I asked this question on the LUG, and thought I might as well post it here, too:

Hi All

I'm new on LUG and looking for some advice. I currently own a Contax G2 outfit with which I've never been completely satisfied. I often use the G's 90 lens wide open and up close, and I find the AF is sometimes taxed beyond its limit. The G's "return to infinity, then refocus for each shot" mechanism is also really annoying. I will admit that I've been spoiled by the quality of the Zeiss lenses, though, and would be dissatisfied with any of lesser quality after getting used to Zeiss quality.

So I've decided to get an M6 35-50-90 outfit. I've done a little reading (and lurking), and have settled on the 90 2.8 Elmarit-M. My choices for 50 and 35 are still open. My question is what are the best 35 and 50 lenses for about $800 or less, used, in nice, clean condition. My inclination is to buy a pre-asph 35 Summicron, and a recent model 50 Summicron with detachable hood, as Steven Gandy suggests. I would appreciate any thoughts or input.

How do the Cosina 35 1.7 and 50 1.5 lenses compare with the Leica lenses mentioned above? I know this might be heresy, but can't resist asking.

Finally, are there any current or former Contax G users out there who would care to comment on switching to Leica, or adding Leica to their "arsenal."

Thanks in advance

John Holcomb

-- John Holcomb (jholcomb@one.net), March 18, 2001

Answers

I would seriously consider dropping the 50 for now and just going with the 35/2 Asph and the 90. The 50 is a wonderful lens but that 35 Asph is magnificent. You could always get a 50 latter on when the piggy bank has recovered.

-- matt veld (mahv@xtra.co.nz), March 19, 2001.

It seems to me, though, that there have been two or three opinions posted to the effect that the pre-asph 35mm lenses have better bokeh. Personally, I am very happy with my chrome first-version 35mm Summicron--the eight element design. Evenn if I bought an asph, I wouldn't give up mine. Experience has taught me not to part with any Leica lenses I like, even if the new purchase is expected to be better, because they all have their uses.

The selection of focal lengths you are contemplating should be very useful. I Also like my 28mm because I can use it without an accessory finder. The Summicrons are a good choice for the 35 and 50, but the best 90 is the Elmarit f/2.8, unless you need that extra stop.

Enjoy!

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 19, 2001.

If you're not planning to use a 28 lens, you may want to consider a .85 M6 rather than the standard .72 model; the increased finder magnification will make framing and focusing the 90 a bit easier.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), March 19, 2001.

If you are going to be shooting a lot with the 90, I strongly recommend you look at the .85 M6, rather than the regular version.

The 90 frameline is really large enough to be usable in the .85, as opposed to the .72 body, where using the 90 framelines, smaller looking in size, involves some guesswork on your part. Also, in the .85 the 90 frameline pops up in isolation, making portraiture especially easy and fluid.

Unlike your Contax, the viewfinder does not zoom to provide a larger image, so this is an issue.

An alternative would be to get a supplementary brightline viewfinder, which offers a life size, bright as real life view. A Cosina version will cost you about $120, an old Leica brightline in good condition about $250. But they are less practical for wide open photography of moving subjects where critical refocusing is a constant necessity.

If you wear glasses, on the other hand and if you do wide angle 35mm lens photography a lot, the .85 body is not really very usable because the framelines are at the extremes of your visual field in the viewfinder (come to think of it, this is the situation always in the Contax).

In terms of the 50 versus the 35, the 35/2 Asph is simply fantastic, while the 50 Summicron is, well, simply fantastic ;-)

My approach would be to get the 50 Summicron only for the body, and get the other lenses later, once you've had some practice. The 50 is what the M series is optimized for IMHO.

Do get the next to latest version (same as the latest optically) with the detachable hood, and more importantly, a focusing tab. You will be glad for the tab...

Regarding prices for used, less than $800 is easily achievable for both the 35 and 50 Summicrons, and you should be able to hunt down an Asph 35 Summicron for slightly more.

Do check out the prices here too

www.deltainternational.com

They have had good reviews here...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 19, 2001.

The Voigtlander lenses are BIG--too big. I like your plan A, as stated. Personally, I've got no use for a 35, but a lot of people like it. Certainly the 50 and 90 are a good idea--I'd add a 28, myself.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 19, 2001.

You've already got a terrific camera with great lenses. Changing cameras won't cure your problems. Learn to use the one you've got before making the ego trip to Leica.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), March 19, 2001.

John:

The 35/50/90 will certainly serve you well. You mentioned you currently shoot "wide open". As stated earlier, the 35 asph is a superb optic, and its main advantage over its predecessor is its sharpness and flare control at f2 and 2.8... you won't be sorry you chose it if you shoot at those aperatures often. The asph can generally be had used for just a few hundred more than the non-asph. If money is an issue, I would suggest as Matt did, that you drop the 50 for now, or get an older summicron. As for a 90, the elmarit is a great choice. The Tele-elmarit can be had a little cheaper, is very compact, and is also a very good optic. But again, if you shoot "wide open" a lot, perhaps the 90 APO asph is worth considering for its extra stop -- but a bunch more money, too!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 19, 2001.

Uh, Bill - the problems that he has with the G2 are a direct result of the AF design of the G cameras. Changing to another camera that doesn't have that design will cure those problems - that's axiomatic. No amount of "learning" on the part of the photographer will make the AF behave differently.

As to the question - I think the advice to go with a 35 Summicron ASPH and a 90 Elmarit-M (and wait for the 50) is very good. I'm less agreeable with the idea of a .85 for use with a 35mm lens. I wear reasonably thin glasses and wouldn't even consider that approach.

I'm frankly in love with the .58 finder (I shoot mostly 28, 35 and 50), and I use the .85 only for 75mm lenses and up. IMO the regular .72 magnification makes the best all-around finder for 35 to 90mm lenses - that's why it's been in production so long.

I've never used Cosina lenses, but the consensus I've read indicates that the Nokton is sharper than the 50 Summilux-M, but with harsher bokeh (which doesn't matter to a lot of people). Check Erwin Puts' web site for some reasonably objective reviews:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/indexj.html

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), March 19, 2001.

I made the journey from a Leica M4-P with 28/50/90 lenses to Contax G2+ 16/28/45/90 and back again to M6TTL+15/35/90 lenses. I just like the way the Leica works better, it suits me better. Recently acquired an M4-P body and 24/50 lenses too. I now have more gear than I need... !!

I'm into buying my lenses new or near-new whenever I can because I intend to be using them for many many years and like the latest optical formulas.

35/50/90 is a good lens kit if that's what you like. I have the Elmarit-M 90/2.8 ... it's a fantastically sharp lens with beautiful imaging character. The 35/2 ASPH is also just about the best 35mm lens I've ever used. Some people like the 'roundness' of the pre-ASPH lens, but the 35/2 ASPH is beautiful too, and super sharp corner to corner at virtually all apertures. Since I tend to shoot on the wide side, I'd pick those two and wait on a 50.

When I was looking into 50s (for a short tele lens in my hands :), I looked at the Elmar-M 2.8, the Summicron-M 50/2 and Summilux-M 50/1.4. The Elmar was appealing for it's compactness, but I found the focusing ring awkward and it wasn't all *that* compact. The 'Lux was much more expensive and heavy, many people suggested that the 'Cron was superior. I'd had the previous series 50/2 with the separate hood and found I like the tab-less, built-in hood current version more. It's a lovely lens, very much a classic.

The Voigtländer Nokton 50/1.5 might actually be slightly better than the 'Lux in sharpness, but I wasn't thrilled with the feel of it. It's certainly a great deal and will do you well if you go that way. I just decided that I liked the Leica lenses for their construction quality and feel much more. My only V lens is the Heliar 15, which is a fine performer and the only choice in an ultrawide of that focal length class (barring the V 12mm!!). It's also very reasonably priced as well, good for a lens that you don't use as often as others.

I used the Contax G2 kit for two years and got a lot of fine photographs with it. But at the end of the day, I found I just wasn't particularly thrilled with the ergonomics, they conflicted with how I like to use a camera, and didn't use all the fancy features it has very much. The Leica M is simpler and easier for me to use despite having no automation or anything fancy. Funny how that happens. It's just too bad that it costs twice as much for a body and 3x to 4x as much for a lens.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), March 19, 2001.

Hello John, I am a Leica newbie. With all due respect for the thoughtful comments from those more experienced, I'll offer my thoughts as I am in the same process are you. I presently have an M6TTL 0.58 viewfinder and a 50mm Summicron lens.

First, buy the lenses you will ulitimately want the first go around. You are talking about a bag full of gear from the start, but I suggest to you that you take the assets you have and buy as much of what you will ultimately want, rather than getting something less, and then churning equipment later. I know people churn equipment, but to me, a Leica purchase is forever, and you should get exactly what you want, don't rationalize to the point where you get less than you want/need. You'll just spend more in the long run.

Having said that, I'll offer the following comments.

1) If you shoot wide open often, as you mentioned, get an f1.4 lens as one in your kit. (I suggest the 50 Summilux in your case.

2) If you are going to shoot with a 35mm lens, get the 0.58 finder. Glasses or not, the 0.58 is much better with the 35mm than the 0.72 (the 0.85 is hopeless at this focal length). With the 0.58, the 35mmm framlines are all comfortably visible, with some surrounding, out-of-frame area as well. The out-of-frame area is improtant to Leica handling. With the 0.72, the 35mm frameline is visible (without glasses) but you have to get your eye carefully aligned with the finder axis, and close to the finder pupil to realize the best view. In quick shooting situations, you often don't have the time to do that. With the 0.58, your first view though the finder will reveal the whole 35mm frame line That's a real advantage. The 50mm frameline is perfectly adequate with the 0.58, and I frankly don't see the big issue with the 90mm frame line in the 0.58. However, I do think the 0.85 would be a superior second body that could be used with the 90mm and sometimes the 50mm.

3) I would suggest you go with a 35mm ASPH Summicron, a 50mm Summilux and the 90mm Elmarit. That will give you the great street performance of the little 35mm, the extra stop for low light with the 50, and the landscape/portrait capability with the 90.

The other choice might be swapping to the 'lux 35mm and the 'cron 50. And, maybe the 90 'cron ASPH.

Again, I suggest you buy what you can afford now, and add the others as you scrape the cash together. That will give you time to get comfortable with each lens as you go forward.

Good luck, and let us know how it goes for you.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 19, 2001.

There are a lot of things I liked about the Contax G2, but disliked the same things mentioned here, and never bought it. I also agree that for glasses-wearers, the 0.58 finder is the best for shorter lenses...including the 90mm, because at long distances the 75mm frame actually shows a better view of what the 90 will give you on film. The best features (electronic shutter, faster sync speed, AE with lock, built-in motor wind/rewind)of the G2, plus the 0.58 finder, are all found in the Konica Hexar RF, which is why I never considered buying the M6 0.58. Since I got mine, my M6's are seeing less and less use. Eventually I may get another Hexar body. For lenses, I use only Leica except the 15mm. I've been around and around with many lenses of different generations and speeds. Currently I'm happiest with a Tri-Elmar, 35/1.4 ASPH and 90 Elmarit, with 15 Heliar, 21 ASPH and 135 APO-Telyt (a mistake, it was a waste spending the money over my late-model Tele-Elmar)filling in the gaps once in a while. As great a lens as the 50/2 is, and I have a three of them of various generations, I just don't use it now that the Tri-Elmar is around.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 19, 2001.

John...

My suggestion would be be the 90/2.8 and a pre-ASPH 35/2. A great two- lens combination.

-- David Cunningham (dcunningham@attglobal.net), March 19, 2001.

Hi John,

I had a complete Contax system consisting of A. G2 21, 35, 90 mm lenses. I sold the lot and purchased a fair amount of Leica M gear. I loved the Contax and the lenses but I just couldn't get used to trusting the camera's auto focus, especially the 90 mm. After 2 years of use, mainly travel, I got tired of looking through film only to find pictures out of focus when they shouldn't be. I sent the lenses and camera back to Contax for a check up and they did some adjustments but the problem never went away. Since I purchased the Leica system I don't have to worry about out of focus pictures unless I make a mistake. The M series is the best rangefinder camera I've ever used and I'm happy I made the switch. Hopefully you will find this helpful. T. Gallagher

-- T. Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), March 19, 2001.

I'll have to disagree with the comment that the .58x viewfinder is preferable for the 35mm focal length. It's a personal thing, but I bought the .72x because it was just right for the 35mm and my use, and works very well with the 90 as well. The .58x viewfinder is one of the reasons I don't like the Hexar-RF ... the magnification is too low for me. I have no trouble seeing the entire 35mm frame with my glasses on (not so the 28mm frames).

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), March 19, 2001.

Rather than worrying about the lenses so much, i would concentrate on looking....

-- grant (g4lamos@yahoo.com), March 19, 2001.

I had a Contax G1 w/ 28, 45 & 90mm lenses. I too loved the quality of the lenses, but was extremely dissatisfied when the AF failed to 'bring home the bacon'. One of the best photographs I ever made was ruined by the camera's failure to focus properly. I've sold the system since and have recently started using a Leica M again.

I'm currently using an M6TTL w/ current version of the 50mm Summicron. Unlike most, I actually prefer the current version w/out focusing tab, or detachable lens hood. I've also used previous versions of the 35 & 90 Summicrons, as well as the current version of the 90 Elmarit. The 35/90 is a hard 2 lens combo to beat, but if you can afford to add the 50 you may be happier w/ the 3 lens system. I find the 50 has the easiest of the framelines to use. The 50's also a great lens for enviornmental portraits, which is 'my cup of tea'.

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), March 19, 2001.

John, You have received some very good advice, the best from Bill Mitchell. Stop dithering, you have a camera that is more then capably. Brian Tompkins.

-- Brian Tompkins (AnnTompkins@btinternet.com), March 22, 2001.

I really find the implication of Brian and Bill that I don't know how to focus my AF camera quite rude. After all, you don't know me, don't know that I have been photographing for over 20 years with varied and sundry equipment, and have never seen my pics.

Are you guys Leica users? If so, why shouldn't others have the same quality equipment which you yourself enjoy? If not, you should refrain from posting unless you have something useful to say.

-- John Holcomb (jholcomb@one.net), March 22, 2001.

John; I havenīt seen results working on any Contax G, but I did handle one few months ago, and found the finder to be dificult to use, hard to see through,so small,unless you put your eye in exactly the rigth position, and the finder distorts, and you donīt see out of the frame, well yes it is not a Leica, after that I didnīt wanted to know more, we all know of the quality of itīs optics but thatīs not all in any camera.

-- R. Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 22, 2001.

I've used both Leica and Contax and found the focussing (like so many others) to be a hit or miss affair too often with the Contax. For those who jump to the Contax's defense (some quite vigorously) I would mention that over and over, by many qualified users, the focussing of the Contax has been questioned........yet one never sees the focus ability of an M camera questioned. For certain application the Contax works well, and is very nicely made. But with an M, you KNOW if the shot is in focus or not. With a Contax you get to wait until your film is processed. There is a difference!

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 22, 2001.

This may be after the fact. I approve your lens choices.

I recently may the switch from G myself - never had a problem with the mechanics, actually, but hated how the Zeisses interacted with Velvia. Leitz glass (yeah, most my stuff is so old it says 'Leitz') is much more delicate in how it lays down the image on film.

Expect some culture shock - you're going from an auto-everything camera that showed you 28 and 35 frames that you could actually see, and gave you life-sized viewing with a 90 - to an auto-nothing camera where the 28 and 35 frames are out in your peripheral vision and the 90 frame is a distant box in the middle of the finder and you have to surgically insert the film through the bottom!

(Leica folks sit down and shut up for a second - this is a private counseling session between recovering Zeiss addicts!! OK???? )

Some tips.

1. Loading film - the watch words are "trust but verify". Best trick I've discovered: bend back the first 1/4 inch of the film leader AWAY from the emulsion and MORE than 90 degrees. Slide the film leader into two of the slots of the takeup spool so that it runs in one side and out the other and the bent part "hooks" back around one of the spool splines. And then WATCH IT as you make the first wind to make sure it get trapped under th incoming film. Then you can feel pretty safe. If you don't do this you WILL eventually find yourself stuck at frame 6 as the film wind goes "gratch-gratch-gratch" because the film came off the spool and the sprockets and isn't winding anymore.

2. If you really find yourself getting withdrawal symptoms from the G- cameras' features, consider a Hexar RF as a 2nd body. As Jay and others mentioned, it is basically a G2 minus the high speed motor and multi-exposure, and with Leica M focusing and a beautiful wide-angle finder with easy-to-see 35 and 28 frames. (Some people have issues with the Hexar - see Hexar strings on this website for details. I have some issues with mine - but still use it as much as my Leica!!)

3. Zeiss puts all of it's MTF into contrast - Leica puts some into contrast and some into extra resolution. At first glance your Leica images will look soft compared to the Planars and Sonnars. In reality the sharpness will be essentially identical for the focal-lengths/ speeds/models you've chosen, and in addition the Leicas are giving you much smoother tonal gradations. That 3D effect you got in the Zeisses from CAPITAL-C CONTRAST will come in the Leicas from sharp edges and soft backgrounds. I won't spend a lot of time on it here, but you've never really understood the term 'Bokeh" until you've seen a shot with a 1981 Summicron 35 at f/2!!

4. Focusing with a 90. Again the watch words are "Trust but Verify". Even my M4-2 occasionally misfocuses with the 90 (OK, OK, I mean I occasionally misfocus my M4-2 with the 90) There is a black hole out there between about 60 feet and "effective infinity" (200 feet) where the accuracy of a rangefinder just slips outside the available depth of field for a telephoto wide open (I have an f/2 which makes it even trickier) But even at closer distances there are times when I KNOW the images were lined up and - "poof" - the focus is out by 10-20%. Just remember to take extra care with the long lens, because it CAN bite.

I've tried the 15-25 voightlander lenses. My impression is that they are a) colder than Leica lenses and b) not quite as sharp/tonally sophisticated, but extremely usable and very sweet compared to SLR lenses: An "A" to Leica's A+ and Nikon's A-/B+.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me as well as ask 'em here.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 04, 2001.

Andy Piper wrote,

"...but you've never really understood the term 'Bokeh" until you've seen a shot with a 1981 Summicron 35 at f/2!!"

Agreed!!! If I could find ISO 5 film, I'd glue my aperture ring to f/2.0. I will never "upgrade" to a newer lens. I have sharper 35mm lenses, but none produce better photos. Depending on the subject, the background can occupy 50-75% of the photo, so how it looks can be very important to the overall effect.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 04, 2001.

Andy, do you know if I can use a 21/3.4 SA on a Hexsar body, and still have ligth measuring?

-- watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 05, 2001.

John, consider the system I currently have. M4-P, voightlander 15, 35 1.4 summilux (pre-asph) and 75 1.4 summilux. I know everyone talks up the asph cron and lux lenses but I would'nt give up my 80's vintage 35 for anything. It just has more charachter and a better bokeh. And it is super sharp but more of a resolution sharpness as opposed to a acute sharpness. This really helps tonal gradations in B&W. The 75 is by far the sharpest non macro lens in 35mm photography. I do head shots and album covers with that lens and people think I shot them on 2 1/4. It's also a good one lens comprimise between the 50 and 90. Long enough for portraits but fast enough to really be a viable low light lens. I will warn you though it's heavy! Although lighter than the 50 and 90 together. And if you look hard enoug, you should be able to find a reasonable specimen of both lenses for abou the same as the other three.

-- Evin Grant (evinsky@image-in.com), May 30, 2001.