I'm going to be buying a new M6 with either a 50 'lux or a 35 'lux. I've shot extensively with the 24mm, 50mm, and 105mm (all my favorite focal lengths) in the Nikon world, but can only afford one lens for the Leica. For a while, at least.

I've never shot much with a 35mm focal length lens, other than with point and shoots, and I'd just like to solict opinions on choosing between the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths for shooting candids and travel shots. Think: "I can only have one lens for the rest of my stinkin' life!"

I know this is a rather silly question (the real answer is: figure it out yourself, Dave), but I've got some time to kill, and would appreciate your experiences. I'm especially interested to see examples of the 35 'lux regarding a nice shallow depth of field.

-- David Carson (dave@davidcarson.com), July 20, 2001

Answers

And to head off any questions, the reason I'm even considering a 35mm lens is that it seems to be a good compromise between a wide angle and a portrait lens. If I was in the SLR world, a 24mm would be high on my list as they can focus to about 1 foot (you can get an ok head shot if they are centered in the frame).

But with the .7 meter focussing distance with the Leica, it seems the 35mm focal length is the best wide angle choice if you want an option of getting a decent size "head size" of your subject vs. the frame.

-- David Carson (dave@davidcarson.com), July 20, 2001.

David, As a new user of an M6 I'm not the best qualified to answer your question either but I do have that time you mentioned so and came from a similar Nikon system so: I bought both a 35 cron asph and the 50lux. With the idea that I'd be able to shoot with either in the same light and that the 50 would be better for those half length portraits I often shoot. However, I've found that I'm using the 35 more than 80% of the time and find myself wishing that I'd gone with the 35 lux and waited to add a longer focal length and perhaps another body (M4 and 50 Noc?) when I could afford it. Having both may actually be complicating the process of learning to use the rangefinder for me. I think I'm going to put the lux in the closet for now. Good luck, JLee

-- JLee (jlee@sccoast.net), July 20, 2001.

Both are "THE" lenses in their own focal length; you could also get a used 35/2 preasph and a used 50/1.4 for almost the same price, but if your choice is to buy new I think the 35 is a best lens if it is going to be your only one, I haven´t try it but is said it is the very best of 35´s, for me the best combination is a Leica M with .72 finder and a 35, wich ever 35.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 20, 2001.

I'd vote for the 35 'lux. That and a 0.58 M6 is the combination I always have with me. Even when I'm carrying other lenses, I find I use the 35 most of the time. It's a great street photography lens.

-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), July 20, 2001.

I think it would be easier to get that shallow depth of field you want with the 50 'lux. I've been using mine more and more these days. It just seems to do more for me, composition and "pop" wise. I'm probably the lone wolf in the bunch, but (for the moment), I'm in love with the 50 'lux!

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), July 20, 2001.

I would recommend the 35/2 preaspheric, no question I am seriously considering selling all my other lenses to go back to 1 lense only, my best images are with this lens and using one focal length I think improves your images. It is also small and leightweight. I use a late 4th version so can only comment on this. I have tried the latest lenses and for me I PREFER the pre-aspheric. I find the 50 too long.

-- Richard (richar@designblue.co.uk), July 20, 2001.

David, ask yourself which lens is it that you use the majority of the time to see the world. You have said: 24, 50, and 105; so I would guess that your "normal" lens would be the 50. Then ask yourself what maximum aperture is necessary. I have gone to Leica M from Hasselblad; so f2 seems very fast to me. I use 21 ASPH, 35 ASPH Summicron, 50 Summicron, 90 APO ASPH, and have just purchased a 75 Summilux (more for optical qualities and focal length than speed). All the Leica lenses are at the top in their classification. My suggestion is to go with the focal length that you shoot the most, and if you need the extra speed, buy the Summilux. I use an M6 TTL .85, and love it. I have no problems with the 35 view, and like the increased magnification for the longer lenses.

"You pays your money and you makes your choice!"

-- David Page (pagedt@attglobal.net), July 20, 2001.

There is no way I can answer your question as everyone feels differently. What makes matters worse is that your favourite focal length in an SLR system does not necessarily translate into your favourite focal length with an M6. Before you plunk down major dollars buy a used lens or two and play around until you find out which is your favourite. An old 50/2 and 35/2 would be just fine and easy to resell at no loss. My final choice was a 35/1.4 Asph.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), July 20, 2001.

I guess another way to put it is, given the viewfinder framelines and rather long minimum focussing distance of the M system, the 35 and 50 focal lengths seem to have the most going for them for this system. The 40mm on my Canonet seems fine, and if Leica made a 40, I'd get that (although I think they used to make one, right?).

-- David Carson (dave@davidcarson.com), July 20, 2001.

Force yourself *not* to be influenced by the viewfinder framelines. The 35 might look better in the M6 finder but all focal lengths will be 24x36mm on the light table. It sounds as if you are primarily interested in portraits, head shots, with a soft background . In that case I'd say the 50, from the standpoint of subject distance and spatial compression in re: facial contour. If you hand't specifically mentioned the shallow DOF as a criterion I would have recommended the Tri-Elmar, then you'd have 3 focal lengths at your disposal. At some point you might get a 90, in which case the 35 might be a better companion lens than the 50, but inasmuch as Leica M lenses are always easy to sell, I wouldn't get the 35 as my only lens if I were mostly interested in portraiture.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 20, 2001.

I also entered the world of Leica M photography after a long relationship with my Nikon and 24/50/105 combo.

I used my 24 and 50 most of the time with the Nikon.

With the M6, I acquired the 35'lux and 50'lux and expected to be using the 50 most of the time because of my previous preference. However, the more I use the M6 the more I find that the 35 is the focal length for me. I do not know why, but the 50 seems more like a tele than a normal lens now.

Buy the 35, you would not be disappointed.

Tommy.

-- Tommy Chung (dr_tommychung@hotmail.com), July 20, 2001.

Hi,

First of all you need to remember that the M6 only has a shutter speed of 1000th of a second. That can have a cause–effect impact on depth of field. So if you intend to shoot at 1.4 then you can have a significant problem in a bright light if you use 400 ASA or greater film. Once in a while it can be an issue even 100 ASA film. There have been numerous times that I wanted to reduced the depth of field with my 35/2.0 ASPH and I had to go to f/4 or f/5.6, because of the limitation on the M6 shutter speed. It can be a problem that can be solved; however, with a camera that has 1/8000th shutter it is a non- issue. With the M6 you may have to re-evaluate the film you are loading or use neutral density filters.

To me, the 35mm lens ties the background into the subject better than the 50mm. Although I like to shoot in close, the 35mm seems to offer more flexibility as a singular lens. It's sort of a cross between your 24mm and the 50mm. I have shot with the Nikon 105/2.5 lens when I had a Nikon F2 in the seventies. Wonderful lens. In close the 35mm lens can produce some excellent (but obviously different) results with people versus the 105. The 35 is a great street lens, which is Leica's rangefinder forte. Most likely you will pick up a new skill using the 35 as a stand-alone lens which I see as a plus. Aside from what Jay stated about the Tri-elmar, which I think could be a viable option that makes sense; my vote is for the 35mm/1.4 lens for you. Good luck.

Eddie

-- Edward Steinberg (es323@msn.com), July 20, 2001.

What makes matters worse is that your favourite focal length in an SLR system does not necessarily translate into your favourite focal length with an M6.

An interesting point. To add more versatility to what I have now (90E), I need to add a wider lens. One thing I was doing the other day was using the frameline lever to preview a scene with different framelines. I have been leaning toward the 35, but the 50 framelines were looking good too (and the 50/2 is inexpensive, esp. used).

It's a tough choice sometimes b/c considerations of eye relief become an important factor, in addition to the field of view, DOF, etc., that one thinks about when choosing focal lengths. For instance, I think I'll be shying away from the 28 b/c it's hard to use on a .72, tho' it was my preferred SLR lens.

FWIW, the 90 Elmarit has been wonderful (tho' I think I'm still in testing mode- there is a yellowish cast that I did not expect). You will be pleasantly surprised, if you've not used an M before, with the way you interact with your subjects. Rather than having an almost voyeuristic perspective of your subject when using an SLR and telephoto, you will find yourself just cropping in space what you observe in the <1x mag. viewfinder (and cropping in time by releasing the shutter). It makes for a different kind of intimacy in your portraits, since WYSINWYG.

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), July 20, 2001.

David: I have to think a little about a lens being a compromise between a wide angle and a portrait lens. The 35mm is really a "wide-normal" more so than a wide-angle. It's great for environmental portraits. For waist-up portraits, will it give you as long a working distance as you might like? Or will it force you in too close.

Apart from that consideration, I consider the 35mm the most basic Leica lens. I would leave home without my American Express card, but not without a 35. The 50 is good when simplifying the composition-- often a good thing to do, so it usually goes along too. But the 35 is indispensible for travel, nature, architecture, whatever. A 28, 21, 50, or 90 might or might not be added to the kit depending on the anticipated need. But the 35 goes. Always.

It is often said that the 50 is the best match for the human field of vision. But I think the 35 is, at least for me.

I love the 35 pre-ASPH Lux and Cron for their small size and superb images. The pre-ASPH Lux is a bit soft wide open.

Your instinct to get the 35 will be correct if you understand its limitations for portraiture.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 20, 2001.

David - Without doubt would choose the 35. The M and the 35 were bred for each other, and if your like most of us, you'll spend +90% of your time with the 35. One option you should explore is the pre-ASPH 35 'chron. It's compact and offers beautiful images. I acquired mine new but now you can get a good deal on one - and if you decide to move on, you can sell it for no loss - there's a big market for these optics. But, if you REALLY need the speed, do the 'lux. Much luck!

-- Thomas Dunn (tdunn@lifeworkjobs.com), July 21, 2001.

One lens only? - the 35, definitely

H. C-B may have loved the 50, (also Ralph Gibson) but almost all the other great post-1960 leica shooters have tended to work with a system centered on a 35, with the 50 for portraits/cropping and a 28 (occasionally 21) for wider-wide.

35 can be a very effective lens to take/make portraits with - a nice natural feeling of space arond the subject, but it can get close enough to make the head/chin distance 3/4s of the frame height. Marc Riboud made great 35mm portraits in his books on China and Vietnam - also Costa Manos in his 'Greek Portfolio'. Most of the current Magnum/ Nat. Geo Leica clique use 28/35/50 (Dave Harvey, Alex Webb, Stuart Franklin, Ed Kashi, Eric Valli, Reza) as their core, not to mention Salgado.

I also cast a vote for the last small 35 f/2 - the very newest ASPHs have better corner sharpness wide open, but the pre-ASPH is 'sharp enough' and tiny and makes very pretty images. But if you want the 1.4, IMHO get the newest one - big improvement optically and the extra stop pays for the size and weight difference.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 22, 2001.

Having now actually READ the other responses (Ready, fire, AIM!) I would mention that I (a 30-year Tri-X/HP5 user) am now shooting a lot of Pan F just so that I can shoot closer to f/2 at 1/1000 with the 35 in daylight - love the contrast and separation of the OOF parts with the sharp parts.

Single biggest thing I miss about the Hexar RF - 1/4000 second so I could shoot the f/2 lenses at f/2..... >:-(

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 22, 2001.

I think the solution is right in front of you. If you've "shot extensively with the 50mm" then get the 50mm.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), July 23, 2001.

Thanks guys for the responses. I think I'll try the 50 'lux, as I really like shallow depth of field. If I find that it's just too tight, I'll scrape up some case and get a used pre-asph 35 'cron, as I like that look too.

-- David Carson (dave@davidcarson.com), July 27, 2001.