A One Lens Camera?

[Bill Pierce]

The thread on what is your favorite lens on a Leica has set me to wondering. Is the Leica really a one lens camera?

With the exception of the M3 and the .85 viewfinders, the range-viewfinders of Leicas work best with 35 and 50mm lenses. That’s pretty much reflected in the favorite lens thread.

There isn’t so much difference in angle of view that you are going to miss a picture with a 35mm because your camera has a 50 - or vice versa. You walk a little or crop a little.

Is the Leica a one lens camera that has the option of changing lenses if you really have to? Bresson seemed to think so. A lot of folks who contributed to the last thread seem to think so. I know I usually travel with a normal lens on the camera and bag of other lenses that really don’t see any use until I absolutely can’t take the shot I want with the 35 or 50 that is on the camera.

Comments?

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Over the many years I've used Leicas, I've always found it most effective for me with a 50 or in rare instances, a 35. I know that the thing these days is to use very wide angle lenses on them, but an SLR has always suited me better with the extremes either way.

 

[Keith]

I don't know about Leica but the R4A/R4M has to be a camera that fits into this realm. I really now only use my R4A with my 15mm Heliar as the total viewfinder is very close to the 15's field of view which makes it the ultimate wide shooter IMO... occasionally a 25mm Zeiss goes on it but not often! My M2 gets used for 35mm 50mm and 90mm while the M3 sits in the cupboard because you can only carrry so much stuff around on two wheels. 🙂

 

[maddoc]

In my opinion, the advantage of an M-Leica over most (except Olympus OM) SLR is the smaller size and thus better transportability. When I take my Leica with me (every day), I put one lens of choice onto the camera, load one roll of film and try to make the best out of the given setup. It helps a lot not having to think about which lens to use but how to use the one lens most effectively. Also, not carrying a bag makes moving around much easier and more stress-free.

On the other hand, a professional photographer on an assignment has to think different, he needs to get the best out of the given situation and not being limited by his tools.

 

[Artorius]

I agree

I agree

In my opinion, the advantage of an M-Leica over most (except Olympus OM) SLR is the smaller size and thus better transportability. When I take my Leica with me (every day), I put one lens of choice onto the camera, load one roll of film and try to make the best out of the given setup. It helps a lot not having to think about which lens to use but how to use the one lens most effectively. Also, not carrying a bag makes moving around much easier and more stress-free.

On the other hand, a professional photographer on an assignment has to think different, he needs to get the best out of the given situation and not being limited by his tools.

When I go out for me. I think one lens, though I will tuck a second in a pocket, which hardly ever gets used, but is always there.

But, as a professional while on assignment, I take everything I can carry or have someone tote.

 

[Chris101]

I don't even have a second lens for my M4p.


If I did, it would only slow me down.

 

[windraider]

Now that you have mentioned, given that RFs tend to be useful to me only between the 35 to 90mm focal range, I rarely change lenses on my Leica as there isn't a significant difference in perspective over that focal lengths (although I always bring more than one lens out with me - addictions of a gearhead). Come to think of it, the most common change on my Leica is between my 35mm Summicron and Nokton - change not because of focal length (both 35mm) or quality (both superb),but for ease of handling (love the summicron's compact size) & max aperture (bokeh & speed of the Nokton).

 

[lkgroup]

For the last 1-2 years I have used a 50 sonnar lens almost all the time with a few switches to 35mm.

The previous 2-3 years I used a 35mm almost all the time. I guess my point of view has switched.

I wonder what I will use in the next 2-3 years.

Leo

 

[europanorama]

40/1.9-24/1.9

40/1.9-24/1.9

i would not wonder if we will really see a highspeed one-lens digicam. like canon af35ml(40/1.9. with its fuji natura 24/1.9 has made an interesting counterpart. i am sure canon or fuji will offer them on a larger chip.

 

[Harry Lime]

It can be a one lens system.

There are a few people that come to mind who shoot with one lens on a Leica. I think Antonin Kratochvil and Abbas only shoot with a 28. So did Winogrand, once he settled in. Bruce Gilden seems to shoot a 21 or 24.

Most of WWII was shot with the 50mm.

Obviously Bresson shot 90% of the time with a 50, but he did admit to using a 35 and 90 on occasion.

Capa was primarily a 50 shooter, but he also shot with lenses as long as 135mm in Italy.

Personally I'm a two lens person. 35 and 50

Which one I use depends on several factors:

- How much of the environment do I want to show around my subject and how that will effect the mood of the shot?

This is probably the main criteria for which lens I choose. A 50 can be a lot more intimate than a 35. The 50 is very voyuristic. A 35 is what you see and a 50 shows what you remember one minute later.

Technical reason:

- Working in a confined space, so I need a wider lens.

- Want more or less DOF at a given stop and shutter speed.

 

[oftheherd]

I don't own a Leica, and doubt I ever will. However, I think the question can be asked of any camera that has interchangable lens capability. I mentioned in another thread that I "grew up" with a normal lens, which is 50mm for 35mm cameras. I have other lenses for all my cameras that can change them. I still prefer the 50mm lens. I am trying to use the 35mm lens more on my Kiev just to see what all the hype is about (and because it is the only wide I have for the Kiev).

But if I have the Kiev, and I am only taking one lens, and I am not force-feeding myself the 35, it will be the 50. If the Super Press 23, then the 100mm.

 

[FrankS]

Bill, I think your question has more to do with the photographer than the camera.

 

[notturtle]

Bill, I think your question has more to do with the photographer than the camera.

precisely.

sometimes I take one main lens with another in the pocket. Other times I take two bodies with one lens on each. sometimes I take one body and three or four lenses. It just depends on what I am going out to do.

I agree that the optimum for a given body is limited. A 0.58 is great with 28 and 35mm and marginal for 50. A 0.72 is great with 35 and OK with 50/28 etc. I happily change lenses if shooting slower stuff, but when fast I pick what I think is appropriate and work to that FL (i.e adjust my timing and distance to get the framing right for that combo, rather than changing lenses)

 

[Murray Kelly]

When travelling I take only the Snapshot Scopar 25/4. (full stop, no comma)
At home and I have more time to ponder, it is either a Serenar 50/2 or a J-3.
Both are amazing, to my eye.
If I want a collapsible for pocketting, it is a Summitar 2/50 or a FSU 3.5/50.
The Elmar never gets an outing. Don't ask me why, I dunno.
Murray

 

[Bassism]

The Leica is very much a one lens camera for me. I do own two lenses, but they're both 50s.
My primary attraction to the camera is its small size and ease of use. Carrying around more lenses and fumbling with them would make it rather less satisfying for me. If I want to be fancy, I'll take an SLR.

I'm a glasses wearer, and the 50mm frame in the M2 is pure perfection for me. The 90mm frame seems a bit small to be especially useful to me, and I can't see the whole 35mm without searching. So, for me, the M2 is the perfect 50mm camera.

 

[BillBingham2]

For me, no it's not a one lens camera. I think it's a combination of several aspects.....

Some artists respond best focusing on one lens, finding their way to see something that others have missed or not done the way they think they can. Some might call it monolithic, others genius.

Other artists look to the tools and move from 6x6 to 4x5 to 35mm using light and lenses as part of their message, the camera provides a frame.

While I've tried to love 135 on an RF, it's an SLR focal length for me. These days my 180mm is stuck on the SLR. It's a perspective that I want from time to time.

I think a lot of lens choice comes down to being comfortable with a lens. Knowing it's ins and outs, how it will react to bright light in a corner, how it will allow you to bring the viewer into the scene, how it will allow you to capture what you want to say.

I think a lot of the old masters did not have the wide range of choices we have today. Great lenses are much more plentiful than they were back in the 50's.

B2 (;->

 

[feenej]

I'd call it a two lens camera. I have a 35mm and a 50mm and little desire to get any other focal lengths.

 

[shadowfox]

I don't even have a second lens for my M4p.
If I did, it would only slow me down.

Exactly!

I only have one lens for my M4-P also. Upgrading to another lens is one thing, but to have (let alone carry) multiple lenses for an RF body...?

To me, that's just going the opposite of what RF cameras are good for: quick, inconspicuous, high-quality shots.

 

[ferider]

If you use 35 only, f2 is fast enough, and you want speed and quiet operation, for practical purposes, a Leica is simply the wrong camera: I would always pick my Hexar AF instead.

But I agree with Frank, it's highly person and situation dependent.

They are funny beasts, Leicas:

- on the non-profit assignments that I have done, I couldn't live with less than two Leicas and 2-3 lenses.
- when I travel, I often go with one body, and 2 lenses or more, but per "outing" only one lens makes it out of the hotel. In that sense yes, a one lens camera, but only for a couple of hours.

Roland.

 

[Dogman]

I almost always carry two M6 bodies, one with a 35mm Summircon and one with a 50mm Summicron. These two lenses take care of about 80% of what I shoot. Nineteen percent is done with a 21mm Voigtlander and 1% with a 90mm Elmar-C.