I am trying to decide which lenses to buy to complete my kit. Currently, I have a Tri Elmar, 50 Summicron, and 90 Elmarit. I’m saving for a 35 ASPH Summilux. The other two choices under consideration are as follows:

1. Buy either the 15 or 21 Voigtlander. (Voigtlander’s because I don’t anticipate using them as much.) My thinking is that the 15 would be more fun and better for capturing dramatic interiors while traveling, but I have read that it can be hard to use. Maybe the 21 would be used more? I have no experience with either. I’d like to hear some pros and cons of both focal lengths.

2. Since the 50 ‘cron duplicates a focal length on the 3E, sell it and put the money towards the 35 ‘lux or find a clean 50 DR with eyes for close up shots? Do neither and keep it? What would you do and why?

Feel free to mention other options you would prefer.

Thanks!

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), April 13, 2001

Answers

I loved the DR when I had one, but it is a heavy lens and doesn't focus that much closer than a current 50, so I can't see that much of an advantage in making the switch. Remember, when that lens came out, the standard 50mm lens could only focus to 1 meter, so it was a very big close focusing improvement at that time. The other problem with the DR is that they are getting old now and many have or will likeley develope internal coating failure problems like mine did (the dreaded Leica fog). As far as the wides go, for interiors the 15 is a lot of fun (I've borrowed one once) and is so small it almost takes up no space in a bag. I find I take very few pictures where I want wider than the 25 I have, but have seen some nicely done images with both the 15 and 21mm focal lengths. Hey, the Voigtlander lenses are reletively inexpensive and also very easy to sell used for 80 to 90% of the discounted new price, so maybe you can get both and unload the one you find your not using much.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 13, 2001.

I personally would not sell the 50mm Summicron until I actually had the 35mm Summilux in my possession, or until the money acquired from the sale would equal the amount required to buy it. There will always be a time when f/4.0 is just not fast enough, and the f/2.0 of the 'cron can save the day. Additionally, I would imagine for those times when absolute photographic quality is more important than convenience of multiple focal lengths, the straight 50mm would probably beat the Tri-Elmar. At f/4.0, the Summicron would be very close to its best aperture, while the 3-E at the same aperture would be at its lowest performing f-stop.

Upon acquisition of the 35mm Summilux, you would have both the speed and sharpness factors in hand... But, might there not be some days when you wish to just go out with a small compact high performance package? A Leica M body with the small, light and sharp 50mm Summicron is still a serious camera / lens combo for those days when "going light" is desirable. If I could hold off a little bit longer and pull off the purchases without dispensing with the 50mm Summicron, that is what I would do. For me this lens just continues to deliver, so replacing it has never been an desire.

As for the wide angle issue, I only have a 35mm lens for my Leicas, but have both the 20mm and 24mm for my Nikons. While I had envisioned unlimited use of the 20mm lens before purchase, in practice I use the 24mm lens more often at a ratio of about 10 to 1. There is definitely an aptitude to being able to "see" in very wide angles, and some people are very good at it. I find that for my type of shots, the more moderate perspective presents itself more often. My thought (after wasting too much money over the years) is that you alone will know what you need. How often are you backing into the wall trying to get everything in? How many times are you wishing to get really intimate in an environmental situation while still capturing the "big picture"? If you haven't been hindered by a lack of a really ultra wide lens... maybe you don't need one? Not everyone does.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 13, 2001.

I have all the lenses you mention above ( except my 21's are an ASPH Elmarit and a 3.4 S/A). I have not used my 50 Summicron in a while, but I would if I didn't have the 35/1.4. In your situation I think I'd sell the 50/2, buy the 15 Cosina and put the rest in to a 35/1.4 ASPH if you're near to the goal line. If the 35/1.4 is a ways off, I'd keep the 50 for now (or else you won't have a fast lens for low- light) and keep saving. for the 35 Lux. The 28mm end of the 3E is really very sufficient for hard duty as an all-round wide-angle, and only a very small proportion of shots simply can't be done without going to a 21 or wider. Once you've got the 35 Lux in hand, sell the 50/2 and get the 15 or 21--or both!

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 13, 2001.

Whether or not to keep the 50 in the lineup when you have the 35/1.4 and the 3E is a difficult qhestion to answer. In that situation I've kept mine, since the cost of the lens is so low that I wouldn't be able to realize enough from the sale to do any real good - the cost of that 35 just swamps the proceeds from the sale of a used 50.

I had a DR and sold it - it's too heavy, the eyes are a pain to use (get a Nikon and a 55/2.8 for the times you want to go close), and I didn't find it as good as the more recent 50s.

As to the superwide question, I'm one of those people who just doesn't see that wide - I find a 28 is perfectly adequate for my vision. I've had Nikkor 20s and 24s, and the 24 Elmarit as well, and I sold them all. I have the 28 Summicron and the 28 setting on the 3E, and that's enough for me. If I was tempted to try superwides again, I'd get the Cosina 15, or maybe their recently announced 21. Those would be cheap enough I wouldn't mind them spending most of their time on a shelf for the next 10 years.

But the real question is, what focal lengths do *you* miss when you're out and about? Do you see pictures you can't take with the gear you have? If so, get what you're missing. Our opinions are only valid for us. You have to take pictures with your brain and your eyes, and it's your bank manager :-)

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), April 13, 2001.

Bob,

i have a 21/3.4 asph that cost more than i care to remember but I love it. I have been looking at how i use it and find that if it comes out of the bag it does so for a special picture and generally delivers. Is the voigt asph? i do find that as long as you keep it level (have a little level) perspective can look acceptably 'normal' - also keep heads out of the outer 1/3 of the picture. I am saving for a 35 asph.

I have 2 portraits that were taken with this lens on: http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=73412 charles

-- charles curry-hyde (charles@chho.com.au), April 14, 2001.

I would go with a 35 or 28 myself (and have). My dealer has loaned me a Voigtlander 15mm for the weekend but I already sense the problems I had when I had a 16mm Olympus. Everything looks really, really COOL through the viewfinder. But after carrying it for a few days you start to realize that their are only certain subjects (architecture being the most obvious) that don't end up looking hokey when shot with a lens this wide. If you already have a 'conventional' wide (21,24,28 or 35), the 15 is a fun lens to play with. But if this is going to be your only W/A I think you'd be disappointed after the novelty wears off.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 14, 2001.

I have the Heliar 15 and a Leica 24. I have owned 21's in the past with other systems. In short, I like the 21 a lot, but I find the 24 more a bit more universal for most subjects. Others will probably disagree, but I find the the 21 and 24 similar enough in perspective that a few steps forward or back usually makes up for any differences. The exceptions are very tight interiors, where the extra width of the 21 excells, and landscapes, where the 21 is just too wide. I also find that the 21 distorts people just enough more than the 24 to be bothersome, but others have learned to use this effect to artistic advantage.

As for the 15, it is significantly wider than a 21, and gives a very different perspective. When held level (no easy feat without a bubble), interiors look normal enough, although somewhat exaggerated. It is a fun lens, where you can play around with the unique perspective with certain subjects, but I feel its uses are generally limited. I would suggest a 21 or a 24 first, then only get the 15 if you feel the need to go wider.

As for selling your 50 cron for a DR... I have not owned a DR, but I find that I rarely have the need to go closer than my 'cron focuses. If you need or want macro, I'd get an SLR system dedicated to that purpose.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 14, 2001.

Oh yeah... And the 35 asph 'lux is an awesome lens, but only worth the extra $$$ if you need f1.4. Otherwise the 35 asph 'cron equally as awesome!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 14, 2001.

Bob, I agree with Jack about the 21mm being a bit too wide for most uses. It's nice to have sometimes, but the 24mm focal length is really quite wide enough most of the time, especially for landscapes. While the 21mm includes more, it also diminishes the size of distant objects, making them less prominent. It's great for dramatically expanding foreground space. But just as often, it takes in too much, making it hard to exclude telephone poles & wires, or other extra distracting stuff. A 24mm will probably see more use. Also, there is already enough distortion to deal with, toward the corners, with architectural subjects, with the 24mm. With a 21 it's worse.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 16, 2001.

Thanks to everyone for their responses. I will definitely keep the 50 ‘cron until I get the 35 ‘lux. As far as the 15 or 21 goes, I am not going to get either one just yet. I may rent a 17-35 zoom for my Fisher Price EOS 3 to help choose the right focal length. Even though I know the 15 will not be used much, for some reason, it sure is tempting.

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), April 16, 2001.