Just two lenses...?

I have plenty of ammo... i mean film :) l'm a former Marine from Texas... i have plenty of both. Actually though... while i still have film cameras... i didn't keep a film M... i will be back but for the time being my time is very limited and digital was a necessity; I have a new baby (my first) and don't have time to develop / print right now. but when my time frees up, I'll be getting another M6 or maybe an nice used MP.
 
Sell the 50, and get a 75 (for example the 75/2.5 Heliar) and have even more money on the bank :) Seriously, I think either 28/50 or 35/75 are better two lens combos. Also depends on the M body you have.
 
in my opinion, you should have a 90mm, can i suggest a chrome elmarit 90/f2.8, thus completing the 35-50-90 set.

I was going to suggest swapping one of the other 2 for one which close-focuses but I realised the ZM already goes down to 0.7m...

use the opportunity to buy lots of different film in small batches of 10s.
can't get any more retro than that.
 
its always pretty hard to give that kind of advice as each person has their own fav focal lengths, but here's a thought: get a 15/4.5 Heliar. a lens this wide takes a few rolls to get the hand of it, but once you do it's kind of addictive, an ultrawide can be really handy in very tight spaces or when you want to capture the whole environment. an LTM 15mm with M adapter will be around $500 used, it's really tiny and it's far enough from both 35mm and 50mm.
 
All youz people who think a photographer shouldn't have a 35 and a 50 because they're too close: 35 and 50 is what Cartier Bresson carried. He also sometimes used the 135 f4 but I don't think he carried it all the time. I find they feel very different and I couldn't do without either -- though if I had to pick one I'd pick 50. It can be such a lovely portrait lens. 35's, not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom