You max weight/size for M lenses ?

You max weight/size for M lenses ?

  • < 250 gr : ie 35mm Cron pre-asph, 90mm TE, ...

    Votes: 10 22.7%

  • <350 gr : ie 35/50mm Lux asph, 75mm Summarit, ..

    Votes: 13 29.5%

  • <500 gr : ie 90mm Cron, 24mm Lux asph, 75mm Cron

    Votes: 3 6.8%

  • No limit, does not matter to you : Nocti, 75 Lux

    Votes: 18 40.9%
  • Total voters
    44
Y

yanidel

Well-known
Local time
5:46 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,102
Location
Paris
View My Gallery
One of the main advantages of the M system is the weight and size of the lenses vs their DSLR equivalents.
I often use a 60mm Hexanon which is an amazing lens, but at 420 grams and filter size 58mm, I often think it kind of goes against some of the rangefinder advantages even if still much smaller than most DSLR lenses. I also do think that subjects react differently to a huge lens then a tiny 39mm one.

So by your standards, what is the category (weight/size) of lenses you limit yourself too, and why ?
 
Last edited:
I really try to use lenses that use a 39mm filter for the size of it. Kinda limits me, but I don't mind. Also I try to stay away from tabs, focusing knobs and the like. The CV 35/1.7 or a cron fit the bill.
 
I think small size can (should?) be retained in most lenses... But for a good portrait/bokeh lens, a higher size/weight level is maybe technically required... I also think tastes for portrait lenses can be very subjective... In my case I fell in love with some portraits I saw from the 90 Summicron, and I have tried to find similar results from small 90s but I guess they are really different... In all my other lenses small size has been my first priority. Not only because of their light weight or easy storing/carrying, but because of their innocent look to common street people...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I don't really care about weight and size per se.

I don't like the viewfinder being significantly obstructed. Leading to smaller wide angles. Teles can be bigger. My 75 Lux only slightly intrudes into the framelines.

So I don't know how to answer.

Roland.
 
Yeah, size matters. The smaller lenses are, I think, the heart and soul of RF photography. Pre-aspherical Summicron 35, 40/2 Nokton, etc.. 39mm filters ideal, 43 at a stretch. 😀
 
I like small lenses, but I don't put a cap on wheight either...
My heaviest lens is the Canon 50/0.95. It's not an everyday lens but I love using it!
 
Small is king. Which is why I no longer shoot an M, and will be selling my Hexar RF. Going retro with Barnacks and tiny lenses. 🙂
 
My two heaviest lenses are a 75 Lux and a 50 Rigid cron. Eventually I would like to add a TA Rapidwinder. I did a lot of shooting a Nikon F3 with MD4 motordrive and I learned a heavy camera makes a steady camera for available light.

But on the other hand I have a Leica IIIG that I use a 28/3.5 Canon/Seranar and 50/3.5 collapsible Nickle Heliar. A very small camera/rig. The Seranar with its deeply recessed front element is about the size of the collapsed Heliar without the hood BTW and becomes a pocket camera.

I didn't vote in the poll. I like living without compromise. I'm spoiled.

Cal
 
I use some pretty big lenses but I don't care....they serve their purpose....

I know that I am in the minority around here when I say that size doesn't really matter to me in the sense that my Nikon fm2 with a 50mm, 28mm or a 35mm lens on it is roughly the same size as any one of my Leicas and basically any m-mount lens that I have with the exception of the cv 15mm........

I don't really think that the size of any of my lenses has ever affected one of my photos in any way....then again, I obviously can't say I am 100% sure of that because it would be impossible to know....but I think that the outcome of the photo has a lot more to do with the photographer and the skills that he has than whether he has a 50mm elmar or a 50mm noctilux.

cheers, michael
 
Last edited:
Small for me too. Not a lowlight shooter most of the time so I stick with Nikkors on my M6. 50/1.4 S, and 28 and 35/3.5 LTMs. Just got my Zeiss Opton 50/2 back from Brian Sweeney shimmed for Nikon S. Another tiny, but great lens.

I used to own the version II 90 cron. What a monster of a lens on my M3. The 50 lux asph was a bit bigger than I'd prefer.
 
The heaviest Leica lens I've tried was the Noctilux at 630 grams. I sold it, feeling it was too heavy for me. The 2nd heaviest is my 75 Summilux at 560 grams. That one doesn't seem to bother me so much in use, though it seems too heavy and bulky to take on some trips. So I have the 75mm CV for that. I agree with those who say that smaller and lighter is better, more rangefinder like. I like my 35mm Summicrons, and new-to-me Summaron. I like my Cv wides: 35/2.5; 28.3.5; 25/4. I have the Leica 21 ASPH, 24 ASPH, 28 ASPH, 90 ASPH, but they don't always go with me. They might stay behind while I take my 90/2.8 TE and the CV wides instead. And I might shoot he Cv wides on my Barnacks to save even more weight.

Good thread, Yanidel. Hope to meet you next time Sue and I are in Paris.
 
I've been using a 50 Pre ASPH lux and I find the size just right. Most of the E46 lenses seem to be the best in terms of size / weight

28 Summicron,
35 Lux ASPH (non FLE)
50 Lux Pre-ASPH / ASPH
90 Elmarit - M

The weight -> size ratio works out pretty well, and they're all fantastic lenses. Are there any other E46 lenses?
 
Last edited:
i love small lenses...but...it is not THE deciding factor for me in buying or keeping a lens.

i think i have finally reached the point where the 'look' of the final image is the presiding and over riding factor of what i buy and what i keep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom