What is your ideal two lens set up? I am planning to pick up an m6 this year and in contrast to my previous camera purchases I would like to keep this as a simple two lens outfit and work with what I have. I am considering a 28/50, 35/75 or 35/90. My choice will not only help determine the body (.85 or .72) but also which lens gets purchased first either the 50 or 35. I have found that on slr's I lean from normal to telephoto lenses but in rangefinders I lean from normal to wide.

Thank you in advance.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), February 10, 2002

Answers

35/75 or 35/90. I myself haven't figured this one out completely. I am thinking the 35/90 and maybe adding a 50 summicron later if needed. The ranges seem better matched with the 35/75, and the speed is nice, but a lot of users here seem to go for the 35/50/90 combo. And maybe add a Voigtlander wide as well. But alas, seems like a spiral into a big outfit.

I am sure a lot of people will say what do you shoot? How about getting the M6 and 35 first, and do the frameline preview in the viewfinder whilst walking around mocking photos? I have the 35 lux, and am considering the 75 or 90. You could compare the ranges then. Good luck with your choices...

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

My current two lens outfit is the 35 Summicron and a 15mm Voigtlander - odd outfit some may say but it suits me and MY type of shooting, you need to tailor the outfit to YOUR type of shooting.

I do plan to add the 75mm Voigtlander, which for me will provide the perfect spread.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 10, 2002.

I'd go for the 35/75 combo if you believe you can actually stick to your two-lens objective. Having similar objectives at first, I did the 35/90 combo, but found the difference a bit much. Then I added a 75 (still my only 1.4). Then a 50, then a used 50DR, then a 24.

Will power? I have lots of will power. Won't power is what I'm short of. ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 10, 2002.

In decreasing order...

21+35 15+50 35+75 35+90 35+50

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), February 10, 2002.

24/35 indoors, 35/50 outdoors.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 10, 2002.

M6 with 50mm Summicron and 135mm F4 Tele Elmar

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@btinternet.com), February 10, 2002.

The 35 is just so darn usefull, that I would have to opt for the 35/90 first. The 35 is great for most subjects, and the 90 is great for portraits of people or the environment. The 28/50 is also a reasonable choice, but I find the 28 significantly wider than the 35, hence less usefull, and the 50 not really long enough for head-and- shoulder portraits or long enough to pull in environmental details. I personally find the 75 is a big, akward lens to use, and hence would not consider it in a two lens set.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 10, 2002.

when i carry two lense they are the 28/2.8 & 60/2,8 along with my SL....

-- mark kaminsky (mrry33@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

If I had a choice I would be shooting with a 15mm and 35mm lens outfit. However 50mm for me is inductive enough to shoot plus sometimes 75mm is useful too. There were some times when I want to shoot 200mm on the R4 as well. But I would stick to 15mm (Voigtlander not Hologon) and 35mm (trying to get either the Summilux-M or Tri- Elmar in addition to an Ultron in the near future, all 3 are nice).

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

My Leica AF-C1, with 40mm/f:2.8 and 80mm/f:5.6 (built-in 2x tele converter) has proved to be nigh perfect for street shooting. An excellent high-eyepoint finder allows the entire finder to be visualized even with glasses, and with the 80mm it is life-size. It gets more use than my other 7 Leicas combined. Other than the AF-C1, I'd say a CL with 40mm Summicron and 90mm tele.

-- (bmitch@home.com), February 10, 2002.

When I walk I usually take a Voigtlander 25mm and Summicron 50mm. The ideal for me would be a 25/2, but lacking that, I'm thinking about a 28/1.9 Voigtlander, instead. The nice thing about the 25, though, is that I hardly notice it in my pocket. My third favorite lens is 85- 90mm, but in truth, I rarely use it, so I don't carry it when I'm going light.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

IIIg with 35 Summicron Asph and 50mm Summicron.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 10, 2002.

Many years ago I carried an M2 w/35 Summaron and an M3 w/90 Elmar. This combo served me very well even with very slow Kodachrome. Today I'd want an M6 Classic w/28, 50 and 90 Summicrons. I couldn't imagine being without a 50.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), February 10, 2002.

". I have found that on slr's I lean from normal to telephoto lenses but in rangefinders I lean from normal to wide."

---No one else endorsed your contemplated 28/50 combo. But based on what you said, It might be right for you. There's enough distance between these that it will always be obvious which one you need for a shot, without trial and error. And you could use the 28 on a 0.72 or 0.58 body with no accessory finder needed.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 10, 2002.

Tri-Elmar and 90 or 135.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

With an M6: 35/1.4 ASH and 28/2.ASH Rational. The 35 is my virtual standard lens. If I were simplifying I'd want a wide lens that didn't require a separate viewfinder.

I generally think of a "two lens setup" as two lenses beside the standard 50mm. If I had a "two beside" choice, I'd go for my trust Summicron 50/2 (with separate shade and focusing tab), the 35/1.4 ASH and maybe the 24/2.8 ASH. or 21/2.8 ASH

With this limited setup price and weight would be less on an issue than with my present set up.

Maybe if I could only have to lenses they would be a 50/1.4 and the 28/2.

Naw-- 35/1.4 and 28/2.

I'll be up all night thinking about this...

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 10, 2002.

My favorite two-lens combo is 28 and 50mm. I find this combo especially usefull when working with two (.72) M-6's in fast- moving situations, where I often find that using each lens at equal subject distances can offer visual possibilities which are complimentary. Each of these lenses has just a bit of "off-neutral" character (as opposed to "neutral" 35), which keeps me on my toes visually, and yet this character is subtle enough to allow for flexibility in point of view, so that the 28, for example, can also be used more like a 35 or a 24, and the 50 can also be used almost like a 90, particularly for head and shoulders with a wide open aperture. I also like the compactness of these lenses, and the fact that as a combo they offer perhaps the most efficient use of the .72's finder, although if I wore glasses things might be different, and I might opt for a .58 and .72 body combo. I use the 90 when things are a bit less dynamic and I have time for a more "studied" photo, and I use the 15 only rarely, mostly for interiors or to add a "jolt" to perspective. The 15 can also be really fun to use in crowds. I do miss having a 21 and 35, although I find that for many situations I can replace both with a single 28, perhaps compromising a bit on perspective but not missing a photo by having to fiddle with two lenses. When using the 28-50 combo with two bodies, I typically use the 28 about 70% and the 50 about 30% of the time. 21, 35, and 90mm lenses are often wonderful for the singular qualities that they offer, but as a combo, IMHO, you can't beat the 28+50. Having said all of this, if I had to rely on one camera and one lens, that lens would be a 35. I'm intrigued by the rumors of a possible 35/1.2, although unless Leica can somehow make this more compact than the current 1.4 and tighten up on the wide-open MTF test-pattern a bit, I can't see the reasoning behind it. One thing I will say about the rumor-mill is that its fabulously entertaining! But I ramble on too much - my apologies! Cheers!

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), February 10, 2002.

My answer would depend on whether or not you're going to add a third lens at a later date. If you're not going to add that 3rd lens then a 24/50 combo on a .72 body or a 28/50 combo on a .52 body would be my choice. If a 3rd lens is in the future, then I'd go with a 21/35 combo on a .72 body to start out with and later add the 75. If you don't wear glasses, you might want to consider going with the .85 body as it'll help with the 75lux.

Have fun and try 'em all.

-- Jim W. (jkdub@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

I have the combo. Jack mentioned, 35 'Cron/90 'Rit with a .72. I also came from SLR overload and don't want to repeat it with this (not to mention $$). But I find that I have a hankering for a 50.

Thing is, the finder makes a bigger different, IMO. I always loved the perspective on the 28, and the 50 was my first, on the SLR. If I shot a .58, would that work better? Not sure. While on the one hand you can use the preview lever to see what the framelines look like (which has led me to think that a 50 is coming my way in future), it's hard to visualize what the different finder magnifications will do for you. If I had the 35/50, I'd be using both more equally. Currently, the 90 seems a little more like a specialized focal length- for certain scenics, and portraits.

Keeping it simple- a good aspiration, IMO.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), February 10, 2002.

On my SLRs (Nikon), an 85mm or 105mm lens is on my camera almost 70% of the time. I think the manual focus SLR is at its best at this focal length range, with just the right selectivity and ease of focus. Any advantage of a rangefinder system starts to degrade in my opinion at this distance from the standard lens. Additionally, in opposition to many here, I do like the SLRs representation of the depth of field with medium telephoto lenses better. Regardless of the arguments about how the SLR doesn't give a true rendition, it is more true that the hyper-focused RF window. This is just my personal opinion, please don't flame me. If you can use a telephoto on a Leica M with the ease of an SLR, then great. I am jealous of you for this.

With that said, I tried to like the 90mm lens on my Leicas, but it is the least used lens for that system. So for me, it is a 35mm and 50mm Summicron set that accounts for most of my Leica shots. It is funny, but on my Nikons, I would never carry a 35mm and 50mm lens, but on the M6 this combination works for me. I suspect that if I had a 24mm lens, it would be right up there, but I use what I have.

If I were to start over, the money saved by not buying a 90mm M lens would go towards the 24mm, but I couldn't say which of the other two lenses (35mm or 50mm) would be given up. Are you sure that a three lens kit is not allowed in answer to your question?

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 10, 2002.

IMHO I would opt for the 35/90 Summicron set. Even better I would opt for the 35/50/90 Summicron set I personally think that conmbination with an M6 is a marriage made in heaven. I currently try cover all bases with an M6 and fourth version non-asph 35/2 Summicron, Leica RE with a 75-200/4.5 Vario Elmar and a Hasselbald with 80/2.8 Planar. I use the M6 as my indoor and travel camera, the RE for outdoor sports, nature,close up, etc, and the Hassy for BW fine art. But I am also seriously considering adding the 50/90 Summicron set to the M6. Good Luck with your decision.

-- Ron Dixon (RDixon@stny.rr.com), February 10, 2002.

Small things like people and doorways 2/35A and 2/50. Big things like the whole crowd or the whole building 2/35A and 2.8/21A

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 10, 2002.

For a two-lens outfit, if money doesn't matter, I'd opt for the 28 Cron and 75 Lux. The latest Ms have the 28 finder. This would be for indoor shooting. Some flashes won't cover more than the 28's field of view, Leica shooters owe themselves at least one very fast lens. They are known for their abilities at full aperature. That is where the 75 lux comes in. Those who make the 50 their longest focal length haven't tried to photograph coiled rattlesnakes or a mare with a new foal. 90% of the time, I can get a bit farther back from the subject, but it can be difficult to get closer. And if I only have one camera, it would be the .72.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4.

I work with a photographer who has always used Leica M,he has a rule.

NEVER,EVER take your lenses off.When he buys a new lens he buys a body to go with it.He currently uses 24mm,28mm,75mm all with an M4-p attached and 35mm,50mm and 90mm all matched with M6 classics.

If only we could all afford to do that!

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

Why never take your lenses off? He just has an aversion to it? Maybe he feels he misses the right framing of a shot if fiddling the changing? I don't get it, could you explain his rationale? Thanks.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

For travel and/or if space is tight the Tri-Elmar and 90/f2.8 on an M6 .72 is hard to beat. If you need more speed try experimenting with different film ASA. Modern film, B&W and color, up to ASA 800 is remarkable compared to what was available just five years ago.

-- Richard Hoag (wpcdalas@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

James,I don't get it either!

He uses only one film too,T-max400 nothing else.He says that 6 M bodies with lenses attached weighs about the same as a 2 nikon and zooms outfit,so I don't think it's a weight thing.He is very fussy about dirt,so maybe by never changing lenses he won't get dirt behind the lens? He also says,and I think this does stand true,if he has the lenses attached then he never has to worry about changing lenses(on the back and the top of each body he has the focal length of the lens painted)and with the same film in all 6 cameras this would be a very quick way of working.

I have to say that he never has ALL 6 cameras around his neck,he selects 3 at the most for that particular shooting situation and leaves the others in a bag close by.

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

...and he uses all the best,fastest glass,soooooo,I reckon he carries around about £30,000 maybe £40,000(50 or 60 thousand $us?)worth of gear around all day!

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

I left the "Nikon SLR/slew of lenses/backpack" camp about 2 years ago, having resided there for 30 years. I purchased a used M6 and a couple of old lenses - 35 and 90. Since then I also bought an M2 and sold those two lenses. I now have the 24mm ASPH lens, the current 50 f2, and the current 90 f2.8. I find that I have gravitated to the lens that, in my SLR days I never even owned...the 50! I find that it works best for me at least 75% of the time. I love taking pictures in churches/cathedrals and sometimes use the 24 for that sort of interior work. I use the 90 once in a while. Many times I go out shooting with just the camera and the mounted 50.

So I'd say that in a 2 lens set up, the 50 is a "must have" and some sort of wide angle would be the other choice - for me a 28 or 24. But I could easily go with a one (50mm) lens outfit!

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), February 10, 2002.

You can do any assignment with a 28 and a 90.

-- Tom Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), February 10, 2002.

I would go 35/90 first or 21/35 depending on what I am doing. 35/90 will cover just about any general situation. 21/35 for situations where shooting situations are tight, such as shooting in the confines of some of those European cities.

-- (garylhuie@netscape.net), February 10, 2002.

Hi, Greg:

I have "seen" you here long enough to know that this is a typical hundred-posting/no-answer question . . .!

The best choice will depend upon what you do with your lenses. And that you don't tell. And for the same tasks it will still depend upon personal preferences/experience.

If you want one more answer: 50mm f2 + 90mm f2.8 (according to my personal preferences/experience, of course . . .)

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 10, 2002.

Hey Virgil,

Hey whatever works for your friend! Must be a need thing. Anyway, for me, the 35/75 luxes seem to be my choice now that I have had more time to think about it. The 35 seems unbeatable for an all- around lens. The 75's reach, shile not quite as much as the 90, seems to be good especially with the speedy f/1.4. So there you go, 35/75 f/1.4's and you're set for life! Unless you want that noctilux then I'd certainly understand!

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

Greg, I frequently carry the 35/75 2 lens combo. That being said, I often travel with a single lens; this mandates an exercise in composition with one focal length only. The benefits of doing so are well worth the loss of other focal lengths because it strengthens my ability to "see". I would recommend this exercise regardless of what focal lengths you purchase.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), February 10, 2002.

The two single focal length lenses that see the most use in my kit are the 35/1.4 and the 50/2.0. I've used the 35/90 combo a lot as well, and it works fine for me.

My most-used lens by far, though, is the Tri-Elmar. I usually team it up with a 90 for an all-around daylight setup.

Despite its imaging capabilities, I've never been able to get comfortable with the 75 due to a combination of the framelines, the size and the stiff focus. So as attractive as the 35/75 combo sounds on paper, it's way down on my list.

I can definitely see the attraction of a 28/50 kit, especially if they're both Summicrons.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), February 10, 2002.

35cron and 90tele! 35cron is my standard lens.Although I have 28,35,50 and 90, 90% of my street photography is done with the 35cron. The 35 was also my first purchase and is fabulous!

-- John Elder (celder2162@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

35 (your choice) and 90 (prefer lighter weight elmar) . the 75 is just too big/heavy -- a f2.5 would work well though.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), February 11, 2002.

Only two lenses? I'd have to agree with Jay and others, i.e. a Tri- Elmar and a 90mm (in my case, a 90 Elmarit). This may not meet your needs for low light, however, and it doesn't meet mine either, which is why I also tote a 50 Summilux.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

Fun question. The diversity of answers kind of explains why many of us end up with 4 or 5 lenses instead of 2....

My go: if you do not mind a little weight and volume (in relative M terms), then 35/75 'lux is the definitive dream combo, for reasons explained 2 billion times on this list.

If, like many M users, you like to keep the M small at all times, then the 28 'cron/50 'lux seem like a mighty pair.

But even if you limit yourself to own 2 lenses, you'll still want to go out with camera + 1 lens every now and then. The 28 'cron, the 35 'lux or the 50 'lux can serve that lightweight standard purpose very easily, but you cannot really argue that for the sweet 75...

So, maybe, at the end, it might all boil down to choosing the favourite all rounder lens first. The 2nd lens option will be much clearer then...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

Greg,
I subscribe to your wish to "go simple", and that "normal to wide" is the natural direction when using rangefinders. Why don't you stick to that -if that is what your observed preferences?
FYI: It wasn't until I started using Leica M that I discovered how versatile the 50mm focal length really is. I find DOF to be very controlable -which IMO gives it the potential as a stand in for a short tele. I think it would be a shame to leave it out of a basic setup.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), February 11, 2002.

35/50.

I've tried 35/75 but somehow I miss that 50 more time than I miss a portrait length lens.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 11, 2002.

Outdoors I use 21/50 (city) or 50/90 (scenics). I just acquired CV 28/1.9, so it might take place of 21mm. For three-lens outfit I'd choose 28/50/90. As you might have figured out by now I'm not 35mm kind of person. ;-) I do have 35mm, but it only gets use in one-lens outfit. On the other hand I have two 50mm lenses -- 50/2.8 Elmar-M and Voigtlander 50/1.5. So... it boils down to what you like. I know that without 50mm I will be really handicapped.

-- Alexander Grekhov (grekhov@wgukraine.com), February 11, 2002.

I don't really believe that this is a useful question, as it depends on the type of photography that you do. Last year I would have answered a 35 and a 90 mm lens. That my be the ideal for snapohot type shooting. Since then I have gotten intersted in:

1. For B&W: Creating space natarally in the photo, so now I use a 50mm lens much more; and

2. For color: Exploring highly out-of-focus areas both in FRONT and in back of the plane of foucs, so I am also using a 75 Summilux and 50 Noctolux extensively.

Rather than trying to figure out what other people's favorites (or prejudices) are, you should be thinking about the type of photography you do.

--Mitch/Bangkok

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), February 11, 2002.

Personally I have 35/1.4 and 50/1.0 in my M6 setup. They are very expenisve lenses and produce stunning slides and negatives. I was crazy about them in less than a year ago when I first took pictures with Leica M.

If I were to start over again NOW I will choose the 21/2.8 and 90/2.0. In the past 6 months I prefer to use more often my F100 with Nikon 17-35/2.8 AFS and the Hasselblad 80/2.8 (or 150/2.8) with Hasselblad-Nikon adaptor.

Personally, I find it very challenging to compose with 50mm lens for everyday use and travel. Once I did the pictures produced are special and beautiful, especially with my high speed Noctilux.

-- Damond Lam (damondhk@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002.

35/2,50/2,90/2.8. - close enough to two.

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), February 12, 2002.