I'm soon to buy my first M6 and lenses. I'm going crazy primarily because I can't afford all the lenses I "think" I'd want, because of a limited bank account and the weight and space carrying around all those lenses. I've been playing with my SLR cameras for a couple of weeks, trying to figure out what lenses I'd use most, while keeping an M6 package down in size and weight.

I've come to these conclusions: 1) I'd probably use 28, 35, and 50 lenses most and might use 28 and 35 for 90% of my shots. 2) I see a distinct difference between 28 and 35 - They are not too close together for me to have separate lenses. 3) I want to be able to take pictures in low light. 4) I can't afford two $2000 lenses - I'd either buy one high priced lens or two lenses or lesser price.

So, I think my choice is between a 35mm f/1,4 ASPH, a 35 f/2 ASPH, or my dream lens, the 28mm f/2 ASPH AND the 35 f/2.

I'm going to be able to handle an M6 0.58 with a 35 f/2 ASPH later this week. But, I'll almost certainly have to proceed without seeing or handling the 35mm 1.4 or the 28mm 2.0. I know the 35 1.4 is larger and heavier than the 2.0, I've looked at the tables of dimensions and weights for lenses. But, it is hard to get an idea of how the other lenses will feel. I have the voigtlander 25 mm, which is tiny and the Voigtlander 12 mm, which is a nice small size.

I've not seen much on this board about the 28 mm f/2.0, except some comments about its excellence and large size. But, it seems like it is a very desirable lens for travel photography, though I can't quite see myself having only the 28 on a trip. I've gone on extensive trips with an old Pentax MX (small) with a 28 and 50. I used the 28 for most shots, the 50 for a few, and wished I had a 35.

The Tri-elmar seems great, but the slow speed just won''t work for me, I think.

Any comments will certainly be appreciated and I will write back to tell of my experiences after I purchase the camera and lenses.

-- Thomas Herbert (therbert@miami.edu), October 22, 2001

Answers

My suggestion is to purchase either a 50 or 35 first. Since I use both these lenses equally, I could not suggest one over the other but find them both very useful for general photography. I also have a 90 which I rarely use and a 135 I practically never use. I purchased my 50 Summicron used and paid $495.00 a few years ago. The lens produces excellent results. I purchased a 35 Summaron 3.5 wide angle lens as a trade in. The dealer wanted $275.00 for the lens. It is an excellent performer and the price is right! Best of luck in your choice(s).

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), October 22, 2001.

In my opinion, you just can't beat a 35mm lens for overall versatility. The Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH is just a stunning lens and much more reasonably priced than the f/1.4 model. If I only had one lens, that would be it.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), October 22, 2001.

You mention travel photography. That is my mainstay and I do not find the Tri-Elmar is "too slow" by any means. If (as you point out) you tend toward the 28mm heavily, you can probably handhold the M6+Tri-Elmar down to 1/30 at the 28mm setting and get tack sharp results. That's *six* stops down from sunny-16 with ISO 100 film, before you'd need to think about 200 or 400 speed film which with E200 and Provia 400F is even possible with superb results if you shoot chrome...and they both push well. The other lens I'd suggest would be either a 35/1.4ASPH or, if you hit a money barrier, a late- model 50/2, to serve as your "really low light" lens.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 22, 2001.

I'm with Godfrey on this one, a 35 is must-have. Which one is up to your bank account. I have the pre-asph S'cron 35 and I'm never going to get rid of that one. I absolutely love that lens, it's so compact and sexy! I also own a third version 2.8/28, a 70's 2.0/50 and a pre-asph 2.0/90. The 35 sees more daylight than the rest of my lenses.

-- Bert Keuken (bkkn@wanadoo.nl), October 22, 2001.

The Tri-Elmar would fit your needs best, if you can live with the f4 aperture. You can get a new/demo lens for about $1500 today. If you are willing to buy used lenses in mint or excellent condition, then you can get each of your desired lenses for about $700-$1500. Check with a reputable Leica dealer like Tamarkin.com for used lens prices. Also check out the prices for new gray market lenses at www.deltainternational.com. There are plenty of bargains on EBAY too. I have bought Leica equipment from all of the above. :-)

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), October 22, 2001.

I am impressed! Lunch is hardly over and I have all sorts of useful advice already. Thanks!

One of the inducements to buy new is the Leica Days sale at Tamarkin. Thru Nov. 15, they told me that I get 10% off plus the $200 per lens or body Leica rebate. That makes a $1995 lens or body about $1600, not much above a grey market price. And, one gets the 3 year passport warranty.

I'm certainly going to get a 35 f/2 or 1.4. If I buy the f/2, then I could afford another lens - And, I'm thinking now that either the tri-elmar or the 28mm f/2 would be a good choice. A really good case is being made for the tri-elmar.

But, has anybody seen or worked with the 28 f/2?

I do like the idea of the smaller 35 f/2 (vs the f/1.4). I think I'd be doing a lot of my low light work with Agfa Scala B+W transparancy film, which I like a lot. (Though I find the contrast a tad high.) With the 200 speed Scala, or even pushed to 400 or higher, the f/2 would work nicely. I forget about modern film speeds .. I started with Kodachrome 25, then 64, then Velvia, and now I use Provia 100 or 100 Speed Ektachrome. So, f/2 is like a f/0.5 lens with Kodachrome 25!

-- Thomas Herbert (therbert@miami.edu), October 22, 2001.

Thomas:

I've owned both 35 aspherics - the main difference in size is primarily in the hoods, where the 'Cron's is much smaller than the 'Lux's. The 28 f2 w/hood is about the same size as the 35 'Lux asph with its hood on. As for performance, both 35 asphs are stunning. The only real decision is whether or not you need f1.4 over f2, and how often. Several of the regular participants in this forum, myself included, changed from the 35 'Cron asph to the 35 'Lux asph for the simple reason that we were often looking for an extra stop on the 'Cron that wasn't there.

On the 28s, I don't own one personally, but met three other photographers recently at the LHSA show who LOVED their new 28 asphs - apparently it is quite an excellent performer.

I like the tri-elmar too, but generally only use it in "normal" light situations because I too feel it is a bit slow. The good news is that it performs very well wide open... In my sample, the worst focal is 28mm @ f4, while its best is 50mm @ f5.6, so I guess it depends on what types of subject matter you plan on shooting as to wether or not the 3E will work well for you. It is certainly a very convenient M lens(es!) to use.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 22, 2001.

The "poor man's" fast Leica 35mm lens: Summicron-C 40mm f/2. This lens is meant for the CL or CLE, which has the 40mm frameline, but it is more-or-less compatible with the Leica-M's 35mm frameline. The Konica M-Hexanon 28mm f/2.8 is a just-as-good alternative to Leica's equivalent at about half the price. Total cost for a used Summicron- C 40/2 and a new M-Hexanon 38/2.8 = about $1,000.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), October 22, 2001.

I've read some posts about people switching to the faster 35 'lux from the 'cron. The 1.4 aperature seems to highlight one of the advantages of an M camera - taking pictures in low light. The 2.0 lens (and its more compact predecessor) highlight another M advantage - compactness. But, of course, one can't have everything in one package; physics prevents that! My tendancy is to go with a single starting lens - the 35mm 'lux. That and the body will make an appropriate dent in my wallet.

I can use my tiny Voigtlander 25mm and my equally cute old 50 Elmar screw mount, if I need a wider or longer lens. And, later, I can think about adding another Leica lens or two. At least that is the way I am thinking now.

Oh .. I made an error earlier when I said that an f/2 lens with 200 speed film was equivalent in exposure to a f/0.5 with Kodachrome 25. Of course, I skipped a stop. I should have said f/0.71 with 25 speed film.

-- Thomas Herbert (therbert@miami.edu), October 22, 2001.

Thomas:

IMO, you will not regret that decision!

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 22, 2001.

Since you mention that budget is a consideration, are you considering used equipment? You'll discover, if you haven't already, that earlier versions of Leica lenses and cameras are readily available in excellent, sometimes mint, condition, as are used examples of the current versions. All were built to last. You might get a more extensive kit. In most cases, earlier versions were state-of-the-art optics of their day, still better than most current non-Leica lenses. Improvements in current Leica lenses are incremental in most cases, not revolutionary, even the newest ones with ASPH elements. You can get a guided tour through the various versions of Leica lenses at the websites of Erwin Puts and Stephen Gandy. If you check out the archives of various Leica forums, you'll also discover that some users prefer earlier versions of some items, both lenses and cameras. On the other hand, if you can afford new, we certainly want Leica to remain a viable company...

-- Tim Nelson (timothy.nelson@yale.edu), October 22, 2001.

"I'm certainly going to get a 35 f/2 or 1.4. If I buy the f/2, then I could afford another lens - And, I'm thinking now that either the tri-elmar or the 28mm f/2 would be a good choice. A really good case is being made for the tri-elmar. "

When I went for my M6TTL, it was my decision to buy a *new* Leica M and a couple of *new* lenses for once in my life. I have not regretted the decision at all, although it did cost me more than buying used.

When it came to choosing just which lens to buy, I looked at a bunch of prints made with the 35 'Cron and 'Lux, and found I liked the imaging qualities of the 'Cron more than the 'Lux. The difference in price between them paid for most of the new 90/2.8 I bought at the same time.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), October 22, 2001.

Just IMHO but you said you wouldn't mind my comments. I had (and still have) the same problems. I personally think that the best thing is to do everything here in a certain order. That is, don't try and buy three lenses all on the same day. Here are my solutions: (1) Get a 35 first since it is the standard (at least for an M, even if the M's "twin standard" is practically a 50). (Your "only" problem here is whether it should be a 35 'cron or 'lux, so read all about it in this forum's archives. (2) After you shoot some film with your 35, you'll probably know better whether you'd now like a 50 or a 28 next. (3) Finally -- in case you can still afford a third lens -- you will likely now know "what is left over" or "what you should have bought already as your second choice". Even if your lens choices number one and number two add up to 90% of all your shots, do not forget that this will never mean that lens choice number three will result in insignificant pictures.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 22, 2001.

I have the Summicron 28, and it is a hot performer. I have mostly been shooting neg lately, so I haven't seen it's performance with chrome as of yet, but look forward to seeing how it does with some Velvia or Kodachrome. The distortion is very hard to see with this lens, unlike equivalent Nikon or Canon glass. I also read somewhere that Leica lists this as their sharpest lens with the 90 APO and the 50 summicron following. I hate the hood and always shoot with it off unless shooting directly into the sun/lightsource. It's hard to compose a shot when 1/4 of the frame is cut off in the viewfinder. The other thing I wanted to mention is that I believe the 28 summicron is actually SMALLER than its predecessor. It weighs slightly more, but the barrel is shorter in length. As with most Leica glass, this lens' performance at full aperture is really beautiful. The vignetting is almost imperceptable and corner to corner sharpness is likewise outstanding. I'm a real wide angle guy, so this frequently ends up being my number one lens.

-- Jason Guyer (suite_cheetah@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001.

I just want to said that leica change is whole saler in canada so they still have 2 new lens tri-elmar for 2250$ca=1400$us and a 21mm 1700ca$1100us$.You can buy from them they are ok.I Stephen Stelmach Adresse(s) d'email : kindrman@istar.ca If i could buy M6 for 1600$us ,i would like it.It cost much more here in canada.

-- Pierre ca (cantinp@videotron.ca), October 22, 2001.

Definitely purchase only one lens initially and get to know it well. Like many of the other responders, I'd emphatically recommend some sort of 35mm lens, whether one of the current offerings or the earlier pre-aspheric Summicrons. All are excellent and offer different trade-offs of quality, size, weight, etc.

The 35mm Summilux Asph is an astonishingly good lens, but it is large and heavy by M standards. I own one, but I also held onto my version 2 pre-aspherical Summicron which I purchased new in the early '70s. It is also an excellent lens and much, much smaller than the Summilux Asph. I find that I still use it more than the new Summilux, especially if I know that I'll be working at medium apertures, due to its small size and weight.

I would also question your choice of the .58 body as the initial purchase unless you wear eyeglasses and intend to use primarily wideangle lenses. The .72 body is ideally matched to the 35mm lens IMHO, since you can see just enough outside the frame to anticipate action but still have good focusing accuracy.

-- Rolfe Tessem (rolfe@ldp.com), October 22, 2001.

I was in the same boat you're in when I got my M6TTL a couple of months ago. Luckily the choice was helped by there being a like-new 35 ASPH cron (w/box, caps, case, & papers) for $1K at my local shop (Mike's, Denver). I don't have anything to compare it to other than my Nikkors, but I love it! The B-word at f2 is sublime. My next lens will probably be a 90 Elmarit. Can't wait till Xmas - Santa, please be kind!

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), October 22, 2001.

I think I would agree with Rolf Tessen (sp.?). With an SLR, you think lens focal length and angle of view. With a Leica, the viewfinder does affect your choice. I had a 0.72 and a 35 summicron for years, best and most natural choice ever, I almost never shot the 50mm. Then, I got a second 0.85 body (I though, for the 90 lens), and the havoc begins -- that body is a natural for the 50, (though ok for the 35). It has to do with seeing the frame and its surroundings -- in essence, defining the composition.

In all my decades of shooting, I never thought I would ever routinely shoot and like the 50 mm lens, but I now do (when I had SLRs, I was a 28 and 90 man, and would buy a 50 only under duress in a used camera deal). Using the 0.85 and the 50, I even use my 90 far less, even for portraits. On the other hand, I couldn't comfortably use a 28 mm on my 0.85 (except by viewfinder) - that is what the newest 0.58 body is for (I gagged when I first heard of that body, but it does make sense, except in further fragmentation of the Leica concept) though I suspect it is a perfect 35 match as well).

It is a mistake to carry too many lenses trying to get the perfect angle of view -- composition can be changed by little manuevers, quicker than changing lenses. It is a mistake I repeat over and over, but, with one camera, a 15-24, a 35, and a 90 will get the field done, with great results and small size. Of course, I now add the safety of the 50.

Consider used to round out your corral after taking advatange of the good rebates, etc. Good deals, and a heck of a lot of Leica equipment is babied a great deal.

All my opinion, of course -- but the viewfinder/frame effect is really a very big part of Leica photography.

-- Lacey Smith (smithmem@bellsouth.net), October 23, 2001.

I just returned fro the Perigord area of France where I shot 17 rolls of slides with my new Tri-Elmar. I was using mostly 100, some 200 and a couple of 400 speed film. I never felt a need for a faster lens. Remember, one can get by with slower shutter speeds on occassion with an M series. I did some very effective photography inside buildings. Also, I could meter very effectively on the 50mm than shift instantly to 35 or 28, as appropriate. For travel, I felt tthis lens was superb considering its flexibility, convenience, quality of image, and ability to travel with the minimum of bulk and

-- George L. Doolittle (geodoolitt@aol.com), October 23, 2001.

George -

What finder magnification are you using?

Tom

-- Thomas Herbert (therbert@miami.edu), October 23, 2001.

I am also a new Leica M6 user and I bought the 35mm Summicron ASPH as my first lens. I love it and the camera.

-- Scott (scottevans@mediaone.net), October 28, 2001.