I'm a new M6TTL user and have been quite happy with my single lens, a 35 Summicron ASPH. I'm considering my second lens, and am waivering between a 50 Summicron and a 90 Elmarit. Several salesmen I've talked to said the 35/90 is a good two lens kit, but I'm sure I would still use the 35 for the most part. If I got a 50 I think I would be more likely to use the two lenses equally. I've settled on the 50 cron and 90E mainly for budget reasons. I've also entertained the thought of a 50 Elmar - I like the price. I'm partial to the current version lenses, although would consider the previous version 50 cron just for the focusing tab. Thanks for any help...

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001

Answers

Hi Ken,

I think this is a common M dilemma when getting a working kit together. I don't know what type of shooting you do but if you are like me and shoot on the street a 50mm is, for me, indispensable. I had the 35, 90mm combination before finding a 50mm summicron which is now with me always. I tend to leave the 90E at home. If you do a lot of portraits you might want to think a little harder about what you want buy. If you can only buy one the 50mm summicron IMHO can't be beat. The M system was made for the 50.

Regards, Tom Gallagher

-- Tom Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

Ken:

The 35/90 combo is a workable kit. I used one for a long time, until finally adding the 50. It leaves you with a "hole in the middle" but any problems that presents can usually be solved by a change of camera position and a little recomposing.

HOWEVER. Your post says pretty clearly that you really think you'll get more use out of the 50. So I say, get the 50 for now. Eventually, you'll have all three.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 13, 2001.

Ken,

I think you'll use the 35 most of the time...but adding the 50 would be a wise choice. I think you'll use is more than the 90.

On the other hand (and not to confuse the issue) consider a 21 or 24.....it's a whole different vision!! I once had a 21 F:3.4, 50 DR and 90 TE....and found I hardly used the 90 while 75% of my photos (for stock agency) were taken with the 21. I didn't have a 35 (a favorite focal length) because I couldn't see the 35 frame line on my M4-2.

Good luck in your choice!

Todd

-- Todd V. Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), November 13, 2001.

OK, we have a 35 'cron and are considering the 90 2.8, the 50 2 and the 50 2.8 collaps.

Let me ask this: What would you use the 50's for that you can't already do with the 35? Portraits? The 90 does 'em better (for that matter so does the 35!). Long-lens graphic shots? The 90 does 'em better. Street photography? The 35 gives you more depth of field and 'environment'.

I would stick with the 35 until you ABSOLUTELY CAN"T STAND not to have an additional lens - and then get the 90.

A 50/35 combo is like eating a bread sandwich - no variety in flavor. If you get the 90 and THEN find out you need something in between, too, that's OK, but if you get the 50 and then find out you really needed something longer, you're stuck with the 50.

Also, the 90 is pricier - buy it and you can always justify $600 for the 50 2.8 later on, but it will be much harder to spend the $1100 for a "3rd lens" when you've already paid for the 50.

I started out with a 21 and 90 - it was much easier to fill in with the 35 (and eventual 28) later than it would have been to start with the middle lens and then buy the pricier tele/wide glass.

"Always budget the luxuries first - the necessities will take care of themselves." - Lazarus Long, in "Time Enough for Love" by Robert A. Heinlein. A philosophy that Leica must adore...8^).

(Heya, Todd - be careful here or you're gonna get hooked!!)

Pardon me, Ken. Todd and I are fellow refugees from the late lamented rangefinder Shoptalk site who've finally wound up here on "Leica Beach".

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 13, 2001.

Tough question- on the one hand, it's hard to get your hands on a lens, easily, to try it out. Yet on the other, you can walk around and preview what the framelines are.

I started with a 90E, then quickly got the 35/2A. I think it's a good combo. for many of the reasons stated above. I have to say I don't use the 90E that much b/c I find it a bit bulky- I like to bring my camera with me a lot more often now, and of course it has the 35 on it. Perhaps if I had a slightly better bag/system, I'd use it more often. I had been living with just a 35 for a long time, and so was anxious to have a good portrait lens. How does the 50 fare as a portrait lens compared to the 90- I'm not sure.

Also, I am intrigued by folks who don't use that end at all, and find the 50 their tele. A 50 seems a bit smaller than the 90, and so it'd probably make it into the bag more often. But then again, I think your legs can help you make a 35 work for you in situations where you'd think you'd need a 50...

That's life around here: 10 responses gets ya 10+ opinions.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

Ken,

as it has already been written: 10 responses gets ya 10+ opinions. Here another one: I started with a 35/2.8 Summaron, adding a 90/4 Elmar next. This is still my 2-lens-kit, though I have a 50 which is my 1-lens-kit. If you will eventually buy another (3rd) lens, the 90 is the way to go in my eyes, I don't regret it. It also is not expensive, especially used. And since a little DOF helps a bit with fast focussing the older 90/4 Elmar seems perfect to me. A f2 or f2.8 is nicer, but in my eyes do not justify the cost. I'd rather buy a cheap 50 for the difference.

On the other hand if I will not buy another lens but the one coming after the 35, a 75 might be a nice alternative: Not a real tele lens like the 90, but more away from the 35 than the 50. Though since you said you're limited in budget the leica glass might be unaffordable.

What about the Voigtlaender ? This might be an alternative, especially since Erwin tested these lenses and found them to be very good, even in comparison with Leica glass - for results see the threads below.

HTH - Kai

-- Kai Blanke (Kai.Blanke@iname.com), November 13, 2001.

Hi Ken and everybody,

I'm also a new M6TTL user and a bit "afraid" to agree with everybody. Today, I own 90 and 50 mm and hope to buy soon the 'Cron 35 A .... but I still use less and less my 90, and tomarrow?? Alain

-- alain.besancon (alain.besancon@chu-dijon.fr), November 13, 2001.

I think this is about the oldest of all old questions (sure, I've asked it a dozen times myself). Today, I see at least five answers.

1. It depends on what you'll always (or most often) be shooting. Some of us here say "50 is for people and 35 is for places".
2. But then there is also a whole spectrum, so that the bigger the difference in focal length, the bigger the vision. That's why 21-24 and 90-135 exist too. So the big problem here is maybe I like shooting not only people and places but also inside churches and up in the mountains.
3. 28 and 75 are for some of us often just "middling things". But that can be good! My own (yes, very personal) reason to recommend these would be e.g. 28's substitution or fusion of 21-24 and 35, or 75's of 50 and 90. Maybe these are the "best" choices when you can have (or you do want) only two or so lenses.
4. Size itself is a question. And price too. That's why I'd also like a 50 Elmar. This is a good example of a lens that is in no way as good as the 50 'cron, but nevertheless a nice lens to have as well. I won't buy a 75 (in the near future) because I have already found it to be too big, too heavy, too imbalanced.
5. Maybe this isn't a whole new answer but just a little summary (who cares?) My biggest problem here (and maybe it isn't even a problem either) is the number of lenses. My first question once was "okay, I have an X; should I now get a Y or a Z?" After two or three or four, the question has to be rephrased. If somebody (apart from my wife) could have forced me to have only one or only two or only three lenses....

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), November 14, 2001.

Alain,

usage of a lens also depends on your shooting style. But the 50 and the 90 are closer together than the 35 and the 90; so if you have the 50 you find yourself using the 90 less often compared to a 35 / 90 combination.

When I'm carrying my 35 and 90 I use the 90 for about 40% of the time - but that may be personal style (and size - I guess I wouldn't use a large 90/2 as often as my compact 90/4C). But when I take my full kit (35/50/90) I use it like 30/45/25 %.

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), November 14, 2001.

My first kit was 15/40 with a CL, then I went to 15/35/90 with the M6. I find I just don't use the 90 very much. I'm thinking my ideal kit now is really more like 21/35/75 ...

The 90E is a wonderful lens, I find I just don't use it all that much, that's all. I prefer the coverage of 50-75mm instead.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), November 14, 2001.

Buy the 50 'cron during a Leica Day for the 10% off and the $200 rebate. That puts the net cost at about $700. Since the 90 is not typacally used as much as other focal lengths, buy the Voigtlander 90 f/3.5 for about $350 at Delta International. All three of these lenses, 35 'cron, 50 'cron, and 90 Voigtlander take the same size filter and are very small and relatively light. The 90 Elamrit -M is much bigger and heavier than the 35 and 50 'crons.

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), November 14, 2001.

It depends on what you shoot. However, with that said, allow me to give a tremendous vote of confidence to the latest 50mm Summicron. I have both the 35mm Asph Summicron and the latest 50mm Summicron. I use both, depending either on the circumstances or the mood I'm in. For wide angle grab shots of people the 35 is very good. However, for a more studied or planned shot, such as when I want to include some architectural detail in the shot, I love the 50. It's sharpness is scary and I like the slightly flatter perspective it gives. I have supplemented my complement of lenses with 21mm and 75mm Voigtlanders. Both are great, sharp lenses. While I very much enjoy the 21 on the street, I hardly ever use the 75. It's sometimes hard to predict how much use you will ultimately obtain from a particular lense. But, chances are, you would get a great deal of use from the 50mm Summicron.

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), November 14, 2001.

I vote for the 50mm summicron. It is such a useful lens and allows you to take close portraits, it is cheaper, and faster than the 90mm Elmarit too.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 14, 2001.

To add some confusion:

The jump from 35 to 90 is a bit large. Maybe you could consider the 75 mm Summilux. I know a lot of people are uncomfortable with this focal length (it includes me), but its users seem hooked on it. The 75 mm is Summilux is a legendary lens (at a fabulous price :).

-- Xavier Colmant (xcolmant@powerir.com), November 14, 2001.

Ken:

Get the 90 first. It will serve as a great portrait lens. The 35 and 90 make up a great two lens outfit that can probably take care of 90% of your photographic needs. The 50 is a superb lens, and can be added later to your kit. I have all 3 lenses! :-)

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), November 14, 2001.

Ken,

My advice is to NOT buy another lense at all, if you are happy with the 35 and are still exploring its capabilities another lens will confuse things. I started with a 35 and it took me 3 years before I really began to get to know it. I also have a 50 and 15 and ever since I started using other lenses my photography has got worse.... I now tend to just take the 35 out and I think it is improving again, but maybe this is just me!

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), November 14, 2001.

To Richard: This year I decided to get back into photography again after years of taking nothing more serious than soccer pictures for my kids. I used to own Leicas years ago and decided to buy an M6 and a 50mm Summicron. I swore that I would stick to one body and one lens and focus (pardon the pun) on developing into a good photographer. Now, I also have an M2, an M3, a 35mm Asph Summicron and two other Voigtlander lenses. Let's face it, it's a disease! Just like golfers never have enough putters, Leica shooters never have enough equipment. So, Ken, it doesn't whether you buy a 50 or a 90 right now; you'll own both of them (probably sooner than later).

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), November 14, 2001.

Thanks for all your advice. Now I'm leaning toward the 90. For reasons stated above, a 35/90 outfit seems more logical than 35/50. I also see the value of sticking with one lens for as long as possible in order to become completely familiar with it. Indeed, my photographs have vastly improved since switching from my 6 lens Nikon outfit - largely because I'm not constantly changing lenses. Now I use my legs instead of changing lenses, and in most cases it works very well. So, I think I'll wait a few months, save up, and get the lens I really want: the Apo 90 cron. Thanks again for taking the time to give a newbie some advice.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), November 14, 2001.

I own every focal length for the Leica M except the 24, but I always seem to use only the 35 and 50. For those who say that the 35 can do everything a 50 can, remember that a 35mm lens is still a wide angle lens with wide angle characteristics like distorted angles along the outer areas of the image. The 50, being closest to a "normal" angle of coverage, is the most challenging focal length to master because it's characteristics are the most transparant, i.e. no compressed distances or apparant distortion or drastic converging verticals. Get a 50/2 and learn it well.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), November 14, 2001.

Tony, you're our best man. (Everybody knows that anyways.) I wish I had all lenses too, even if just so that I could say that. I wouldn't even have to use them all either. I've always dreamt (and posted) this, that the very best way to give the best recommendations as a very experienced M-er is just to have already adopted all the lenses in the meantime. Maybe someday. Maybe I can buy you a 24 as a Christmas present first.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), November 14, 2001.

Anyone second the suggestion of 35/75 vs 35/50 and 35/90? What're the pros & cons for such a combination?

I don't own a Leica M so I also want to know as I'll be getting soon.

-- Fred Lee (leefred@cadvision.com), November 16, 2001.

Use your 35 some more Ken. The 50 will start feeling like a Tele lens.

35 and 50. That's my vote. Everything is optional. And that's my firm opinion as of this moment ;-)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 16, 2001.

Everything else is optional I mean.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 16, 2001.

35/90, then 24. Don Chatterton once told me that the newspaper photogs who order from him use the 24/35/75, and that he sells that "package" more than any other.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), November 16, 2001.