If you were to have only one Leica lens

If you were to have only one Leica lens

  • 50mm 1.4

    Votes: 246 21.1%

  • 50mm 2.0

    Votes: 158 13.6%

  • 35mm 1.4

    Votes: 350 30.0%

  • 35mm 2.0

    Votes: 240 20.6%

  • 90mm 2.0

    Votes: 5 0.4%

  • 90mm 2.8

    Votes: 3 0.3%

  • 21mm 2.8

    Votes: 3 0.3%

  • 21mm 1.4

    Votes: 18 1.5%

  • 50mm noctilux (any one)

    Votes: 78 6.7%

  • Other (precise below)

    Votes: 64 5.5%
  • Total voters
    1,165
No problem here, just confused...like I said, it is a nice photo! I really like it!:)

Ah, maybe I will get a scanner one day that does a nice scan like that. It seems to do a great job.
 
dave lackey said:
Ah, maybe I will get a scanner one day that does a nice scan like that. It seems to do a great job.
Click to expand...
It did , but it was a lab scanner. So the resolution wasn't great (I dn't pay the $$$ for a hi-res scan). Way after this shot I bought a Nikon 5000ED - now that's a good scanner! Unfortunately it sits in Sydney while I'm (I hope temporarily) an economic refugee in Melbourne, but when I get home I hope to make full use of it.

...Mike

P.S. Home-devoleped Tri-X scanned with Nikon scanner:

 
I have three of the lenses in the poll options.

My favourite lens (the only 2nd hand one) is actually in need of repair. The aperture ring has no "clicks" and the focus ring often jams at 8m but I can't bear to be without it for a week to get it assessed, or longer, to get it fixed.

35mm 1.4 - LOVE IT
 
Last edited:
Pre-asph 35/1.4 for me, please.
The size just sold me.

Plus I don't care about owning the sharpest lens, that's what my SLRs are for. With RF I like lenses with character :)
 
anorphirith said:
Hello, I bought an M6 recently with a CV 35 1.2
now I'd like to try out a leica lens but they are so expensive that I can only afford one

If you were to have only one Leica lens which one would you choose/keep?
Click to expand...

OP said above that he already has a 35mm lens. I wonder why so many people advise another 35mm lens? Wouldnt it make more sense to have a different FL?
 
Krosya said:
OP said above that he already has a 35mm lens. I wonder why so many people advise another 35mm lens? Wouldnt it make more sense to have a different FL?
Click to expand...
there are just two types of lens exist: leica lens and non leica lens. he asks about first one
 
Tri-Elmar without doubt. Of cource it would not satisfy for very low light conditions, but the answer is it. Tri-Elmar is now mentioned twice.

(I use both 35 and 50mm FLs now. Two body helps.)
 
Last edited:
50 2.8 last version is a very nice lens.

Second choice is my 1969 Summicron.

35 2.0 version4 and the current 90 4.0 are the two other lenses in my standby kit.
 
Summicron-C 2/40. Chirpy cheap, tiny and featherweight, very sharp from wide open, fast focussing, no front- or backfocus, unobtrusive... whenever I have this lens mounted on my M8 I feel confident and free.
 
not this one
5044735704_a8aa82abd9_b.jpg
 
I had already voted on a 50/2, as I had owned a CV Heliar 50/2 until around a month ago... so, only a Jupiter 50/2 for the Leica... and then, this past weekend, I was on the verge of selling the Leica!

I decided not to, and have decided to go with a 50/1.4 Canon ltm from KEH. Back in the game! And with a 50/1.4 for the first time, not a 50/2!

I think I'd stay with a Summicron 50/2 if I could afford Leica glass as opposed to buying the Summilux; the Canon 50/1.4 that I am purchasing, however, actually has a better reputation than the Canon 50/1.8 in many corners.
 
i might run into lots of trouble here for saying this, but i'd go with the Leitz Vario-Elmar zoom, 28-70 mm, F 3,5-4,5, just because zooms are also lenses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom