Advice would be much appreciated regarding a decision I need to make tomorrow about a wide angle M lens on order. I am specifically planning to get either the 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M or the 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH, which will accompany my existing 50mm f/2 Summicron-M and a 90mm f/2,8 Elmarit-M. While I have read many past comments here regarding the superb 35mm ASPH, my main concern is the fact that I may find the 35mm to not be quite wide enough, and too close to the field of view that my 50mm yields. For this reason, I feel that the 28mm may be more acceptable. Wish I could buy both, but staying true to the Leica name brand is a bit too expensive - and I'm not selling the Harley! Anyway, any comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

-- Steve Brantley (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), March 03, 2002

Answers

It sounds like you should consider the 28mm Summicron ASPH. New one go for $1500 on Ebay.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 03, 2002.

Steve,

If you want to go wide, consider the 28mm f2.0 Asph, it is a superb lens. The 28mm f2.8 is not in the same league. The 28mm f2.0 Asph is as good as the 35mm f2.0 Asph and you won't be disappointed. The 28mm gives an angle of view of 76 degrees compared to 64 degress with the 35mm. (50mm = 45 degress.) Some people call the 28mm f2.0 Asph the new "standard" lens.

With the 28mm f2.0 you won't need to experience any post-expenditure regrets, something that is a common phenomenon. In fact people spend more time on research and mental turmoil AFTER they have bought a product, or bought/sold a stock, so you might as well buy the "best of class" i.e., the 28mm f2.0

My $0.02

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 03, 2002.

Steve:

I have a 35 f:3.5 Summaron, 35 f:2.0 SM Canon and 28 f:2.8 Elmarit. The 28 is my preferred lens of the bunch as the 35 is not wide enough for me. For the dollars, I would look at the 28 f:2.0 Summicron.

For reference the HORIZONTAL field of view on the lenses is as follows:

50mm 40 degrees

35mm, 54.5 degrees

28mm, 65 degrees.

The above are mere numbers, but they give a perspective to coverage of the lenses. Good luck and shoot some pictures of the Harley with the new lens.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logical1@catholic.org), March 03, 2002.

Steve, You're asking others to make a personal choice for you based on our biases & styles of photography. So, here's my 2-cents: I'm not a fan of the 28mm focal length; for wide, I'd prefer the 24mm, or even the 21mm. The best description of the 35/50 lens issue is that the former allows the photographer to shoot a person in an environmental setting; the latter, much more isolates the image of that person. Personally, I find the difference in 35mm & 50mm focal lengths also more than enough to carry both lenses, especially for travel photography. Therefore, I'd advise you to go 35-50-90, & in the future, add a 24. Put this system in a camera bag that straps around your waist[for quick access to the Leica], & ride that Harley all day with no fatigue! Happy shooting, BILL

-- Wm Mitchell (mitchell.candy@worldnet.att.net), March 03, 2002.

Steve, of course the decision of what lens to purchase when is entirely up to you; you pays your money and you makes your choice. Only you know how you see and what lenses fulfill your photographic vision. That being said, I will tell you that I agree with William Mitchell; 35 and 50 are different enough to merit consideration of both lenses. I probably use my 50 Summicron more than my 35 Summicron ASPH, but both lenses are indispensible to me. My own lens preference has me jumping from 35 to 21 on the wide side. The 28 Summicron is one tasty lens, but I too opt for something wider. Try to rent or borrow both the 35 and the 28 to help your decision making process. In the end it is what satisfies your needs.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), March 03, 2002.

The 28/50 combination did me for years, until I could afford more. I now have a 35, but it hardly ever gets used--it's represents hardly a two step movement in my position from either the 50 or a 28, and I'd rather just take the walk.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 03, 2002.

Only you can decide on the right focal for what you shoot. BUT, I will simply reaffirm that if you go for the 28, get the new Summicron asph. It is an amazing lens; in the same league as the 90APO.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 03, 2002.

Steve, if you are trying to cover the aspect range of photography and you have a 50 and a 90, a 28 will give you that 1.8 ratio wide angle difference from one lens to the other (multiple 28 times 1.8 and you get 50.4, multiple 50 times 1.8 and you get 90). This should give you a nice range of angles/perspectives with only three lens. Of course, if you win the lottery you can always go with a very fast 35 later. I have used 20 and 24 lens in my SLR work, but I find the 28 in a rangefinder just

-- Dayton P. Strickland (daytonst@bellsouth.net), March 03, 2002.

Steve:

I doubt that advice on 28 vs 35mm lens is useful. You just have to figure out which one you like better...and, once you get one, you'll regret you didn't get the other. In my case, I would choose the 35mm because I've used it for 90% of my pictures; but now I'm using a 50mm lens much more. Below are two examples, but I doubt they will be helpful. [I welcome comments, positive and negative.]

The first picture was taken with the Elmarit 2.8/28mm which is a great lens. If you opt for the 28mm, and don't need f/2.0, this is an oustanding lens. This particular picture, I could not have taken with a 35mm because I would have been to close by the time I saw the opportunity. The film is Ektachrome 100s, The scene was at Jin Hong, Xishuangbanna, China.

The second picture is with the Summicron-35 taken on Delta 100 at Ayuthaya, Thailand:

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), March 03, 2002.

Sorry, I blew it! The above picture is taken with the Noctilux at the flea market in Paris. The correct Summicron-35 (pre-ASPH) is this:

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), March 03, 2002.

Not quite sure what "not in the same league" means in actual image making but the 28/2.8 is a very good lens. The 28/2.0 is one stop faster and may infact be sharper when tested with optical charts but if there is a significant enough price difference for you, the 28/2.8 will be a fine performer. The resale value of the 28/2.8 will be less that that of the 28/2.0 so you should get a bit of a price break up front to help compensate.

I use both the 28 and 35 mm focal lengths. I rarely carry both around at the same time however. A dual 28mm and 50mm combination is very useful as is a 35mm and 90mm combination (a 35/50/90 combo is a "classic" 3 lens set but a 28/50/90 is also good).

For a "one camera and one lens" "set" I mostly use the 35mm focal lenght. The 28mm is usable with the viewfinder of the.72 and .58 M's which is a plus for me. I do not like using an accessory finder all that much and did not really find it out until trying one with a 24mm lens for about a year. You may find things differently. Some folks like to/need to use an external finder with a 28mm lens.

The 24mm lens is perhaps my favorite SLR wide angle but I really did not like it on the Leica M. The use of the acessory finder was a draw back but teh focal length was either to wide or not wide enough and did not focus as close as an SLR version. I mention this because, like others have mentioned, what works for me may not fit you. The 24mm lens is an excellent lens, fits nicely in the focal length "slot" after the 35mm lens, but in use, for me, with the M camera, I usually wanted a 21mm or a 28mm focal length. I have not found that buying lenses to fit a pre-planned, evenly spaced focal length or "angle of view" system works very well for me. I have had to trade a lens or two over the years to change what I thought I might need to what I actually found I preferred.

If you want more of a wide angle look to your images and will be buying only one wide angle lens, I would go for the 28mm and would buy the newer f/2 version if I could afford it but would be very happy with the 2.8 version. If you think you will add another wide angle lens later then consider the 35mm one now. It is an extremely useful focal length and will "allow" you to go to a 24mm or 21mm second wide angle lens in the future.

As far as 21mm lenses go, the little Voigtlander 21mm/4 lens is a nice addition, very small, inexpensive (relative) and will focus closer than the Leica 21 or 24 (albeit it is not rangefinder coupled at this close range) With a little guessing at this close range one can get that nifty (and sometimes useful) exagerated near/far relationship that a wide lens like a 19/21/24 can do (less able to do this with a 28 and not much at all with a 35). You do need to use an accessory finder with it (it comes with one) and this may be a bit of a pain. I do not use this lens that much but it was well worth the appx. $400 price (including adapter ring and finder) to have that really wide view when I want it.

All said, I used the 35/50/90 triple lens set for years before adding any other lenses and was quite happy. If it were me, and I owned a 50 and 90 already my next lens would be a 35mm (in my case the 35mm was my second M lens, the 50mm was the first).

Robert

-- Robert Ardinger (rardinger@kc.rr.comr), March 03, 2002.

Steve, since you chose the 50/2 and 90/2.8 it would seem that super- speed lenses aren't your main concern. Thus I would put in another plug for the Tri-Elmar, which will give you 28, 35 and 50 without changing lenses. Most of the time you will probably go with the 3E and 90/2.8, but you'll still have the 50/2 as a fast lens for low light. If at some point you really feel the need for a really fast lens, you'll sell the 50 and buy a 35/1.4ASPH.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 04, 2002.

Steve,

Opinions are like.....you know, everybody has one. I concur with Bill Mitchell though. Go with the 35 Summicron ASPH, then save up for the 24 ASPH.

When I started to get the latest generation lenses, I picked the same two you have now, then got the 35 ASPH, then finally the 24. Seriously, unless the funds aren't finite, I believe you'll find they will cover your needs 99% of the time. I've probably got only one more lens in my sights, and that's the Tri-Elmar. That to satisfy the convenience that it would afford as a "walk around" lens.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), March 04, 2002.

I agree with Jay's suggestion of the 3E (since that's what I did!) Also, as Leica says in its brochure for the original 3E, I've found the 90 Elmarit to be an ideal companion for it.

Whether you'll find your 50/2 sufficiently fast, as an available light alternative to the 3E, I don't know. In my case I have a 50/1.4 and I know I'd find f/2 to be too slow.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 04, 2002.

Thanks to everyone for their great responses. This is a big reason why I enjoy reading this list every day (actually, several times a day)! Quality people the world over, who are knowledgeable about Leica (and other brands) camera equipment. Thanks again. So far, I'm still leaning toward the 28mm lens, but, several comments received thus far have about persuaded me to go with the ASPH f/2 version. Ihave the feeling that unless I try one of the ASPH lenses, I will always wonder if the images taken with a non-ASPH lenses could be even better. I'll keep you posted on my final decision and user's impressions after running some film through the new acquisitions. Regards.

-- Steve Brantley (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), March 04, 2002.

The way I see it, the point of view to consider is not only which lens you like best, but also which one you use most often.

If you use any 50 a lot, you may also end up using any 35 often, too (maybe even more often). If either happens, I'd say don't then get a 28, but a 24 or a 21 instead.

(Yes, you can turn that whole first sentence around backwards.)

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), March 04, 2002.