Leicas only: votes in brackets.

21/3.4 (1) * 21/2.8(1)* 24/2.8 (2) * 35/2 (12) * 35/1.4 (9) * Tri- E (4) * 50/1 (3) * 50/1.4 (3) * 50/DR (2) * 50/2 (12) * 50/2.8 (2) * 75/1.4 (1) * 400/6.8 (1) * 35-70 Vario-elmar (2) * 100/2.8 (1) *

The Crons are leading, but only just over the 35 lux. Price difference aside, I still feel the Crons produce better image qualities at the edges as compared to the Luxes ar widest apertures.

The survey continues..

-- Lux (leica@sumicron.com), May 30, 2002

Answers

Somehow a type of proof in the pudding. I have often said that I thought 35 and 50 (at least as Ms) are favoured equally my many of us. Thanks for the proof here (at least as far as 'crons go).

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 30, 2002.

Also note that NOBODY chose the venerable 90 (or the 28 for that matter), which is considered a "must-have" by many...

;-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 30, 2002.

Leicas only: votes in brackets.

21/3.4 (1) * 21/2.8(1)* 24/2.8 (2) * 35/2 (12) * 35/1.4 (10) * Tri- E (4) * 50/1 (3) * 50/1.4 (3) * 50/DR (2) * 50/2 (12) * 50/2.8 (2) * 75/1.4 (1) * 400/6.8 (1) * 35-70 Vario-elmar (2) * 100/2.8 (1) *

A forumer just added the Lux 35.

If you haven't cast your ONLY-LENS-TO-KEEP vote, just type in this thread. I will keep it updated. I really have nothing better to do for the moment. ;)

-- Lux (leica@sumicron.com), May 30, 2002.

Hey Jack!

Food for thought, your note. I was thinking of something like that myself. Big comparisons of 'crons and 'luxes especially among 35s and 50s of course, but still interesting that the two 21s were even in the list too. Now for a 21, whether it's a 2 or a 2.8 doesn't seem to matter very much.............

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 30, 2002.

Shit!

"Now for a 21" should read "Now for a 28..."

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 30, 2002.

I suspect the reason no 28s turned up in the tally is that this focal length is seen more as a "must have" secondary lens, like the 90. I suspect few of us are without a 35 or a 50, and one of those focal lengths does most of our shooting. It's only once we have those meat and potato lenses that we start thinking about how we'll season our photographic stew.

The 28 also suffers from being a "middle child". It's not quite wide enough to be really dramatic like a 21 or 24, but it's just a bit too wide to be used as a normal lens (for most of us, anyway). It pains me to say that, however, because the 28 has as much of a hold on my wide angle heart as the 24 does on rob appleby's. I suspect that as I get more active with my photography more and more images will flow through that 28 Summicron - a killer lens in a killer (but often overlooked) focal length.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), May 30, 2002.

If I had to go with one lens it would be a 50/2. I would really miss having a 35mm at times, but for me it would be the best compromise.

-- Mark Rinella (markrinella@earthlink.net), May 30, 2002.

I second Mark above:

"If I had to go with one lens it would be a 50/2. I would really miss having a 35mm at times, but for me it would be the best compromise."

Robin

-- Robin Barnsley (rb@jet.uk), May 30, 2002.

My vote is for the 35 Summilux ASPH. Don't own a 50 at the moment, but it's only a matter of time...

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), May 30, 2002.

"..and as they come out thundering of the final turn the 35 horse and the 50 horse are neck and neck - the 35 has the lead, now the 50, now the 35! AND NOW THE TRI-ELMAR JOCKEY IS TRYING TO RIDE THREE HORSES AT ONCE, FOLKS! He's got one foot in the 35's stirrup, one foot in the 50's stirrup, and his a** is on the nose of number 28! Holy COW!? what a horse race!"

"The 21 and 24 horses are bunched up on the inside rail, without much of a hope (but taking great pictures all the while!) The 75 trails the pack (but MAN, what Bokeh!)"

"..And as they come to the line; it's the 35 by a nose, no it's the 50, NO it's the 35! Better get out that 400 f/6.8, folks - it looks like we're going to have a PHOTO-FINISH!"

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 30, 2002.

I already voted, so these are merely comments. I picked a 35 'lux ASPH because I think it's ideal if you can only have ONE lens.

But after hearing the discussion about the 28, I wanted to add that I love my 28 'cron and wouldn't give it up for anything. I often carry it with my 75' lux and sometimes even with one of my 35's. The 28 and 25 are not as close as many people suggest.

I'm currently debating which 50 to buy, and I think the 28/50 combo would also be nice to work with.

-- Noah (naddis@mindspring.com), May 30, 2002.

1. Summicron 50/2 2. Summicron 35/2 3. Summicron 90

-- (quelong@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

I'll swim against the tide here: I use a 28 2.8 Elmarit (last pre-asph) 70 percent, current 50 cron 25 percent, and a 90 asph 5 percent of the time. But I also commonly use two M-6's at once, hence the 28-50 combo. If I had only one M, I'd go back to using a 35mm most of the time. I also have the 15-Voight, which comes out only occasionally, although its a fun lens to use on occasion.

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), May 30, 2002.

2/35 for me.

-- Ilkka (ikuu65@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

Summicron-DR 50mm f2.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 31, 2002.

Leicas only: votes in brackets. Latest..

21/3.4 (1) * 21/2.8(1)* 24/2.8 (2) * 35/2 (14) * 35/1.4 (10) * Tri- E (4) * 50/1 (3) * 50/1.4 (3) * 50/DR (3) * 50/2 (15) * 50/2.8 (2) * 75/1.4 (1) * 400/6.8 (1) * 35-70 Vario-elmar (2) * 100/2.8 (1) *

50/2 leading..

-- Lux (leica@sumicron.com), May 31, 2002.

35/2 gets my vote.

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), May 31, 2002.