France and two resulting lens options

[ramosa]

I recently spent several weeks in France and have come away with three thoughts, the third of which is rather rambling.

First, in returning to a rather normal bucolic city in the United States, I feel that things here are so darn normal and “non-photogenic.” Second, in terms of the photographic results of the trip to France, I’m pretty happy. Happy with captures that I made, but also happy with the learning that I went through. For instance, my ability to pre-focus on the streets and shoot quickly improved dramatically.

Third, my visit has an equipment side to it. I took my M8 and three lenses: Super-Elmar 18mm, Elmarit 28mm, and Summicron 50mm. What’s interesting is that I probably used the 28mm 70% of the time, the 50mm 30%, and—yes—never the 18mm. In contrast, in the States, I probably use the 28mm about 30% of the time, the 50mm 70%, and the 18mm almost never. Of course, this has me wondering whether I should have a lens (the 18) that I have used only three times since purchasing in December. Also, I think my elevated use of the 28mm (versus 50mm) in France may result from the grand architecture (which provides such a fine backdrop for street photography) and the narrower streets (which naturally bring you closer to people).

While in France, I had the chance to visit a few camera stores (the Leica shop and two others) and play with several fine Leica lenses (Summilux 50mm, Noctilux 50mm, and Summicron 90mm). What joy—one that left me wanting a Lux 50 and Cron 90. I have wanted the Lux 50 for a while, and, by coincidence, when I returned home, I finally purchased one.

This has me pondering two lens options.

1) I could sell the Cron 50 and use that money to get a Cron 90, the previous version. That would leave me with four lenses (i.e., 18/28/50/90), but—again—while the 18 is a great lens, I just don't use it—and I'd prefer to have the Cron 90 ASPH than the previous version.

2) I could sell the Cron 50 and Super-Elmar 18mm (plus finder) and use that money to get a Cron 90 ASPH, the new version. There are two upsides to this second option—having the Cron 90 ASPH (which is a darn fine lens) and taking a preferred (relatively) minimalistic approach of having just 28/50/90.

Anyway, pardon my ramblings … Any thoughts on any of this would be appreciated.

 

[sc_rufctr]

I would go with the second option... But maybe before making your final decision go out with the 18mm only for a day.
Have nothing else with you. Takes heaps of photos and see what happens.

I always liked the Super-Elmar 18mm. Great lens!

 

[Stephen G]

I agree I have had a similar experience.
In Rome, I found myself shooting more heavily than usual with my 15mm. When I went through editting and got down to my "keepers" 66% of them were from 15mm, which was astounding.

Now back in Manhattan, I find myself shooting heavily with 50mm, occasionally pulling out the 35mm.. and rarely 15mm.

I attribute it to this-
Rome: Very crowded, very tight spaces, grand architecture. 15mm captures the grand architecture, and allows me to get in closer than the crowds of tourists, and yet still capture "the whole shot". 15mm also allowed me to put a different perspective on very typical Rome shots - Trevi, San Pietro, Pantheon, etc.

Manhattan: Still quite crowded, but sidewalks are downright spacious compared to Rome. I think I've also lived here long enough to get all the architecture shots I care for. Now, to get the crop I want for street photography style, 50mm allows me to get a tight shot, without the telephoto look, and at comfortable distance.


And on your dilema-
One question- Any particular reason you want the 90 cron vs any of the other 90s?
The DOF is going to be quite narrow regardless at 90mm, regardless of f2.0 / 2.5 / 2.8 / 4.0.
You mention handling 2 50s and 1 90, might you want to have a look in-person at the other 90mm offerings?

 

[ramosa]

thanks for your comments. let me reply.

peter: good, instructive idea. i have the lens. so why not give it a "full try," instead of not using it as, instead, i turn to my preferred "comfort" lenses.

stephen: you ask a good question. i'm drawn to lenses that can provide shallower dof. i don't live anywhere near a place that has a good offering of lenses--to handle, hold and experiment with. that's one great thing about being in paris--finally being able to handle the 50 lux, 50 nocti, and 90 cron. but you make a good point. i have heard great think about the 90 elmarit--and that it only lags behind the 90 cron asph in terms of aperature. and folks who use the pre-asph 90 cron and love it. do you use a 90--and, if so, do you have any specific recommendations/thoughts?

great thanks to you both. i don't have offline friends who are into photography, so my only "sounding board" is RFF--and a great sounding board it is.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Your point about where you shoot is fundamental. We've just got back from Arles and Frances REALLY missed a wide-angle: ideally a WATE 16-18-21 or at least a 15 or 18. But normally she uses a 50 more than anything else.

I like 15/18/WATE - 35 - 75 - 135 which represents a neat doubling for maximum versatility.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ben Z]

I've also found that I tend to want wider lenses when in Europe (and even someplace like Boston in the US) because of narrower streets. Thanks to the Voitlander lineup I have a good assortment without resorting to the expense of a WATE or 18 Elmar.

 

[tim_n]

Here's my perspective from about 40 years of travel with M's in Europe, Asia and North America: simplest is best. Let your vision to determine which lenses, not the lenses to determine your vision. It's worth considering whether you tend to photograph people and situations in preference to places and objects. If it's the former, stick with the one or two lenses that fit your basic vision (e.g., 35/90 or 28/50), and travel will be so light and easy. If it's the latter, you will probably be happier with a more extensive lens kit, with the extra weight and time dedicated to changing lenses. Of course, if you have a safe home base on your travel, you can bring an extensive kit and select a smaller situation-appropriate one for each day. I've always been happiest with only 1 or 2 lenses, because I'm usually on foot.

 

[ramosa]

roger: hey, we may have passed the streets of arles. lovely country down south. in provence, i really enjoyed the streets of avignon ... so many great alleys and building facades and wonderful people wandering about.

tim: great, instructive comments. thank you. i really find myself wanting a simple approach. in france, i spent a few days carting too much around with my larger domke bag. finally, with my wife's prodding, i downsized ... taking my smaller domke and leaving behind unnecessary things (e.g., the 18mm lens, finder). on my next trip, wherever it may be, i'll only bring the small bag, etc.

 

[jplomley]

In my experience, 21 Elmarit Asph/35 Cron Asph/75 Cron Asph handles any situation, each being stellar performers. Two bodies and these three lenses, and travel is exceptionally light.

 

[Jeff S]

This relates to your first point; not to the lens issue. The fact that you had (or perceived to have) more to photograph while outside your normal surroundings is common, and apart from a possibly more photo-rich environment overseas, your psychology and 'photo senses' have a lot to do with it. Someone visiting you from overseas might likely have the reverse experience.

When things are new, the tendency is to get excited about everything. When things are common, one tends to overlook the obvious.

Due to family matters, I didn't get to travel other than locally this past year. Instead, I decided to make photos closer to home. This involved walks near home, and car rides to locations no more than an hour away. I'm frankly amazed at the diversity of photographs this approach has yielded.

You might try looking again at your environs with your newly refreshed eyes...and possibly new lenses.🙂

Jeff

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I'd say choose the option that has you selling the 18mm.
Then just for the occasional very wide shots get a Voigtlander 15mm, it's a fantastic lens and so cheap in comparison to Leica lenses that it's practically free. My three Leica and Nikkor hoods alone are worth as much as the CV 15mm.

Phil Forrest

 

[silverbullet]

Be careful with a heavy 90mm! Especially the f2 versions are not so easy to focus and the percentage of unsharp pics is much higher compare to 50mm or 35mm.
If you wear glasses its more difficult....

If you want to know it really precise for your shootings get a cheap Tele-Elmarit f2,8 for appr. 180€ and test it. The good point is the tiny size and weight the con is the slightly weaker IQ but this depends on the circumstances.....and you don't loose money if 90mm + crop is not your cup of tea.....

cheers
Bernd

 

[EdLam]

I suppose it depends on where in the States you shoot. I just returned from 12 days in Spain and brought my M8 and entire bag: a CV 15mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 75mm. I used the 15mm and 35mm primarily. The architecture and scale of the buildings lent itself to the 15mm, but I always felt comfortable with the 35mm.

Manhattan offers similar situations, but i do use the 35mm more often.

 

[ramosa]

Ed: it's interesting how differently we all see things (with a RF). i tend to use 28mm and 50mm on my M8 ... and probably would enjoy 35mm. but your comfort area is lower, between 15-35.

 

[myM8yogi]

I agree that you should spend a weekend using only the 18mm.
It may be that you have simply not used it enough up to this point, so you are not yet used to composing with it mentally - you have not yet learnt that focal length.
It is very significantly wider than your other lenses. As a starting point I would recommend getting close and very low down to subjects providing maximum foreground interest. In this situation, a small change in position will have a dramatic effect on composition, so it can be hard to visualise all possibilities at first.

When I had the CV15 and the M8 I found it to be fantastic for densely populated markets and streets in Europe, as well as for grand architecture, indoor situational, and sweeping landscapes.
Really, 21-24mm effective field of view is very important for me. I would hate to see you loose money on the sale and then later decide that you need an ultrawide. The 18mm Zeiss is also a particularly good lens. In fact, please PM me if you are thinking of selling it. ---- errr, is that not the ultimate endorsement of a lens?

 

[ramosa]

myM8yogi: thanks. i will take up your recommentation and experiment one day with the lens. if i still think it's not for me, i will PM you.