matter of what you want to do.

In 35 mm, I have found that you need to know the film, the lens and the lighting to know which combination to choose. But that is just my experience. Yours may be different because I am sure that you have more experience than I do.

Art

-- Art Karr (AKarr90975@aol.com), February 27, 2001.

One note that I forgot to mention. I spent many years living in the Rockies and the Pacific Northwest. When I was there, in the mountains, I used more telephoto. Since I moved to the middle of the country, I am more of a wide angle person.

Maybe the way I see things.

Art

-- Art Karr (AKarr90975@aol.com), February 27, 2001.

I would have to agree with the fact that "normal" means something different today than it did 50 years ago. I consider 43mm dead normal for 35mm film. 35mm is 8mm short, the 50mm is 7mm over. Despite, I still would prefer a 35 for a normal. I know I can go out and get one for the Nikon, but I condider my kit "basic" and chose only one wide. I have access to a 35/2.8, but I prefer not to use it, as it's user recently passed away. I firmly believe wide is the rangefinder's forte, and for this reason, I'll wait to put a 35/2 on a Leica, where I'm certain it will entertain me for quite some time.

But I would probably never consider a 90.

-- Mike DeVoe (karma77@att.net), February 28, 2001.

I'm in the Leica world since two years ago only but have been making pictures with Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Nikon, Yashica for over 15 years so far and in my experience the 90 mm Elmar 1:4 in my M3 bodies is one of the lenses I have liked the better ever, save the relatively low speed. However I asume that the lens one uses is mainly a matter of the kind of photography one makes and a personal style issue too. I have noticed that making pictures with my M3's has changed (improved in fact) my results. I asume it is at least partially due to the fact that working with rangefinders makes you think more about what you want in your image and the way you will make it happen and in that process the lenses I have used the most are the 50 mm 1:2 Summicron and the said 90 mm. I also own a 35 mm and a 135 mm but the first two make perhaps 75% of my images being the 135 mm the least used one. My preferred subjects are portraits, street scenes and architectural details which might explain the proportion of time I use the 90 mm lens so I insist that the use you make of it is mainly dependent upon your personal style and subject choice but still the Elmar 90 mm is a nice and excelent lens on its own right. Regards and enjoy your work.

-- Ivan Barrientos (ivanbarrientos@simltda.tie.cl), March 19, 2001.