click
Established
I'm going to make the investment of digital and I have a few questions.
Currently the fastest lens I own is an F2 for use on my M6. I am constantly missing shots because of low light. When I make the jump to digital will the adjustment of ISO render the F2 lens just as usable as a 1.4?
In your printing of images 11x14 is there really that much of a difference in quality with the M9?
The five thousand dollar difference in price is hard to swallow. I could make either happen but I've always been conservative with money and a stickler for quality.
These are big decisions for me and your help is greatly appreciated.
Currently the fastest lens I own is an F2 for use on my M6. I am constantly missing shots because of low light. When I make the jump to digital will the adjustment of ISO render the F2 lens just as usable as a 1.4?
In your printing of images 11x14 is there really that much of a difference in quality with the M9?
The five thousand dollar difference in price is hard to swallow. I could make either happen but I've always been conservative with money and a stickler for quality.
These are big decisions for me and your help is greatly appreciated.
There are many lenses F1.5 and faster for the M8 and M9 other than the Summilux. Most cost much less. I use a 1956 KMZ J-3 bought off of Ebay for $60 on mine. Some work required.
ISO 1250, wide-open at F1.5, Auto at ~1/30th..
Everyone else was using a flash.
ISO 1250, wide-open at F1.5, Auto at ~1/30th..
Everyone else was using a flash.
ricnak
Well-known
Hi there Click.
I had those same concerns early on too. I ordered a 50mm 1.4 with my M9.
I recently got a 75mm cron. I decided to use it yesterday to take pics of my son playing cello with a school group. My heart sank when I saw the stage. A dark recessed space with a few small downlights. The carpet was grey, the curtains all around were black. They even had to wear black gowns!
Anyway.... set the camera to auto ISO and shot away. I was VERY happy with the results. Most shots were ISO 2000 and 2500. There was some noise, but i quite liked it. I believe there is software available to reduce digital noise for high ISO shots.
Rest assured a max aperture of f2 is VERY VERY good on the M9.
Hope this helps.
I had those same concerns early on too. I ordered a 50mm 1.4 with my M9.
I recently got a 75mm cron. I decided to use it yesterday to take pics of my son playing cello with a school group. My heart sank when I saw the stage. A dark recessed space with a few small downlights. The carpet was grey, the curtains all around were black. They even had to wear black gowns!
Anyway.... set the camera to auto ISO and shot away. I was VERY happy with the results. Most shots were ISO 2000 and 2500. There was some noise, but i quite liked it. I believe there is software available to reduce digital noise for high ISO shots.
Rest assured a max aperture of f2 is VERY VERY good on the M9.
Hope this helps.
ampguy
Veteran
Is Too Tall Jones too tall?
If you shoot in low light, you'll want all of the Summiluxes.
If you shoot in low light, you'll want all of the Summiluxes.
Vickko
Veteran
...and the Noctilux. Or Nokton f1.1
fotomeow
name under my name
Well, there is beauty and burden in being conservative with money but a stickler for IQ:
.......... and I know just how you feel.
Like Brian said above, there are many options for f1.5 and below, and many very good options at that: Zeiss, cosina-voigtlander, konica hexanon, older canon and nikon RF lenses, but you have to do a little research.
I wouldnt necessarily jump into the Summilux world, ESPECIALLY if you are referring to the ASPH Luxes. If you try a CV lens, go for the ASPH ones since they reported dont have a propensity for focus shift on digital cameras like the non-Asph ones do.
that said, I would encourage several google searches for get links for many lens comparisons which show side -by-side comparisons.
good luck
.......... and I know just how you feel.Like Brian said above, there are many options for f1.5 and below, and many very good options at that: Zeiss, cosina-voigtlander, konica hexanon, older canon and nikon RF lenses, but you have to do a little research.
I wouldnt necessarily jump into the Summilux world, ESPECIALLY if you are referring to the ASPH Luxes. If you try a CV lens, go for the ASPH ones since they reported dont have a propensity for focus shift on digital cameras like the non-Asph ones do.
that said, I would encourage several google searches for get links for many lens comparisons which show side -by-side comparisons.
good luck
Roger Hicks
Veteran
My own view is that yes, ISO adjustment compensates for the extra stop (unless you habitually shoot Delta 3200), but that equally, low-light is a drug of addiction: no matter that you can shoot at ISO 2500 and f/1.4, you still want f/1.
Even so, my fastest lenses are now f/1.4 and f/1.5: I gave my f/1.2 Canon to a friend who REALLY wanted it, as a 60th birthday present, and don't miss it as I much prefer the results from my C-Sonnar. Half a stop is neither here nor there for me (I used to have an f/1.2 Nikkor too).
As for image quality, for me, there is no contest between the M8 and M9. The M8 is very good but the M9 is very significantly better. Countless people talk about making what I regard as improbably large prints from their M8s, but for me, the way the M9 renders texture and tonality is a great deal better.
Bear in mind that this is not just self-justification for spending lots of money. I had the M9 on loan for a long time. If I had found no significant advantage over the M8, I didn't have to buy it. But I do find it a very significantly better camera. Unfortunately.
Cheers,
R.
Even so, my fastest lenses are now f/1.4 and f/1.5: I gave my f/1.2 Canon to a friend who REALLY wanted it, as a 60th birthday present, and don't miss it as I much prefer the results from my C-Sonnar. Half a stop is neither here nor there for me (I used to have an f/1.2 Nikkor too).
As for image quality, for me, there is no contest between the M8 and M9. The M8 is very good but the M9 is very significantly better. Countless people talk about making what I regard as improbably large prints from their M8s, but for me, the way the M9 renders texture and tonality is a great deal better.
Bear in mind that this is not just self-justification for spending lots of money. I had the M9 on loan for a long time. If I had found no significant advantage over the M8, I didn't have to buy it. But I do find it a very significantly better camera. Unfortunately.
Cheers,
R.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I concur with Roger. The point is not the higher resolution for larger prints. The difference is the smoother contrast and color transitions. The M9 is worth every penny imo.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
f2 is good enough since the camera scales on its own.
ferider
Veteran
You don't mention which effective focal length you want to use. For hand-holding, a 35/2 is as "fast" as a 50/1.4.
For me, with film, 35/2 is fast enough. And I don't go beyond 800 ASA. Shooting technique helps.
As Brian said, plenty of fast non-Leica lenses around that get very close to the IQ of the Summiluxes. There are also older Leica lenses, much cheaper than the newest aspherics. For instance CV 35/1.2, 35/1.4, Leica 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 pre-asph, CV Nokton 50/1.5 and 50/1.1, etc, etc.
Roland.
For me, with film, 35/2 is fast enough. And I don't go beyond 800 ASA. Shooting technique helps.
As Brian said, plenty of fast non-Leica lenses around that get very close to the IQ of the Summiluxes. There are also older Leica lenses, much cheaper than the newest aspherics. For instance CV 35/1.2, 35/1.4, Leica 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 pre-asph, CV Nokton 50/1.5 and 50/1.1, etc, etc.
Roland.
Jeff S
Well-known
Only you can judge.
I agree with Roland about shooting technique. It's not uncommon for 2 people to be 2 or more stops apart in equivalent IQ with the same gear...and that's without using a small 'chestpod' or other accessory.
Plus, standards vary on printing results. Here too, equipment (printer, papers, profiles, ink sets, software/driver, etc. ) and printing expertise matters greatly.
Why not buy a clean used M8 with f2 lens and see if you're satisfied with the results. If so, great. If not, you won' t lose much, if anything, to sell and move to the higher priced goods.
Jeff
I agree with Roland about shooting technique. It's not uncommon for 2 people to be 2 or more stops apart in equivalent IQ with the same gear...and that's without using a small 'chestpod' or other accessory.
Plus, standards vary on printing results. Here too, equipment (printer, papers, profiles, ink sets, software/driver, etc. ) and printing expertise matters greatly.
Why not buy a clean used M8 with f2 lens and see if you're satisfied with the results. If so, great. If not, you won' t lose much, if anything, to sell and move to the higher priced goods.
Jeff
scaryink
Member
I have not seen any difference in on screen images from the two cameras. I have always thought contrast is most controlled through the actual image. I have an M8 and except for the IR and ISO button (very helpful), I just cant see spending the additional money for almost double the megapixels. My understanding is that the sensors are the same except for size. Perhaps I havent taken the time to look into greater depth since the M8 is such a fine photographic tool. I think my photography can be improved far more by excersizing my shutter finger - rather than consuming a new camera.
Jeff S
Well-known
My litmus test is the print. I suspect same for Jaap. For screen posting, you likely don't need the M8 either. I'm making no judgment about M8 versus M9 here (per my above post).
Jeff
yanidel
Well-known
There is a big difference in IQ but you probably won't detect it in any web pictures. The see a difference especially when recovering highlight, much more depth with the M9 and I find colors better too. It is really about the post-processing because up to A3, M8/M9 prints will be very similar.
As for the Lux, I use it mainly for the wide open look and small depth of field capability. For low light, there are few instances where the one stop difference was essential, especially now that you can go up to ISO1600 or even 2500 without problem.
Also, why don't use buy a used one and save $2000 ?
As for the Lux, I use it mainly for the wide open look and small depth of field capability. For low light, there are few instances where the one stop difference was essential, especially now that you can go up to ISO1600 or even 2500 without problem.
Also, why don't use buy a used one and save $2000 ?
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Hello Click,
Fast 50's are one of my favs with lenses......I've always wanted a late 1970's 1980's (Leica M5/6 era) pre asph Lux 50 (for that 1960's art look) ~ but just never put the $$$ together for one, I've collected up some of the best of the eras quick ones, and they all have interesting signatures, can give you my two cents and how I feel about them;
1940's CZJ Sonnar T f1.5/50 ~ One of my favs on Digital Leica M ~ That "Sonnar" look as original, just very hard to find lenses, (and expensive) the Russian Jupiter 3 is the reasonable alternative.
1950's Nikkor SC f1.4/50 "Tokyo" and "Japan" versions, great speed, very contrasty, the "Tokyo" version has a slightly softer/creamier bokeh, both are nice and sharp, key is to stop down just a hair from f1.4 to reduce the "Nikkor Glow".
1950's Canon f1.5/50 "Japanese Sonnar" ~ almost identical look to the wartime era Zeiss Sonnar lenses (clone) should use a hood against flaring.....nice overall looking bokeh and detail (favorite lens of many folks here at RFF) ~ somewhat uncommon lens, can be pricey if the collectors are looking....
Late 1950's to late 60's Canon f1.2/50 ~ affectionately called the "Japanese Noctilux Killer" this lens isn't as sharp as the Nocti is, but it's full of character, great art lens, shallow DOF at f1.2 and great stopped down to f1.4 ~ still very reasonably priced, but not for long....
1950's/60's Letiz Summarit f1.5/50 ~ not everyone's favorite Leica lens, very soft and dreamy open at full bore, but beautiful bokeh, smart lens for shooting portarits of women, for some reason you have to find the "right" lens, while I've heard and seen that some of them are dogs (sorry maybe a harsh word for a LEICA LENS! sorry) but I have a 1956 version and it works well, a M mount version is maybe a good idea to use with Leica digital?
1950's to mid 60's Canon f1.8/50 ~ not as fast as you want maybe? But a lens that's full of character and has the "vintage feeling" to it in photos, good overall, put it on your camera and forget it lens......
That's about it on my take on some fast vintage lenses, I hope that was some help to you?
Tom
Fast 50's are one of my favs with lenses......I've always wanted a late 1970's 1980's (Leica M5/6 era) pre asph Lux 50 (for that 1960's art look) ~ but just never put the $$$ together for one, I've collected up some of the best of the eras quick ones, and they all have interesting signatures, can give you my two cents and how I feel about them;
1940's CZJ Sonnar T f1.5/50 ~ One of my favs on Digital Leica M ~ That "Sonnar" look as original, just very hard to find lenses, (and expensive) the Russian Jupiter 3 is the reasonable alternative.
1950's Nikkor SC f1.4/50 "Tokyo" and "Japan" versions, great speed, very contrasty, the "Tokyo" version has a slightly softer/creamier bokeh, both are nice and sharp, key is to stop down just a hair from f1.4 to reduce the "Nikkor Glow".
1950's Canon f1.5/50 "Japanese Sonnar" ~ almost identical look to the wartime era Zeiss Sonnar lenses (clone) should use a hood against flaring.....nice overall looking bokeh and detail (favorite lens of many folks here at RFF) ~ somewhat uncommon lens, can be pricey if the collectors are looking....
Late 1950's to late 60's Canon f1.2/50 ~ affectionately called the "Japanese Noctilux Killer" this lens isn't as sharp as the Nocti is, but it's full of character, great art lens, shallow DOF at f1.2 and great stopped down to f1.4 ~ still very reasonably priced, but not for long....
1950's/60's Letiz Summarit f1.5/50 ~ not everyone's favorite Leica lens, very soft and dreamy open at full bore, but beautiful bokeh, smart lens for shooting portarits of women, for some reason you have to find the "right" lens, while I've heard and seen that some of them are dogs (sorry maybe a harsh word for a LEICA LENS! sorry) but I have a 1956 version and it works well, a M mount version is maybe a good idea to use with Leica digital?
1950's to mid 60's Canon f1.8/50 ~ not as fast as you want maybe? But a lens that's full of character and has the "vintage feeling" to it in photos, good overall, put it on your camera and forget it lens......
That's about it on my take on some fast vintage lenses, I hope that was some help to you?
Tom
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And, of course, one man's 'character' is another man's 'crap lens'.
I gave away my Canon 50/1.2 after borrowing a Noctilux for a while, because I realized that as far as I was concerned, both the Noctilux and the 50/1,5 C-Sonnar wiped the floor with it. I couldn't afford a Noctilux and I already had a C-Sonnar, and I decided that the half stop was neither here nor there.
And no, it was't a bad example of the 50/1.2. It was rebuilt by Optical Instruments (Balham), and was the best Canon 50/1.2 I've ever used (and I've used several). I just decided it was a waste of time. But that's FOR ME. Others rave about this lens.
Likewise, I have been deeply unimpressed by the Russian 50/1.5s I have tried. But there are those who don't like the C-Sonnar, which is my favourite 50.
Cheers,
R.
I gave away my Canon 50/1.2 after borrowing a Noctilux for a while, because I realized that as far as I was concerned, both the Noctilux and the 50/1,5 C-Sonnar wiped the floor with it. I couldn't afford a Noctilux and I already had a C-Sonnar, and I decided that the half stop was neither here nor there.
And no, it was't a bad example of the 50/1.2. It was rebuilt by Optical Instruments (Balham), and was the best Canon 50/1.2 I've ever used (and I've used several). I just decided it was a waste of time. But that's FOR ME. Others rave about this lens.
Likewise, I have been deeply unimpressed by the Russian 50/1.5s I have tried. But there are those who don't like the C-Sonnar, which is my favourite 50.
Cheers,
R.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Indeed I was talking about prints. The point is that the print does not even have to be huge to see a clear difference between an an M8 and M9 - albeit it a subtle difference, but that is to be expected in this quality range.
Screen postings are fine with my wife's Nikon P&S....Jeff S
Well-known
At some point I'll try an M9. But, until I see the same photo and resultant 8x10 print (under same capture and print conditions) from the M8 and M9 (black and white as well as color), I'll reserve judgment.
Jeff