Help me round out my M7 lens kit...

R

robinje

Member
Local time
5:56 PM
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
32
I bought a used M7, a current 50/2 lens, and a used 90/2.8 lens (both Leica). I want a new lens for wider perspective. I was all set on buying a brand new Leica 28/2.8 ASPH and am still thinking this is a good choice for a moderately fast very compact general use wide angle lens. But something keeps telling me a 35/2 might be a more suitable choice. If I go this route, my budget can only accomodate a used/mint current 35/2 ASPH, which is roughly the cost of a new (with nice Leica warranty) 28/2.8 ASPH. Both lenses are reasonably compact, but the 35/2 is a stop faster and seemingly more popular as a general purpose wide angle lens. But the 28/2.8 is even more compact and would be substantially different than my 50/2, giving a much wider perspective (and I could get a new one with warranty). I just can't decide. Can you help??? Thanks!
 
I have the 28mm 2.8 (current verion) I rarely take it off the M7. The 50mm Summicron, 75mm 2.5 have not been out of the bag for more than a year. The 28mm is a great lens to travel with.

hope this helps

Andrew
 
I'd personally get a 28 as I think it is a much better match to a 50. However a lot of people really like 35 and use it in conjunction with 50. There's also a couple of 35/2 ASPHs floating around for sale...
 





Taken with Voigtlander 28 1.9 on Lecia M7







Taken with 35 mm 1.4 Summilux on M6


I have both 28mm and the 35 mm focal length for my Lecia M kit. So as you can see I choose not to have to decide. I almost both the Leica 35 mm 2.0 but got the 35 1.4 Summilux instead. I really missed the 28 focal length for the M system to go along with my Nikkor 28 1.4 AF_D for my Nikon system , so I also got a Voigtlander 28 1.9 ASPH. Check out Voigtlander 28 1.9 ASPH thread I have going on the rangefinder forum. It's in the Voigtlander section.

So from my answer cant speak to the exact lenses in question but as to the focal length it's a tough one. If I had to only have one I would go with the 28 mm simply because it's field of view is the same as the viewfinder, which is nice and simple . Hope my answer helps.

Gregory
 
Tim Gray said:
I'd personally get a 28 as I think it is a much better match to a 50.
Click to expand...
Agree with Tim about the combination. A 28 goes with a 50 and a 35 goes with a 75, but many people think of a 35/50/90 combo as a "classic" kit too.

If possible try both focal lengths for yourself, go to a dealer and ask to use any lens of the focal lengths so you can get a feel for how they work for you. What you're getting here are personal preferences that may not be your preferences. You have to try for yourself.
 
I use a 35 and 50 on my ZI. I think you can generally photograph just about everything using a 35 (in rangefinder world which is different than say slr world).

A 35, IMO, is quite a bit different than a 50. If you think you might add two lenses in time, I would go 35 and 25/21. That gets you nice and wide.

If only one, then perhaps the 28 is a good compromise. But I've never gotten along with 28.

Lenses...such a personal thing!
 
Paddy C said:
But I've never gotten along with 28.

Lenses...such a personal thing!
Click to expand...

Dear Paddy,

Same here.

My favourite do-it-all: 15 OR 18 OR 21 (I'd love a WATE) + 35 + 75 + 135

Frances's do-it-all: 18 + 28 + 50 + 90.

Handy, 'cos we can borrow one another's lenses. Except that my favourite 50 is the Sonnar (f/1.5) and hers is the Summarit (f/2.5).

Cheers,

R.
 
I just spent a month in China and I shot exclusively with 21/35/50. Mostly with a 35 Summicron. I found this a better combo than the 28/50 I shot with last summer.
 
35mm if the viewfinder is .72.
28mm is the viewfinder is .58.

35mm is different enough from a 50mm to justify putting them in the same bag. nowadays, i believe in the usefulness of each lens, not idealized kits.
 
35mm is, for me, the single most useful FL by a country mile. I could shoot all my life with nothing but a 35, but would hate to do so with a 50mm or 28mm alone.

As your lenses are non-asphs, may I suggest staying with non-asphs for more of the same character. Instead of the 35 asph cron, the 35 Summarit-M might give you a similar look to your lenses and it is tiny and light too. Its only 1/2 a stop slower than the cron asph, if speed is not a priority and has some of the bets rendering I have seen. Its really a cracker.

FWIW I think there is a very significant difference between 35mm and 50mm in terms of how this translates into framing, perspective etc. 24-35-50-90 would be a great combo and IMHO takes advantage of the fact that on a 0.72 body, the 35mm lines are fantastic. 28mm is very tight and not comfortable to me.

Its very personal, but I would not be caught dead without a 35mm in my kit bag, going so far as to completely reconfigure my lens lineup around the 35mm as an anchor, dropping 28 and 21 and replacing them with a single 24mm. Now I am very happy indeed.
 
Go with the 35mm. The 35mm has a better perspective for shooting people in small groups. The 28mm tends to be IMHO a bit wide & better for landscape/cityscape. Consider a used Zeiss 2.8/28mm in the future. Read I. Puts reviews on the 28mms.
 
One lens =35mm, 2 lenses = 28,50mm, 3 lenses= 28,50,90. I would go for the 28mm, and as a 35mm would look for a faster lens (f 1.2 or 1.4), as a universal solution for light travel, etc.
 
peter_n said:
If possible try both focal lengths for yourself, go to a dealer and ask to use any lens of the focal lengths so you can get a feel for how they work for you. What you're getting here are personal preferences that may not be your preferences. You have to try for yourself.
Click to expand...

That's really the only advice we can give the OP. One has to decide for one's self.

This whole idea of the 28mm FL being better than the 35mm FL if one also has a 50mm lens holds no water. If you can work with a 35mm lens alone, you can work with a 35mm lens and a 50mm lens. There's sufficient difference between those two FLs to make for a very satisfying two-lens kit. A hands-on trial is the only way to go.

As for the 28 Elmarit Asph., it's a wonder ful lens. If you're concerned about matching the signature of your 50 Summicron, it might be a better match than the 35 Summicron Asph. It has lots of character, and if you don't need f/2.0, then it wouldn't disappoint you.

As for it's small size, however, even though it's smaller than the 35 Summicron Asph., the size difference isn't so appreciable on the camera. (I own and use both.) You'll notice a difference when turning the aperture ring, but focusing and holding the camera pretty well feels the same.
 
Wow, thanks for all your insightful replies. I never thought my question would generate so many responses! What a great place...

This option seems good to me, mfogiel... buy the 28/2.8, then maybe later down the road add a fast 35/1.4 CV lens or an older Summilux. Hmmm...


mfogiel said:
One lens =35mm, 2 lenses = 28,50mm, 3 lenses= 28,50,90. I would go for the 28mm, and as a 35mm would look for a faster lens (f 1.2 or 1.4), as a universal solution for light travel, etc.
Click to expand...
 
I use 15-28-40-90.

There are lots of great 28's in many brands, sizes and speeds...

A 35 as widest lens is a bit poor... A 28 gives another feel to images, and a 35 is close to normal view...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I think the 35 would be wide enough to round you out. But with that said I really enjoy my Nokton 40mm. I filed the base so it would bring up the 35mm framelines and they are very accurate. i find there is a lot of difference between it and a 50mm. I have also been thinking of going even wider. 28mm or even 21mm. I have the 15mm Voigtlander.
 
I used to have a 28mm but wearing eye-glasses and having only M Leicas with 0.72x it was very hard to frame and I hardly used that lens. So instead of buying an external 28mm VF, I bought a 21mm lens (21/3.4) and that makes a perfect kit for me together with a 35/1.4 (Summilux-M) and one of my 50mm lenses. Occasionally, I also take a 90mm lens with me.

So for me it is 21-35-50-90

BTW, I find the field of view of 35mm to be very different from 50mm.
 
maddoc said:
I used to have a 28mm but wearing eye-glasses and having only M Leicas with 0.72x it was very hard to frame and I hardly used that lens. So instead of buying an external 28mm VF, I bought a 21mm lens (21/3.4) and that makes a perfect kit for me together with a 35/1.4 (Summilux-M) and one of my 50mm lenses. Occasionally, I also take a 90mm lens with me.

So for me it is 21-35-50-90

BTW, I find the field of view of 35mm to be very different from 50mm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 35mm framelines in my 0.72 M7 offer up a bit more out-of-frame view than the 28mm framelines, which are almost to the edge of the viewfinder. I could see the 35mm lens being a bit easier to use in terms of composition because of being able to see more things outside the framelines than with a 28mm lens (without external VF). A plus for the 35mm over the 28mm for sure, even though I don't wear glasses...
 
Well... have you looked through the viewfinder and played with the framelines? You can get an approximate idea of what you may like that way. Push the lever towards the lens and you see the world as if you were using a 28mm, push it the opposite direction and you get the FOV of a 35mm. If you like one better than the other... then go for the lens that gives you that FOV. If you cannot decide which one to pick, then grab both!

Not right away, of course. Take some time with one and then get the other.

That's the Leica Point of View. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom