Leica LTM Do you need 35?

[wlewisiii]

I'm another one who thinks that the 50 is the ultimate in flexability. As a result of getting a collapsible Summicron, I sold my 40/2 Summicron-C & my Jupiter 12. I just didn't use them enough to justify keeping them.

I use 50's (or other normal lenses, depending on the camera) about 90% of the time. The next most often used is a longer lens - 90/4 about 5% & 135/3.5 about 2.5% and all other focal lengths picking up that last 2.5%.

Now if your budget allows, I'd suggest to first get a 90/4 Elmar for a portrait lens. A nice uncoated prewar lens will be dirt cheap and the slightly different - almost less sharp, but that's not quite the right word - look that it gives, especially with the muting effect on color film, is quite special for portraits.

Then get another 50 that has as different a look from your Summitar as is possible. Cheap options ($20 to $150 USD) are the Jupiter 8 50/2 Sonnar clone, the Industar 61 L/D Tessar derivative & the Canon 50/1.8 (Mutant love child of a Planar & a Sonnar... ) - any of these will give you a noticably different look from your Summitar without breaking the budget. A wee bit more and I might be persuaded to part with a Sweeney/Jupiter 3 50/1.5 that is know to be capable of excellent results.

Good luck however you decide. I just want to see the results from your decision <LOL>

William

 

[sf]

I just have to say that there are shots I really treasure that I would not have been able to get without a wide angle lens. It would simply have been impossible.

this shot : http://www.shutterflower.com/street scene gallery/pages/tunnel-to-the-louvreRFF.htm

is my favorite. Would have been impossible with the 65 or the 100 because of the architecture.

but there are shots like this :

http://www.shutterflower.com/street scene gallery/pages/old ladyRFF.htm

that would have been impossible with a wide angle lens. This one is with the 100mm (65 in 35mm). I HAD to be a ways back to avoid breaking her trance.

of course, 95% of my work could have been done with an 80mm (50mm in 35mm)

 

[tetrisattack]

I use and love 50's more so than any other lens type. Or, I should say, 50's and their equivalents on the larger formats.

I also use a 35 perhaps 30-40% of the time, but I find it more challenging than a 50, due to the extra scene-clutter that the generous perspective of a 35 offers. But for cramped quarters and situations where the environment around a subject is especially important, that's when a 35 is indispensible.

George, you've picked some good shots there to demonstrate the difference between wide and tele, any closer to that woman and it would have changed the mood entirely.

 

[payasam]

If I'd had the money in the early 1970s, I'd have got myself an M2 with a 35 and a 90. Because I didn't have the money and planned to do work down to macro point, I ended with an SLR and 35, 50 and 100 lenses. And extension tubes.