You wouldn't believe how many hours I've spent reading and re-reading the posts on this topic and weighing the pros and cons of each combination. Unfortunately the more I read the harder it is to decide.

I currently have an M6TTL, 90SAA, and 50 Cron on order, and I can afford one more lens now. I'll add more one later.

The lens I buy now will commit me to the 2.8/21mm, 2.0/28mm wide angle combo, or to the 2.8/24mm, 1.4/35mm combo.

I'll use this system for street, avaliable light, and travel.

Do these choices make sense?

I would really appreciate some advice.

Thanks

-- David Geddes (d_geddes@pacbell.net), May 11, 2002

Answers

Ah, yes the torturous Leica lens combo decision...I've been wrestling with this decision myself. I currently have a an M6TTL with a 35 Summilux ASPH, 90 thin TeleElmarit, and (as of last week) a Voigtlander 15. Now I'm wondering if I should have bought a 50 Summicron instead of the latter.

I will say this: the 35 Summilux has magic in its glass. For low light AND street/travel versatility, it cannot be beat. For my tastes (and so many others here) it is THE one M lens to have. Get this lens now and worry about which superwide next year.

FWIW I think my ideal kit would be two M6 bodies (.58 & .72) and a 21 Elmarit APSH, 35 Summilux ASPH, 50 Summicron, and 90 TE. Oh, and maybe a Noctilux eventually. But the 35 Summilux will always be my principal lens.

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

very personal, of course. Should I ONLY have 3 lenses, it probably would have been 21, 35, and 90 -- having said that, I use 35 and 50, both, comprising perhaps 90% of my frames.

How wide you go depends on the extenet. I went on a photo tour of Italy/Europe, and would not have been abale to take interiors of cathedrals as wide as I wanted without the 15 Voig (I have also used the 21, both lengths give a pretty good wide angle). But, if you are really street photo -- people, I think a 28 might be nice. I used to use on a lot, but not recently. If I only had one lens, it would be my 35, and I find oftent I don't want to bother changing lenses. Have you considered the Tri-Elmar?

-- l smith (lacsm@bellsouth.net), May 11, 2002.

A hard desition David, I belive since in the same situation over and over, (yes you never end desiding wich combo), but it settle down when a mature usage of the system.

I have read lot of tigth combos like 24/35/50 or 28/35/50, is not like in SLR systems that you go wider 16/28/105 for example.

this will have to do with the way you see and of course what you do in photography, for example combos that are used at the same time for example in street 28/35/50 keeps your vision into limits, allowing change of focals without change your vision too much, it helps in the street or documenting around people.

Other combos are to be used each lens on a topic, like 15/35/90, each lens has it´s universe and they are not complementary of each other, rather they have their unique vision.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

I have thought about the tri-elmar, but the speed is too limiting.

The lure of the 35 Simmulux is undeniable for exactly the reasons Luke mentioned.

Additional comments welcomed.

-- David Geddes (d_geddes@pacbell.net), May 11, 2002.

i'd go for a 50 and a 28 if you only have 2 choices. if you have 3 choices i'd add a 90mm.

-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 11, 2002.

David, I have both of the lenses that you have chosen, and they are tremendous performers. You really cannot go wrong with Leica lenses; your decision should be based upon how you see. I recommend using these two lenses for some period of time - really getting to know them. At that time you should have a feel for the rangefinder and what else you need to accomplish your photographic vision. I own multiple lenses and will carry several lenses based upon what I feel I will need for the shot. Sometimes I will carry 35, 50, 90, adding a 21 if needed; or I might go with a 35/75 combination, and maybe a 21 for wide shots. I really enjoy the 21 ASPH lens, but the 24 ASPH may fit you better, or the 28, etc. Lens focal length is a personal decision. You will know better what you need after you get to know what you have just purchased. JMHO

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), May 11, 2002.

For what it's worth, Erwin Puts reckons the 24 ought to be in every M user's bag. Regardless of whether the lens is as marvellous as he says (it probably is), it seems sensible to have a lens a little further removed from the (essential) 35 than the 28 is.

-- Paul Hart (paulhart@blueyonder.co.uk), May 12, 2002.

Hi David,

Very hard choice indeed...

It seems to me you miss a very versatile wide angle as a priority.

Personnally I lived without a 50mm for a long time. I'm just very near to buy one. But it wouldn't have been possible to live without a 35mm and if you can afford the marvelous 1.4 asph. by any mean afford it! ... It is the most versatile wide angle you can dream of and this focal length is IMHO ideal for street photography when you need to include the subject into its environment. it doesn't show much of the specific perspective effects of wide angles but gives you should the need arise much more DOF than a 50mm for a given aperture.

The second lens choice is something much more diffcult to recommend. As far as i'm concerned I'm not used to the 24 mm and never felt very much attracted by it... Be it a splendid lens like the Leica 24 mm one. The reason is simple it doesn't permit the extreme DOF effects a very wide angle authorizes and it has already the trade mark of them in terms of perspective. By the way, you'll need an auxiliary finder anyway.

The advantages of the 28 mm are:

It is very controlable in terms of perspective effects and you can really avoid unwanted deformations should you be cornered by a short distance to the subject, but you can also use the important DOF and some perspective effects to your advantage. When used at close distance and as to avoid perspective deformations a wide aperture can limit the DOF visibly. Finally, but if you have a 0.85 M6 TTL, you don't need an auxiliary finder to use it. It is a lens you can use very often at all apertures and having a fast one is very useful.

The 21 mm is a lens which IMHO is a very useful one but mainly for effects (architecture, landscapes mainly). It has all the peculiarities of a very wide angle, much more than the 24 mm, and it permits you dramatic perspective effects. However, as good is the Leica 21mm asph. you must be conscious it is a very expensive lens which requires an auxiliary finder which is rather expensive too. It is also - as far as the Leica 21 mm asph. is concerned a cumbersome lens. Do you really require a f/2.8 maximum aperture for this focal lens ? It's up to you to determine. As far as i'm concerned the f/4 Voigtländer made Color Skopar and its auxiliary finder you can buy for the price of the Leica finder alone is a better value for money if you don't need to use this foca length at very wide aperture. The V-lânder lens may be less glamorous but all reports rate it the equivalent or better than older Leica 21 mm lenses and it seems to perform extremely well at f/5.6 and f/8. As this lens is typical of wide angles to be used with maximum DOF to get interesting effects, I hardly see the need to have them made as very fast ones. This option will save you much money and perhaps permit you to envisage a third lens instead. The other V-lânder spectacular success for example: the 75mm f/2.5...

Finally my choice would be:

1 - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux asph.

2 - 21mm f/4 Voigtländer Color-Skopar

3 - 75mm f/2.5 Voightländer

4 - 28mm f/2 Leica

In that order...

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 12, 2002.

Its apparent that my next lens should be, and will be the 35mm summilux.

As I become familiar with this lens I will ponder the alternatives for a wider lens. That decision, as Francois correctly states, will be much more difficult.

Thank you all for your help.

Additional comments still appreciated.

-- David Geddes (d_geddes@pacbell.net), May 12, 2002.

No the basis that even with 'street' photography, you should get close, then closer still, the 35mm Lux/Cron would for me be an obvious choice as a standard lens. Its wide enough to get a grab shot in most situations, and the latest lux and crons won't distort the picture when you do want to get close in. Forget a 28 unless you go via the Tri Elmar route (a good choice anyway), and have a 50mm 'cron, a 35mm 'cron, a 90, and for a very wide a Voigtlander 21mm. The later 21mm I bet you will hardly use for 'street' work, you will be so far removed from the subject that it may as well count as landscape, but at least it won't cost much.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), May 12, 2002.

Another alternative to the Leica and CV 21mm is the Kobalux 21 f/2.8 It is a stop faster and the third version which I have had now for a couple of months is very sharp and contrasty. I would love Erwin Puts to put one through it's paces and see how it compares to the CV version. The other lens that I always take along is the 35 Summicron pre-aspherical. It has bokeh to die for and is one of my most used lenses. The third lens in my bag is my 90 Elmarit M. It is compact and super sharp. I still however, if I can take only one lens with me it's my 50 Summicron. Probably still the most used and valuable lens to have as it sees the world as we do, although some times that isn't always what I want. :-)

-- Dave Saalsaa (SaalsD@cni-usa.com), May 12, 2002.

David,

Always easy to spend someone elses money. Unless we win the lottery, funds will always be finite.

I'd go for the 35 next. Next (and there will always be a next till you have one of each focal length) I'd pick the 24. Personally I feel the 28 is too close to the 35, and the 21 is too wide. I can vouch for the 24 being a fine lens with very low distortion unless you are on top of your subject. Most of the images can't be distinguished from a 35 unless you happen to remember you had the 24 mounted.

I'd be hard pressed to rationalize either a 21 or a 28 now. But I still spring for a lottery ticket each week.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerry Pfile (Jerry Pfile@MSN.com), May 12, 2002.

David, I spent so much time having the same question so here's my offer as an answer ("suggestion" would be a better word here):

1. First, if you already have a 50 (whether or not you have a 90) and you don't already have a 35, then get a 35 (make sure if it has to be 'lux, as a 'cron is just as good except for that one lack of speed).
2. You say "street, avaliable light, and travel" but I'd say we need more details: 21 is usually better for architecture, interiors, wide landscapes, 24 usually better for portraits of people groupings, reportings like in newspapers and magazines, and 28 of course better for single portraits or a building not tending to look like a pyramid.
3. Of course, hardly anybody here has  a 21+24 or 24+28 or 28+35 pair, so your choices are logical. But it's not just the numericalness in mm, but rather the target favouritness of the lenses which is going to end up telling you what to get. I don't even have a 24 or a 28, but after my 35 and 50, I like my 21 the most, because I love really wide angles and I need it the most for dramatic scenes like cemeteries. That's personal, that's banal, but it's that simple. If you don't like this type of target, then stick away from 21 and get a 24 or 28 (already having the 35).
4. FWIW, you might consider that (in contrast to a 21) one small advantage of a 24 is that it is possible to view here (at least with a 0.72 or 0.58 M6) without using the separate viewfinder.
5. Lastly -- and I mean this chronologically too -- go to a Leica Day or Leica Seminar or to any good store (even if they aren't the most inexpensive) and try everything on for size first before you buy anything (except for possibly a 35 you should soon already have).

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 13, 2002.

if i had this funds at disposal, i'd get the 35 summilux and a second M6-TTL.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 13, 2002.

Hiya

I have a 21 asph for interiors and effects, a 35 sum asph which i find well wide enough and fairly distortion free and you can move out a touch if required plus it`s a good lens to leave on the camera for grab shots, a 50 sumicron cos youve just got to have one and see the superb distortion free quality and a 90 apo which is a cracker with the ability to do heavy crops with and use as a medium tele. I am thinking of a second body just for the 21mm and keep the finder on all of the time. The 35 and 50 get most use.

Question to members! Do the M lenses focus ok with the bessar R2?? I can`t stand a camera that doesn`t focus on the button at infinity.

Thanks

Dave c

-- D J Chilvers (davechilvers@btinternet.com), May 13, 2002.