Leica M9 just arrived....lens question

[drewflorida]

I'm a Hasselblad and Nikon shooter and just received my new Leica M9 today. I have a Leitz Wetzlar Summilux 50mm f/1.4 and was considering purchasing a Tri-elmar of some sort. I am debating between a 16-18-21 ASPH and a 28-35-50 ASPH.

The question is, with the 50mm I have, will I be overlapping with the 28-35-50 or in everyone's opinion is the image look dramatically different enough to warrant going that direction? Or, should I go very wide with the 16-18-21 and buy a 35mm lens separately down the road once I get some time with the camera. I've played with the M8.2 but not with enough different lenses to really make this decision.

Unfortunately there is nobody in the area that has them on the shelf where I can try them out prior to purchase so I'm hoping folks here can give me your thoughts from experience.

Thanks

 

[Roger Hicks]

The WATE is a fascinating lens, and one that I would go for as a complent to the 50 - but so much depends on you and what you shoot. I reviewed the WATE for Shutterbug and for my own site: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews wate.html

Cheers,

R.

 

[Shac]

Hi - If I understand your question (in 2nd para) a 50 is a 50 whether it's a fixed focal lenth or a variable (28-35-50) - so yes it would overlap for the 50 focal length. The advantage of the 50 Summilux is its max aperture over the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50.

What focal lengths do you use most on the Nikon? This might guide your decision of which lens(es) to buy in adition to the 50 lux.

A beginning guide might also be to use the viewfinder of the M9 that allows you to preview the view provided by some focal lengths.

 

[AusDLK]

I own the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar.

I owned and sold the WATE. Too wide and just too much of a hassle to use. When you change focal lengths, you have three things to do:

1. turn the ring on the lens
2. change the focal length switch on the finder
2.5 change the focus distance if you're totally pedantic
3. push buttons on the camera to tell it of the change

Argh. No thanks. I'll just use my ZI 18mm lens.

No such hassles with the Tri-Elmar. It's my favorite lens on my M7s and as soon as my M9 comes, it will be my favorite again.

 

[drewflorida]

To further respond.....and thanks for input everyone!

To further respond.....and thanks for input everyone!

Hi - If I understand your question (in 2nd para) a 50 is a 50 whether it's a fixed focal lenth or a variable (28-35-50) - so yes it would overlap for the 50 focal length. The advantage of the 50 Summilux is its max aperture over the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50.

What focal lengths do you use most on the Nikon? This might guide your decision of which lens(es) to buy in adition to the 50 lux.

A beginning guide might also be to use the viewfinder of the M9 that allows you to preview the view provided by some focal lengths.

Yes, was thinking of the overlap / duplicate focal lengths, and thank you for the response! I am one of those sickos that wants to cover as much as possible, so on the Nikon I use everything from a 10.5mm to 400mm prime lens with many in-between.

I'm NOT a professional, just an avid hobbyist, so I try NOT to shoot any one particular type of photography but do everything from portrait to landscape to architecture to travel type stuff. I also do product photography for our own businesses now and then.

I know that is not the most intelligent, nor direct answer but unfortunately it's the only answer I have. I bought the M9 because I was tired of dragging the H3DII-50 around while travelling and the Nikon D700 while very good in it's own right, is "just different" with the end result. At 18 megapixels on the M9, I figure I'm going to get much improved large-image quality and that famous contrast-y Leica look from my travels that I will just never achieve out of the Nikon. Plus, it's just really really cool and I have camera-itis BAAAADDDD.

 

[BillBingham2]

I'd look into the Leica 24mm option. If you like the 50, the 24 is a great second lens. If you start at 35mm as your main lens, which many RF folks do, then I'd suggest either an 18 or a 15mm next step wide. I really like difference between my lenses, but that's me. To many the perfect F kit was 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 105/2.5. Using the 50 as your anchor lens not reason not to do the same on an M9.

B2 (;->

 

[Sam N]

Don't get a tri-elmar... especially when your high-ISO performance is so much lower than you were used to with the D700. Besides, the M9 samples I've seen with the Tri-Elmar were not very impressive compared to the ones with the 50-lux and the 35-cron.

A (24 or 28)/50/90 kit is very versatile.

 

[peter_n]

Plus, it's just really really cool and I have camera-itis BAAAADDDD.

Welcome to the forum Drew! Here that is called GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) and we all have it. 😉

I don't use the multiple focal length lenses as I prefer primes but we are all different when it comes to how we see. If you're going to base your lens selection around the 50mm focal length then (to my eyes) a good two lens pairing would be 28 & 50. I wouldn't use the 35 in the Tri-Elmar if I had one. A good three lens set would be 35, 50, 90. When I go traveling I use 24, 35, 75 and very rarely take a 50. But that's just me.

If you're new to rangefinder photography, it might be a good idea to just get the 50 and see how that feels to you and once you're used to the new rig then use the framelines on the M9 or visit your local camera shop (warning: more GAS!). By then you should have a more informed idea of what your eye might see as a complementary focal length(s). It took me quite a while to come to terms with RF photography from a lifetime of SLR thinking. I needed to try lenses for myself because I eventually found that all the well-intentioned advice in the world didn't necessarily jibe with the way that I see the world. Surely a nice new M9 & 50 ASPH will quell your GAS for a while? 🙂

 

[drewflorida]

Seems like a common suggestion, so I'm going to listen....

Seems like a common suggestion, so I'm going to listen....

Seems like almost nobody who has had or used one of the Tri-Elmars is really in love with it but everyone who suggests has been suggesting a 3 prime set. So, I've been looking a little and it seems like a new 35mm ASPH 1.4 or 2.0 might be a better next lens, and then for the wide stuff a 21mm or 24mm down the road might be a better way to go followed by a 75 or 90mm. The IDEA of the Tri-Elmar replacing several lenses is enticing, but obviously I want to get the best image I can out of this rig, otherwise what's the point, right?

Thank you everyone for your suggestions, now guess I gotta go count the pennies!

 

[Tuolumne]

I sold my 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. F4 was just too slow for me, even in full daylight. I much prefer the flexibility of fast primes over a slow "do-all" lens.

/T

 

[HenningW]

Seems like almost nobody who has had or used one of the Tri-Elmars is really in love with it but everyone who suggests has been suggesting a 3 prime set. So, I've been looking a little and it seems like a new 35mm ASPH 1.4 or 2.0 might be a better next lens, and then for the wide stuff a 21mm or 24mm down the road might be a better way to go followed by a 75 or 90mm. The IDEA of the Tri-Elmar replacing several lenses is enticing, but obviously I want to get the best image I can out of this rig, otherwise what's the point, right?

OK. I have a different opinion. I have both Tri-Elmars since they came out, and use them a lot. If I'm outside, they are great and their versatility makes them extremely useful. You'd have a hard time noticing image quality differences between them and the fixed FL's. I also usually have some faster lenses with me, or carry the faster ones only when it gets darker.

In the range of the WATE, there are few really fast lenses except for the 21 Summilux but in the range of the standard Tri-Elmar there are many faster choices. If I'm carrying a lot of lenses, I might have both T-E's, the 21 Summilux as well as the 35 and 75 but the fast lenses only come out when the light is low or I otherwise want a large aperture.

I also know quite a few others who really like the T-E's.

The only way to really know is to use them for a while.

 

[Al Kaplan]

A Tri-Elmar does not replace anything unless you shoot only in good light. It's a Sunday-in-the-park lens. How often do you make 20 x 30 inch prints? Good, now you don't need the latest in aspherics either. I think that most of us prefer a 35 over a 50 as an everyday carry around lens. A 90 pairs well with it. 35/90 is the classic pair of lenses. There's no good reason to have every possible focal length.

 

[sfokevin]

There's no good reason to have every possible focal length.

😱😱😱😱 Heretic - 1 : a dissenter from established religious dogma...

 

[250swb]

I wouldn't go with either Tri Elmar, one is a great Sunday lens as Al says, the other is a novelty wide angle arrangement, great for a laugh or if you are totally dedicated to ultra wide views.So I would add a 35mm and a 75mm or 90mm if it were my kit starting over gain. Or if you like wider, a 24mm or 28mm instead of the 35mm. Select your first lenses around two or three that are the iconic ones for an 'M', add Tri Elmars only if you always come home thinking 'I missed that photo because I didn't have a Tri Elmar'.Steve

 

[Garfink]

I have tried the WATE and MATE, they are great sharp lens but slow and just a bit less of everything compared with the prime counterparts. For the price I would get a wide prime, say the Leica 21/2.8 asph if you are rich, pre-asph if you are not or the Zeiss 25/2.8 and then a good 35/50mm (too many choices to list) and still have money to fill in all the gaps in between with Cosina/Voigtlander lenses (most of which are very nice and most are faster then WATE/MATE). They just don't make financial sense.

Their only advantage is not having to unmount/mount lenses (which is important in this digital age, where sensors with dust is a pain) or carry anything extra.

If you had to limit yourself to 2 lenses, then I would get lenses that don't need an external viewfinder 28 to 90mm, which two depends on you. On a full frame, 28 is wide and would suit most situations. Standards 35 or 50 is very personal, I wouldn't leave home without both of them myself. Remember on most surveys, the 75 & 90 are the lenses used least and left at home most.

Hope that helps