Hi guys..

I have a M3 for a year..great magnification for 50.

Im thinking of a 35mm f2 non-asph plus either a M2 or M4p. The M4 is too expensive.

Which should I get...? btw, Is the 35 cron f2 good enuff? or should I get the 35 lux 1.4 non asph?

thanks guys..

-- Travis koh (polar@cyberdude.com), January 08, 2002

Answers

Travis,

The latest 35 mm Summicron ASPH is the BEST corrected lens across the field @ F2. My understanding is that its imaging characteristics favor uniform sharpness across the field whereas the previous generation lenses (35 mm type 4 summicron, 35 mm Summilux ASPH) were sharp at the center but soft at the edges. That having said though I am now using a 35 Lux with no regrets. Like the extra stop and the fact that the Lux is designed to be used "wide open" with great freedom from flare and reflections. Kinda like a poor man's Noctilux (because of the extra "virtual stop" you get for using a wide angle over a standard).

Although your not that much poorer than the man who owns a Noctilux if you own a "poor man's Noctilux". Just not as burly.

Cheers,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002.

In my opinion the diference betwen the latest summicron non asph (4) and the asph is fussyness in the very extreme corners at 2 and 2.8, and a minimum incress in contrast at 2 by the asph.

The ´lux non asph, is basicaly the same design as the fourth version ´cron plus an extra f/stop; it is very soft wide open, but still usable, is also very flare prone wide open but closing it by half stop begins to improve, at f/2 it has gain enough contrast to compare it with the first summicron at that f/stop, and at 2.8 it behaves like a ´cron third version, the best of all if you do color work is tha lateral chromatic aberration doesn´t exist; of course it is yearslight behind the 1.4 asph in contrast wide open and flare supresion. Of course there will follow a lot of coments here, as had been wrote before.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 08, 2002.

Ooops! your first question.

The M2 is a remarcable good camera, but it lacks of some "modernities" that the M4P has, like film loading and 28mm mask, also because of age it will be dificult to find an M2 in excelent conditions, but if you find it and don´t mind the way it loads (well you already have an M3, don´t you?), many swears on it as the best M.

I have an M4P and I just love it...

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 08, 2002.

Much has been written on the various 35mm Summicrons - but suffice to say ANY of the versions from the last 30 years will perform superbly, the later versions are generally better wide open however.

Regarding the M2 vs M4P, these are the only two M bodies I now own - both are superb and to give one up would be very difficult! I love the M2 for it's "old school" construction, chrome engraved finish, smooth feel, beautifully clear viewfinder, self timer, enjoyably slow loading procedure, rewind knob, manual frame counter, lack of meter etc, etc.

I love the M4-P for it's black chrome finish, front Leica script, quick loading, 6 frame viewfinder, lack of meter etc, etc.

So, plenty of contradictions but I believe the M2 is the best of the "old" M's and the M4-P is the best of the "modern" M's.

My advice is to handle as many different bodies as possible and you will probably very quickly decide which you prefer. Having said that in day to day use there really is very little difference other than the M2 is slightly slower to load and rewind. Both are superb - buy one of each if possible!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 08, 2002.

Travis, the 35/2 pre-ASPH is a better-corrected lens at similar apertures than the 35/1.4 non-ASPH...but of course it's one stop slower and if that is your need the choice is made for you. However I've noticed that the prices on 4th generation pre-ASPH (the immediate predecessor of the ASPH)35/2 are within $150-200 of a used ASPH in which case if at all possible I'd go for the ASPH--or else a 3rd-gen 35/2 non-ASPH. I have one of those, it's a fine lens, and significantly less expensive than the 4th-gen.

As to M2 vs M4P, you're obviously not off-put by the loading/rewind of the M3, so your choice may come down to which one you can find in the best condition for the least money. That's probably going to be an M4-P, and you'll get the quicker loading/rewind, more framelines and a chance to attach a motor. I would also check out used M6 classics, they're not much more than the M2 and you get a meter.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 08, 2002.

I have an M2, M4-2 and a M6TTL. The M2 was my first Leica and I will never sell it but it is the last one I pick up to use. It only sees action when I want three bodies working at the same time and it gets my least used lens so I do not have to reload it as often.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), January 08, 2002.

1. Leaving aside the ASPH lenses - the 35 cron f/2 (in any of its versions) will be a sharper lens than the 35 lux at almost any aperture - although the differences may be small stopped down. The non-ASPH lux is very compact, but don't expect better performance from it, just the extra speed.

The ASPH 35 'cron, as already mentioned, has better corner performance at f/2-f/5.6, but it is also somewhat larger, heavier, and 'chunkier' than the non-ASPH 35s. If I ever upgraded from my (v.4) pre-ASPH 'cron, it would be to add the ASPH 'lux and get equal performance PLUS an extra stop.

2. If you already have an M3, you may find the M4+ cameras crazy-making - they are SO much more convenient to load/rewind than the M3/2. At least with the M2 the habits you've developed with the M3 will translate directly. Plus the M4-P is where the dreaded "RF patch flare" began.

If you are looking for an economical body with 35 frames, though, the M4-P (and the M4-2) still seem to cost less than M2s (on average). I use M4-2 and M4-P bodies and love 'em. Get whichever is the best price (bearing in mind the convenience differences).

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 08, 2002.

John Chan: I think that when you refer to an extra "virtual stop" with the 35mm lens (compared to a 50) you mean that one can probably get away with a lower shutter speed when hand-holding. IF you go by the reciprocal-of-the-focal-length "rule" then you can shoot at 1/30 with the 35mm, vs. 1/50 with the 50mm. Thus, you get (almost) as much light at f/1.4 with the 35mm as you do at f/1 with the 50.

But that's only because, at the same shooting distance, the subject gets de-magnified with the 35mm. So any unsharpness due to camera shake is less visible.

Now, what happens when you move in with your 35mm lens until the same area fills the frame as for the 50mm? You are back where you started from, that's what. The image is just as magnified on the film as with the 50. And the camera shake is just as bad. To get the same shake free image at the same size, you'd need a 35mm f/1.

Old sign once seen in deli restaurants:

FREE LUNCH (TANSTAAFL)

TANSTAFFL = "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 08, 2002.

I don't think that's accurate Bob.

The degree of apparent camera shake you experience with any particular focal length is related to its angle of coverage which is for a fixed focal length: fixed.

So take your 35 mm vs 50 mm analogy.

50 mm = 45 degrees coverage 35 mm = 64 degrees coverage

So for every degree of "shake" in the 50 mm lens this will translate to 45/64 degrees of apparent "shake" in the 35 mm lens. This relationship is constant. If I get closer to the subject to fill the 35 mm frame the coverage of the lens is still the same but I have to get closer to the subject to utilize all that coverage.

So I'm pretty confident that you get (maybe not 1 full extra "virtual stop) compared to a 50 mm Summilux but definitely a tangible degree of freedom in terms of acceptable camera shake no matter how big your main subject appears in the picture.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 09, 2002.

John: I agree with everything you wrote, as long as the camera-to- subject distance is kept the same for the two lenses. But when you come in closer (if you do) to maintain the same image size with the wide angle lens, then the camera shake, I believe, will degrade detail in the subject just the same.

I follow your logic in comparing the number of degrees of camera shake to the number of degrees of lens coverage, but I 'm not convinced this is relevant; or at least not the whole story. I will have to think about it. It's a hard thing to test because of the difficulty of repeating the exact amount of camera shake.

Of course, if I used my 500mm mirror lens and then my 21mm to frame the same building, I'd be more successful at 1/30 with the 21mm than with the 500mm at the same speed, wouldn't I? So perhaps taking an extreme example is a reasonable proof of what you are saying.

Still, it seems to me that the de-magnification of the image by the wide angle lens has something to do with why they tolerate a lower shutter speed. In a similar way to how DOF depends partly on how large you blow up the image. Maybe it's a different situation.

Well, I'll have to think about it . . .

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 09, 2002.

I actually went through the same camera-body dilemma about a year ago when I found a chrome M2 and a black M4-P at very similar prices (chrome M4-Ps are horrendously expensive!). Finally, having considered everything, I chose the the M4-P as it seems to be a better working camera (quick film loading, hot-shoe, auto film counter, and compatibility with the M6's accessories, such as the motorized winder, grip, etc.). The more modern features on the M4-P were my priorities, but others may consider the vanity factor as well, since, as far as I'm concerned, the chrome M2 unquestionably looks far better than the black M4-P!

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), January 10, 2002.

Oh, when I said "chrome," I meant the silver chrome finish.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), January 10, 2002.

Travis,

I more and more like the idea of two bodies/two lenses. The 35 1:2.0 is my choice for being so compact.

Price in a CLA with either camera. On average, the M2 seems more expensive, all things being equal. M4-P is more flexible: motor (why people use them I'll never know. Can't use much below 1/50. It would look cool with a Visoflex, though); 28mm frame lines. You don't need the self timer of the M2. Unless you take snaps and want to snap yourself. I hate posed for photographs! When I see tourists taking this type of snap, I usually mummble: "take my stupid picture with that column behind me from 30 yards away...and make sure that the column will appear coming out of my head".

I guess I'm saying: go for the M4-P. Or, even cheaper (and RARER) M4- 2! No 28mm frame line, though.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 10, 2002.

Travis,

the M4-p is more convenient in using, having a 'real' rewind lever. And I like black more. Nonetheless here in Germany at least the M4-ps are significantly more expensive than the M2s, at least the user condition ones. I got my 2 M2s for about $600 each, both CLA'ed within the last 2 years. A M4-p would have cost me about $800 unCLA'ed, a M4-2 would have been priced similarly.
Moreover the M2 has a much nicer feeling, no plastic at all. And if you don't mind the slower loading and rewinding (it is not really that slow, compare it to 120's cameras like Rolleicords), the M2 would be the camera of choice - esp. if you stick to the 35/50/90 mm lenses.

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), January 11, 2002.