Okay, here is a questions. I'm joining the force, and switching to the Leica M6 system. Should I get a 'lux in my outfit of 35mm and 50mm, or will the f2 crons do the job? Available light shooting is a primary medium for my (amateur) work (metro stations, cafes, street lighting). I have never used anything below f2, and this seems to work fairly well.

-- Anam (aalpenia@dasar.com), February 11, 2002

Answers

I have never used anything below f2

I think you have answered your own question. The 'crons will certainly do the job.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

A thousand bucks for one stop? Think it over man. Buy film.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

I thought about this problem last fall and bought the 35mm 'cron instead of the 'lux. Given the the discounts and rebates last fall, I paid for slightly more than half of my 28mm 'cron with the savings from not buying the 'lux. I know that the two lenses are close in focal length but I love them both - certainly the two best lenses I've ever owned.

-- Tom (therbert@miami.edu), February 11, 2002.

> A thousand bucks for one stop? Think it over man. Buy film.

jeff, explain your logic? there's just no way around it. you'll always be a stop faster no matter what film you select. save yourself some money, drill a hole in the body cap and shoot EI64000 film?

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), February 11, 2002.

perhaps you meant save the $1000 and buy film with it. much better.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), February 11, 2002.

If money is no object, then go with the 'Luxes. Or, take the middle road and decide on which focal length you're most likely to use in low light, and buy a 'Lux in that focal length while opting for 'Crons for the other lenses in your kit. Or, pinch money wads (pinching pennies with Leica is an oxymoron ;-) ), and go with all 'Crons.

The extra stop is certainly convenient, but think of it in terms of amortizing that extra $1K over the number of shots where it will be essential.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 11, 2002.

I also never used anything below f2...that is until I bought the 35 Summilux ASPH. Now that I have it, I find myself using it often.

When I bought my M6, I knew that I wanted one of the famous fast Leica lenses. With the Noctilux being so specialized (and expensive!) I decided on the 35 ASPH. I'm pretty confident that I'll never own a Noctilux, and don't especially want one at this time.

If you're like most people here, you're going to lust over over a fast lens sooner or later. Why not get a 35 Summilux ASPH (which is an excellent "everyday" lens as well) and get it over with now?

Just my two cents worth, but I had to say something as I just love this lens!

Good luck, Luke

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), February 11, 2002.

Thanks everyone! Mostlikely I will do the 35 lux and the 50 cron....if I can find the money!

-- Anam (aalpenia@dasar.com), February 11, 2002.

Daniel-

Seriously, how often do you "need" to shoot at 1.4? All I'm saying that $1k is big bucks for a "just in case". You're right, I should have written buy more film. I shoot in similar situations to Anam with the 50 Summicron and rate HP5 at 320, I haven't missed the extra stop at much as I would have missed the grand. I guess that $1000 dollars paid for a bunch of my film.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

I've got a 35 f/2 Canon, which is a skosh smaller than my 35 Summilux, and a 50 Summilux and a 50mm f/2 Canon Serenar (essentially a well made Sonnar copy). At f/8 I can't tell them apart.

I've learned that when I shoot at under 1/30th second, unsharpness is caused by camera shake. I therefore will shoot wide open whenever I can get away with the narrow depth of field.

If you've never experienced f/1.4, its twice as sharp as f/2, in terms of camera shake. I've even acquired a Noctilux, for yet more speed. Optically, these lenses are fairly sharp wide open. You can see a bit of vignetting, especially in the Noct, but I don't find it a problem.

If you're picky about optical quality, and regularly mount your camera on a tripod, and tend to shoot at f/5.6 or smaller, then the Summicrons are a bit better than their higher speed bretheran. Then if you go to all this trouble, why not get 4x5 view camera, with it's swings and tilts and sharpness that will blow the doors off any 35, even Leica.

I use the f/2 50 for daytime trips (it collapses, making the M3 pocketable. The 50 Summilux is my favorite, it's ergonomics (reversable hood, large lens mounting dot) and optics are superb, and finally, the noctilux goes with me when I know I'll need that extra stop and don't mind the bulk, such as a wedding or theater.

You'll have to find your own way here. I started with the cheaper f/2 lenses, and wound up with the faster ones, as that hand shake (or subject shake, if you're photographing people, is very real).

BTW in the Washington DC metro stations, the light underground is 1/30th second at f/1 with ISO 200. You'll need all the speed you can get.

-- Tom Bryant (Boffin@gis.net), February 11, 2002.

Thanks, Tom. That does help considerably.

-- Anam (aalpenia@dasar.com), February 11, 2002.

I would go with a set of Crons you can buy a 90 with the money you save and you can easily turn your f2 Crons into Luxs for about eight bucks - just buy a roll of 800 ISO film instead of 400 ISO.

-- Ron Dixon (RDixon@stny.rr.com), February 11, 2002.

Only you can say how much you need the extra speed (check the archives for extensive discussions of other point of comparison). You can accomplish a lot w/f/2, but, as Tom Bryant points out, when you need that extra stop, you need it. Also, in my experience w/street prices, the 35 'lux is *not* $1000 more than the 35 'cron, more like a "mere" $600 (although I lucked out & only paid $275 more).

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), February 11, 2002.

Yeah, I second what Chris says about the Lux not costing $1K more than the Cron. If you're not opposed to shopping around and can live without a Passport warranty, you can find one for around $1600. I got mine (new) in November for $1590 from Hong Kong, international warranty included. Had I found a 35 Summicron ASPH for $600, or even $800, that's the lens I would have bought.

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), February 11, 2002.

Many people trade their Cron in for a Lux (35), and NOT many people vice versa. Nuff said.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002.

Your need for the extra stop may not be the issue. You might "want" toshoot at 1.4.

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), February 12, 2002.

I drive a Mustang Cobra. Do I ever use all 320 HP? You bet. Would I use F-1.4 or F-1.0 if I had it and could afford it, you bet.

Regards,

-- Alan Purves (lpurves@mnsi.net), February 12, 2002.

Anam,

I just refered to a Pop Photo review of the 35 and 50 mm Lux's (this is from 1994, so I am not sure what versions these are) but Pop Photo gave them both FAILING marks at the wider apertures! Granted, these would be for the equivelent of 16X20 enlargments. IF you are only going to make 6X9 or 8X10 prints, the point is mute....but if you find that truly GREAT shot (remember RFK on the floor after being shot) then it MAY make a difference.

Then again, the RFK shot wasn't set for correct exposure...the neg is VERY thin. I think (was it Bill Eppridge?) was in the right place at the right time, lifted the camera and shot at whatever was set on the camera.

Perhaps the newer versions hold up to the magazine "tests" a little better.....but I think the "Crons would do just fine!

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), February 12, 2002.

Todd,

I'm familiar with that test, and because of it, I bought a Canon F1, with a 50mm f/1.4 FD lens (among others), instead of a Leica, thinking that it was sharper than a Summilux wide open. It wasn't. It was the sharpest 50mm f/1.4 lens I'd ever seen on an SLR (vs Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) but it wasn't sharper than some older shots I'd done with a Summilux.

It turns out that Pop Phot does their tests based on imaging properties of a flat surface, not a more real world curved surface. Canon knew this and designed their lenses to pass this test. Leica knew that most photographers rarely shot flat walls at 5 meters distance, so they allowed it to have a significantly curved image plane, and corrected for other, uglier, abberations. The Summilux also has the very real advantage that it can shove its rear element back to within 3 cm of the film plane. An SLR lens, whose rear element must clear the mirror, does not have this luxury. This constraint cannot make for a sharper lens. These minor details perhaps explain why the real world performance of Leica glass, at least in focal lengths less than 60mm or so, have that marvelous "glow" that the others can't match, wide open.

It took me two years to realise my error.

Now, here's no way I'd choose the Canon 50 over the Summilux, except if I was photographing the night sky. And then, I'd use the Noctilux! (Or better still, a Schmidt camera).

Beware of Pop Photo tests. While they do not lie, they do distort!

What is said here of the 50 is also true of the 35.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), February 12, 2002.

Tom, What you say makes sense....and not having shot a Lux at maximum aperture (or shot a Lux at all) I can't dispute your conxlusiions. I have read about Pop Photo and agree with you on their tests. I will have to try a Lux at 1.4...or maybe Contax G will answer the 1.4 challenge?!?!

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), February 13, 2002.