I already have a summilux 35mm ASPH and summilux 50mm, witch wide angle lens should I buy next between the 24mm and the 28mm? Also does anyone know the picture quality between the above 2 lenses? Thank you!!

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), October 17, 2001

Answers

Both the 24/2.8 ASPH and 28/2 ASPH are outstanding lenses. Which one you should buy will depend upon your interests and preferences. Check the archives for many previous threads on this topic.

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

What Muhammad said...

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

I would chosse the 28 as next, but thatīs only my preference; as I consider the 35 my main lens, and I donīt like going far out of this prespective, my two next lenses are the 50 and 28; but you may like to take a diferent prespective as an option; then you can consider the 28, 24 or even 21. Any of this asph are superb performers.

Why donīt you rent them and make a clear choice.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), October 17, 2001.

Personally I would go for the 28mm because 1) it is faster and 2) you do not need a separate v/f if you are using a 0.72.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 17, 2001.

If you already have any 35mm -- and all the more if you have any 50mm as well -- I would buy either a 24mm or a 21mm as next lens. (a) if you're not sure which one is to come after the 35 and/or 50, then go all the way and get one of the two widest angles. (b) if you really need/want a 28 some day, it will then be easier to decide if you should buy that, too.

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

Has anyone tried using a 24 on a Leica-M that has a 28 viewfinder frame, but WITHOUT accessory VF? Can u get to where you can guesstimate? Or, is this too hokey? If I only had a 35, my n ext lens would be longer, not shorter. Ever try photographing a coiled rattlesnake with a 35? How about a mare with a new foal? A 75mm f2.8 Elmarit-M would be good in both instances, were it available.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), October 17, 2001.

I tend to prefer wide spacings between lenses. The 28mm focal length never appeals to me as it is neither wide enough nor long enough. So I'd go for a 24/2.8 (which I did :-) or the 21/2.8 (which I'm still attracted to!).

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

With the 35, the 28 is too close. I always use a 24. So my normal kit would be 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, and maybe a 135mm

When I use a 28, I take a 21mm. This kit usually is 21mm, 28mm, 50mm, 105mm.

I don't have all these lenses for my Leicas; I do have them for my Spotmactics! Used M42 lenses have very cheap; the SMC Takumars are outstanding.

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@mindspring.com), October 17, 2001.

The subject of working lens kits is interesting. I have 5 lenses for the M, I usually carry 2 or 3 of them when traveling. I've carried a kit with 15/35/90 and a kit with 24/50.

Based on that, I think my ideal kit is 21/35/75 ...

Oh well, there's always another lens or two that one can wish for!

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

buy the 24 and get a separate finder - no one can see the frame line for the 28 anyhow. The 28 is too close in perspective to the 35 for my tastes.

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

I am afraid no one can tell YOU which lens is going to suit you best. Why you may hate them both! Lens selection is a personal thing and just because I love a lens does not mean you will. One thing I will say, a 28mm is not anything like a 35mm. It is a whole different ball game. Go to your camera store and try them out. It does not have to be a Leica lens. Try an SLR with the different focal lengths if that is all you can find. If you are still not sure then buy used as it is easier to get your money out if you change your mind.

Good luck,

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

I have to agree 200% with John here (never had the chance to do otherwise). I used to have an FM and F3 with 7-8 lenses. There, the ballgame went of course like this: the more lenses the better, and the wider the variety, e.g. 15 mm to 400 mm. But Ms are apparently different. On the one hand, I still like widies and that's whay I got the 21A. OTOH, I think if I could only keep two, they may indeed remain solely my 35 and my 50 (without my 21 or a 24 or a 75 or a 90). To make a long story short here, it is not only a matter of "which lens is best", it is a matter of how many lenses you want to end up with. How much money you'll spend, how many different-sized bags you'll buy etc etc etc.

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

This choice depends so much on how you "see" pictures. I have never been able to effectively use anything wider than a 28 - most of my pics are shot between 28 and 90. I had the 24/2.8A for about a year, and shot very little with it. I sold it in favour of the 28/2.0 which I much prefer. But this is simply because it fits my vision better, and because I disliked the external finder more than I expected.

I don't find the 28 to be too close to the 35. When shooting with my 3E I always find that switching between those two focal lengths introduces a significant change in the way I see the subject.

The picture quality of the 24 and 28 is comparable - both are beyond reproach.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), October 18, 2001.