35 Lux Vs 50 Lux for my shooting style.. .. (reposting in the right forum)

[pack_tor]

Hi,

Here are the facts of my case:

I currently own Canon 5D Mark II, 35L, 50L, 85L & 135L. My favourite lengths are 35 & 50mm - so much that the 85 & 135 are collecting dust. I love to shoot wide open and in dark situations.

I'm overwhelmingly tempted by M9, just based on the fact that it seems to suit my style (people/documentary photography at close quarters) and considerably less bulk. Also the Leica should help me get over my shyness shooting strangers as it doesn't draw too much attention.

To finance, I'm thinking of selling the 85L, 135L and a bunch of other accessories, but I'm torn on what lens to get as my first - 35 Lux or 50 Lux. I love both lengths, but a slight edge to the 35. I'm a little concerned about the focus shift issues with the 35 (i've faced similar issues with the 50L). This would be my only lens for a while, so it's a tough choice.

What would you guys recommend? This would be my first experience with a rangefinder (i have no problems shooting manual, so i should be fine)

Thanks for your help!

 

[Richard Marks]

Just a thought, but for the money id go for a 35 'cron and 50 'cron. And see if you really take to the M9. You will again find out which lens stays on the camera most often. They are simply brilliant on an M8 and I can not imagine that they will be anything but better on an M9.

Richard

 

[tightsqueez]

I second the motion with the 35 Cron and 50 Cron. Price wise, portability and user-friendly, I don't think you could find a smarter combo. If you want more leg room than I'd opt for a wider lens, either 28mm lens are sufficient. The f/2.0 alongside with the acceptable higher ISOs with the M9 will give you plenty of picture potential into the low light hours.

More memorable images have been made with these two lens variants than probably any other.

 

[Merkin]

Personally, I prefer 35mm on a RF, and 50 on an SLR. I don't really know why. I don't like 50 nearly as much on a rangefinder as I do on an SLR, I used my 35 and my 90 the vast majority of the time. Part of it may be that I used to do a lot of hip shooting with a holga, which has a roughly 35mm equivalent 35mm lens, and i carried that over to RF shooting. I do very little hip shooting with an SLR, though.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Things can change. Twenty-five years ago, I found 50 FAR too long: 35 was natural.

Today, I don't mind so such. Though actually, come to think of it, I'm not that fussed whether I have 21, 35, 50 or 75 on the camera, though I don't use 15, 18, 24, 28 or 90 much, and I used a loaner 12 so little that I didn't buy it. Quite like 135, though.

If you like shooting fast lenses wide open, resist the blandishments of those who advocate bottles a stop slower (Summicron instead of Summilux). I sold my 35 and 50 Summicrons because they received so little use next to faster lenses, though I use the 75 Summicron a lot and kept the 90 Summicron after I got the 75 because it's worth more to me than the money I'd get for it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[thomasw_]

The 35 lux asph is an incredible lens in low light; in shooting on a mp with film, I never experienced any shifting. It is a high contrast lens, and very much like the summicron 35/2 except that it goes to 1,4 [spinal tap allusion anyone? 😉]; in fact, it has the same very pleasing OOF rendering as the asph summicron, while still being very sharp and high contrast. The only 2 things about the 35 lux asph that were harsh in my view, is that it is a lot of dough just for the extra stop, and that it is rather large for the extra stop. It is the same size roughly as the zm 35/2. As such for a 35, a summicron asph and fast film is not a bad way.

On the other hand with a 50, the summilux asph 50 is not like the cron 50, only going to f1,4. The summilux asph is a dreamer of pictures, it can walk the walk in the night or day; it is in a class by itself for all-round 50s. If the price is not a problem, I can recommend it highly.

 

[Richard Marks]

The faster lux lenses referred to above are wonderful however the poster was wondering which of the two to go for. My suggestion is that if one is new to rangefinders that one could nearly get both 'crons for the same price of the 35 lux. That way they could more easilly decide which they preferred. Personally i was a bit underwhelmed with my 50 lux but fortunately sold it at a profit thanks to Leicas price increases!

Enjoy your choice

Richard

 

[TomN]

split the difference and get a 35 'lux and a 75 'lux

 

[Richard Marks]

split the difference and get a 35 'lux and a 75 'lux

If you have funds this would be very very nice.
I did have a few issues focusing a 75lux on the M8 but this may well be a bit easier on an M9
I belive the 35 lux also was a bit tricky to get set up with an M8. It may also have issues with the full frame digital sensor.
The crons are fine out of the box! If we are talking 75's I think the 75 cron a dam site better handling than the lux.

Richard

 

[FrozenInTime]

Your choices might be governed by availability : you might not be able to get your hands on a M9 for a few months and the 50 Summilux also seems to be in short supply.
You could order an M9 and 50 'lux and pick up a 35 'lux and used M6 to keep you amused while you wait.

Both the 35 and 50 summiluxes are brilliant, but I was never happy with the tiny frame lines when I had a 75 summilux.
With just one body, frequently switching between lenses is going to be irritating so a wide/long - 35/75 combo might not work as well as sticking to a wide/normal - 35/50 pairing when working at close quarters
(at least thats how it is was for me).

 

[jarski]

Also the Leica should help me get over my shyness shooting strangers as it doesn't draw too much attention.

M9 lifted on face draws almost as much attention as 5DMk2, perhaps even more as manual focusing takes longer. am jealous of what you currently have, and this comes from Nikon user 🙂