May I say, e.g. I'm sure the one the majority of you use most is likely a 35 or a 50 (Al, I know you might say "yes, that's right, and for me it is actually 50:50" (percent)). The second oldest story is whether this is then a lux or a cron. The next most widely taunting discussion I think was "21 vs 24". We're now getting into the 75 vs 90 phase. You too are waiting for a 75 cron? I'm not afraid to say that of all Leica M lenses, the biggest rarity is seemingly a 135. Or is it the nocti?

Sooo... Let's say you already have -- and/or of course have had -- two or three or more Leica M lenses. Which one/ones do/did you really hardly ever use at all?

I occasionally think of what not to get. Thanks.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 17, 2001

Answers

While not a Leica lens, I have NEVER used my 15mm V'lander in almost 2 years of owning it. Next to that is the Noct which has never been used in almost a year. I did once borrow a Noct and use it quite a bit but once I got one, ..., well...

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 17, 2001.

Hey Mark!

Therrrr we go... I keep telling newcomers who are even newer than I am, to get/borrow/rent a body or lens of interest and try it out for a fews days before buying the thing. Then I'd never end up calling that thing "the damn thing" (well, maybe).

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 17, 2001.

The Leica M lens I use the least - 135mm/f4 Tele-Elmar. It is a great lens with almost APO performance, but the small viewfinder image on my M6 makes it difficult to use. It is better on my M3, but still, for portraits, I tend to use more a recent 90mm/f2 lens. The 135mm focal length is easier to use on a Leica SLR where I can see clearly which part of the image is in focus. I think it is a great focal length for portraits!.................................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), September 17, 2001.

Summilux 75/1,4.

-- Lucien (Lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), September 17, 2001.

Of the lenses I have, there is a tie for least use between the 75/1.4 and the 135/3.4

My reason for not using the 75 is the weight and the frame lines. The 135 falls victim to the fact that I don't shoot much telephoto stuff. Neither of them is up for sale, though - they're just too good whenever I do use them :-)

I had the good sense to think about what, how and why I shoot when considering avalaible-light lenses, so I managed to avoid the Noctilux trap. The 35/1.4 ASPH spends a lot of time on my camera, while I'm pretty sure the Noct would have spent almost none. I know I don't miss having one.

One lens that I had and sold for lack of use was the 24. It was too wide for me, and using an external VF was more of a pain than I expected - so it just sat forlornly in the bag. So I'll not likely ever own a 21, either.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), September 17, 2001.

90mm ... it's my longest lens for the M. I tend to use the 50 a lot more, would probably use a 75 more. 90 is just a touch long for me with this camera.

Godfre

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), September 17, 2001.

The lens one uses most is the one most appropriate for the favorite subject. Conversely, the least used lens is probably the least appropriate. In my case, shooting theater rehearsals,my least used lens was one that should be very appropriate, 135mm. However, the lens I had opened only to 3.5, and the focusing action was so stiff that I could rarely spin it fast enough to nail the focus, plus having to shoot at 1/60 second or less a lot of the time. I traded it in on a 35mm f/1.4 Summilux.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols1@mindspring.com), September 17, 2001.

Use the least-25mm Voigtlander and 135mm Tele-elmar. Use the most 50mm, than 90mmm and then 35mm. I am not sure that this info means much to anyone but me, however, as your subject matter and shooting style could lead you to exactly the opposite selection as me.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 17, 2001.

On SLR's I use the medium telephotos, (85mm and 105mm) a lot. I love the selectivity, and ability to extract the real picture out of the whole scene. But on my Leica M's the 90mm doesn't account for 10% of my current photography, and that percentage is going down every year.

I started with the old Summicron, but it was simply too large. I switched to the current 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit M, and tried to like it ergonomically. Optically, it has no negative qualities, other than it might just be too sharp as a portrait lens. I just can't use it as instinctively as I can my smaller lenses. It doesn't match the way I use the Leica M... as a nimble, stealthy and dynamic vehicle for "stealing" photos. When I have to slow down, I just use SLR's and really work the composition and framing.

But in accordance to my philosophy, I won't sell any more Leica gear, so this lens will be languishing in my bag waiting for those important 10% shots.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 17, 2001.

I have many lenses from previous generations which I rarely use, but I don't think "retirees" count in this case. Of my current "working" outfit (15,21/2.8ASPH,35/1.4ASPH,3E,50/2,90/2.8-E46,135/3.4APO)I would have to say that the 50 (Summicron)has seen the least duty ever since I've had the Tri-Elmar. I sold my 28 when I got the 3E, and sold a 75 a while earlier because I did not like it. Also sold a 90/2 for the 2.8 because I never used f/2 and the bulk was unnecessary.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), September 17, 2001.

Least used, to most used: 135, 35, 15, 85, 25, 50

After the last burn-out and sell-off wore off, I didn't even bother to think of replacing the 135, which I don't think I ever had actually shot a photo with. I did buy a 35, which has only seen duty shooting grip-and-grins at a couple of business parties--never for anything worthwhile.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), September 17, 2001.

It is too easy to say I hardly ever use the 12mm Voigtlander or 135mm Hektor for obvious reasons. One lens I absolutely love but hardly ever use is the 75mm Summilux, not so much because of the size and weight but the poor framelines. That said I still will not sell my 75mm; even if I use it once a year I would still keep it because it is so damn good!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), September 17, 2001.

15mm heliar. After that, now that I have both the 21 and 24 asph, they share second-place for least use. However, combined, they represent about 20% use. Put another way, my 35 sees about 30% use; 90 about 15%, 50 about 15%; 21/24 about 10% each or 20% total; 3E about 20% (5/10/5); 15 less than 1%.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 17, 2001.

Forgot to add that I'll probably sell the Heliar and either the 21 or the 24, and right now the lean is toward selling the 24...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 17, 2001.

The three lenses I use the least, in order of increasing idlness, are: 400/6.8, 135/4.5 and, the one that never had a photon flow through it for three years until yesterday, the 50/2. The 50/2 is now on my very first M camera, an M2, and is being used by my daughter in her first high school photography class.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), September 17, 2001.

Jack!

I remember very well that you have both the 21 and the 24 (ASPHs) because I myself have "only" the 21 (ASPH) and was busy trying to work out which one would have been "better" for me in the first place. Yes, I know this is a very personal thing, but could you tell us why you prefer the 21 over the 24? Yes, this is of course a matter of what you want to shoot with one or the other, but... I've never heard of anybody who did have these two at the same time...

Thanks. Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 17, 2001.

Well Mike, I have not really made up my mind yet, but...

The 21 could do double-duty and replace both the 15 and the 24, simplifying my system. It is enough wider than the 24 that it supresses much of my need for the 15, but it is also close enough to the 24 that it is tough to justify keeping both. Also, I can do just about anything with the 21 that I could do with the 24, but not necessarily the other way around as it's a lot easier to crop something that is there than it is to add something that isn't. The big but is that people look more natural through the 24, and if I hold the camera level many of the shots with it look "normal", but all the shots from the 21 look "wide". Also the 24 is a whole level better optically, especially at f2.8, so if I get rid of it I do it knowing I'm offing the better of the two lenses. Getting rid of a better anything is not something I have ever been able to do easily... Hence my dilemma. The good news is that I am in no hurry, and will continue to shoot with both. I'm sure at some point, the final decision will be clear to me. At present, the 21 stays in the bag and the 24 sits in the cabinet next to the 15.

An FYI to all of you on Leica's brightline finders... The 21 and the 24 have the same optics(!) but differing framelines. The 24's are inboard where you can see outside of them, but the 21's are jammed at the edge of the finder, preventing you from seeing around them. Hence, the 24 BL will perform double-duty as you can use the lines for the 24 view and the edge for the 21 view.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 18, 2001.

Thanks, Jack, that is real info. Especially the last word on view finder edges. Never heard that one before, not even in a Leica catalog or handbook.

As usual (unfortunately as re $$) a good example why I have to own both for some time before deciding on which one to actually keep. Also, of course, it usually depends "only" on what I want to shoot. But again, like you, I won't want to carry both around at the same time in the same bag. Food for thought.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 18, 2001.

Those least used should be the 21/3.4 and 135/4.5, the both extremes of my leica line, from there 90/2 and 28/2.8, the most used lately (last two years) are 35(2.8,2.0 and 1.4) and 50, with 35/1.4 non asph a nose ahead.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), September 18, 2001.

The Leica lens I use the least is the 135mm Tele-Elmar. Next in line is the 90mm Elmarit. The lenses I use most often are the 35mm Summaron and the 50mm Summicron. I now question why I ever bought the 135 since I have only used it maybe 3-4 times in the last 5 years. The 90 has been used a bit more, say 10-15 times. I bought it new and paid a lot of money for it. Certainly more money than I would spend now for a lens.These two least used lenses are excellent optically and mechanically but, at least for me, are seldom used.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), September 18, 2001.

Hi, Michael

The lens I use the least is my 135mm f4 Hector.

Though a fine lens (it's a Leica, isn't it ?) I have noticed that in my practice the long distance photography is not the best suited to RF cameras nor for fixed focal lenses.

That is not much of a discovery. What I mean is that while focusing distant subjects with a fixed focal lens you seldom have the opportunity to adjust your distance in any proportion really easing to get the best out of your subject cutting out unwanted details and isolating it to the best extent for the intended composition. A longer focal zoom lens often is the best tool for that task.

Of course I'm talking about really distant subjects not the kind of a head only portrait you can properly frame in your viewfinder by moving one or two steps back or forth. If this were the case, a 90mm or 105mm fixed focal lens is great for me. And, in fact, that is what I do. And that is why my Hector seldom sees my subjects in front of it: at any distance that could be significantly adjusted by stepping back or forth I use my much appreciated 9cm Elmar with my M3s. For really far standing subjects I resource to my Nikon FM2n and 80-200mm zoom. Oddly enough (judging by most of our friends' opinions) my second least used lens is my 35mm Summaron (with goggles, very nice looking lens IMO, opinion that I have noticed that many others don't share)

Excuse the lenght and have fun !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), September 18, 2001.

The 135/2.8 with goggles. It's heavy for one thing. And 135 is a lens I don't find much use for these days anyway. Why don't I sell it. Sentimental reasons. It is such a beautiful lens. And practical reasons. When I need it--I really need it. And who knows when that might be. I've always regretted selling or trading lenses. Nearly 20 years I traded off my Canon 70-150/4.5 and I still miss it.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), September 21, 2001.

I have both the 50/2 and 90/2.8 and have never taken a picture with either. I got them because I thought they'd be handy, but in fact they never are. Maybe if I got a third body I'd use them, but meantime they are just dead space in my bag and I never even take them anywhere.

Foolish purchases I talked myself into.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 23, 2001.

I have a 90 Summicron, 50 Summilux, and 35 Summilux, with an M2 body. The one I use the least is the 50. The 90 is good for portraits and isolating subjects in a crowd, and for general outdoors stuff, and the 35 is good indoors and for street photography. Also, the 35 is compact. The 90 is gigantic, but the 50 is big enough to be noticeable, especially with the lens hood on. I'm thinking about getting a 21, resulting in a 21-35-90 kit... On the other hand, if I could only have one lens, it would probably be a 50 Summilux.

-- Douglas Hagerman (douglas.hagerman@compaq.com), October 22, 2001.