I am slowly shifting over to an M system after years of lugging around a large AF system with multiple lenses which I will keep. I also do not expect to ever give up shooting with my R6.2 and my SL. I have enjoyed shooting with my recent addition which is an M3. While other threads have touched on this I have not seen any one specifically ask whether people prefer to specifically build their system towards low light or light weight. I have recently discovered how nice it is not to be loaded down when I am with my children, yet I have always enjoyed low light portrait work. While cost is always a factor, my wife is fairly understanding because she realizes that photography is my means of dealing with stress, and the more succesful my business is running the higher the stress level. I am a large individual and compared to my af system with an 80-200 f2.8 any M lens seems small, however, many people complain about the size of certain lenses such as the 75 f1.4. In time will I feel that way too?

Again thank you in advance for your advice.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), May 03, 2002

Answers

Speaking specifically of the M system, and excluding lenses such as the Noctilux, 75/1.4, and 135/2.8, the weight differential between the faster and slower versions of the other focal lengths is not significant in comparison to the overall weight savings of an M system versus an AF-SLR system. The added weight of 35/1.4ASPH vs 35/2ASPH, 50/2 vs 50/1.4 and 90/2.8 (current) vs 90/2APO will not be a big thing if you've been carrying around a pro-level SLR with an 80- 200/2.8 and 28-70/2.8. Buy an Op-Tech SOS strap for your camera bag and I don't think you'll be able to feel the difference between the foregoing M lenses, so if having the extra stop matters to your style, go for it. The 90/2 is bulkier than the 90/2.8, if that is a consideration...it is for me, and the shallow DOF of that and the 50/1.4 are useless to my shooting style, so I avoided those lenses. I do own the 35/1.4ASPH which if someone wanted my opinion on owning just one superspeed M lens, that would be the one.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 03, 2002.

I am a large individual and compared to my af system with an 80- 200 f2.8 any M lens seems small, however, many people complain about the size of certain lenses such as the 75 f1.4. In time will I feel that way too?

Greg:

I too, am a large individual (6'-6", 235lbs). When I first got my M system, I silently laughed at the folks who complained about the weight of the 90APO (similar to, but a bit smaller and lighter than the 75)... After all, I was coming from a Nikon F5 with all of the fast zooms. Less than three months later I purchased a little 90TE because of the size/weight of the 90APO.

My entire point being the weight of the 90APO was no issue for me until I had used the system for a while, and then began to compare it to other M lenses. Couple that with the fact that most M lenses perform exceptionally well wide open, and even the diminuitive f2.8 lenses become very useable at relatively low light levels. However, some of the newer fast lenses weigh little more than the new slower counterparts; like the 35 Lux v Cron asph, 28 Cron asph v Elmarit, and even the newer 50 Cron v Lux. Physical size is a different issue, though...

Cheers,

Cheers,

-- J Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 03, 2002.

I lean towards small - BUT - this is why Leica makes, and people often own, at least a couple of lenses in the same focal length.

My main shooting setup has recently settled down to: 21 f/3.4 Super- Angulon (tiny), 35 preASPH Summicron (tiny), 90 Tele-Elmarit-M (tiny), 15 f/4.5 Voigtländer/Cosina (tiny).

But I also have a 90 f/2 for times when the speed or background blur is important. However an M with the 90 f/2 mounted is heavier than a Nikon FM + 85 f/2, and about the same as a Contax Aria + 85 f/1.4.

It's all relative. At a Leica day I tried shooting with an R8 and the 70-180 f/2.8 lens. After hefting THAT combo the 75 1.4 and an M6 felt like a feather!

There is also the "Princess and the Pea" syndrome. I can 'feel' the difference in weight between my M6ttl and my M4-P (all of - what - 40 grams?) and it's sometimes irritating (!!!)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 03, 2002.

Low light portrait work = 75mm,50f1,35.1.4!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 03, 2002.

I'm forced to like slower, lighter lenses because I can't afford the faster ones. However, it really doesn't take much forcing me to like a 35 ASPH Summicron, 50 Summicron, and a 90 Elmarit, though. The lighter weight is a nice side benefit.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.

I know a professional photographer a the newspaper where I work who is a tiny lass who lugs around a backpack full of Nikon equipment all day. It weighs more than my entire travel luggage! Seems crazy to me - one of the reasons the 35mm system was invented was to be small and portable, but pros always seem to like burdening themselves with heavy stuff. All Leica gear is compact - though not necessarily lighter than plastic AF SLRs. Cutting down the amount of gear you take with you at any one time to a single body and a couple of lenses help. A reasonably heavy body like an M3 is more stable for low-light work. To me, even heavier lenses like the 90 f/2 Summi feel well balanced. Combined with lack of mirror vibration and the superb lenses which can be used wide open, the Leica M is a superlative choice for low-light work.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), May 03, 2002.