3dit0r
Member
Ah, I hate to do this to y'all, but I need some help choosing a lens setup for a Leica M6 TTL or M7 (I miss using a Leica, and film, so going to buy another and run it alongside my X-T1, with the digital doing what Leica-M doesn't do easily - macro, long telephoto, and low-light).
So, the dreaded lens choices come up and I'd really appreciate some advice, as my needs are slightly different to the last time I was using a rangefinder. My photography ranges from casual people/street photography while in cities or travelling, to landscape/seascapes at home.
Previously, I had an M6TTL and 35 summicron pre-asph, 50 summicron-M pre-asph, and a 90 Elmarit-M. In those days my most used lens was the 35, but, since moving to digital full-frame, my preferences over the years have changed quite a bit, with a fast 50mm by far used for most shots (yes, even landscapes and portraits!), only changing to something wider (say 24, 35) when I can't move back, or when I want to emphasise a foreground element in, say, a landscape shot or get a deliberately exaggerated perspective on something like a 17.
I have to say, when I used wide angle zooms (17-40, 14-24) I had a lot of fun, but generally find the wider end is a little too unnatural for my eye - I only have a couple of shots from those lenses which suited well and I printed big. So I'm little more wary of using such lenses on a rangefinder as I find I need to be super careful with framing and positioning at that FL so as to minimise perspective distortions to buildings, etc., and that's hard enough with an SLR showing you exactly what you get.
I do use telephoto lenses quite a bit for landscapes, to isolate an area of interest, or for compression.
Another consideration is weight and filter size - trying to keep that the same, if possible, and second hand cost - none of these lenses will be bought new if Leica, although new ZM are in my price range.
My current thinking is either 4 lenses-
21, 28, 50, 90
Or three lenses-
24(or 25), 50, 90
The advantage of the first set is that I think I can either move my feet or slightly crop without losing too much quality by heavy cropping. Also that 21 only used occasionally so the 'main three' lenses covered by internal VF is nice. Perhaps VC 21/4 for the 21, likely only to be used occasionally for landscape, the rest either Leica or Zeiss. Also I believe with Leica 28 2.8, 50/2, 90 2.8 I could use a 39mm filter for every lens(?).
The advantage of the second set is its lighter and cheaper, and I'm likely to use 24 more than 21, although perhaps less than 28. My fear is there's quite a jump between 24-50 which, if you can move feet might result in too heavy a crop for 35mm to take and print to a reasonable size? I could always add a 35 into the second set, which would probably be my first choice as a 'one lens' kit for light city walks?
What I have no experience of is FLs which are wider than the internal finder in a .72 Leica. Can you really see a 24/25mm by just squinting around the very outside of the VF?
Only other requirement is that the 50mm has great oof quality as I use it a lot for most portraits, etc., doesn't have to be quantity (f/2 is fine as I'll usually stop down to there to stand a chance of both eyes being in focus anyway).
What a long, rambling post. If anyone got to the end of that without losing the will to live, I'd really appreciate your thoughts!
James
So, the dreaded lens choices come up and I'd really appreciate some advice, as my needs are slightly different to the last time I was using a rangefinder. My photography ranges from casual people/street photography while in cities or travelling, to landscape/seascapes at home.
Previously, I had an M6TTL and 35 summicron pre-asph, 50 summicron-M pre-asph, and a 90 Elmarit-M. In those days my most used lens was the 35, but, since moving to digital full-frame, my preferences over the years have changed quite a bit, with a fast 50mm by far used for most shots (yes, even landscapes and portraits!), only changing to something wider (say 24, 35) when I can't move back, or when I want to emphasise a foreground element in, say, a landscape shot or get a deliberately exaggerated perspective on something like a 17.
I have to say, when I used wide angle zooms (17-40, 14-24) I had a lot of fun, but generally find the wider end is a little too unnatural for my eye - I only have a couple of shots from those lenses which suited well and I printed big. So I'm little more wary of using such lenses on a rangefinder as I find I need to be super careful with framing and positioning at that FL so as to minimise perspective distortions to buildings, etc., and that's hard enough with an SLR showing you exactly what you get.
I do use telephoto lenses quite a bit for landscapes, to isolate an area of interest, or for compression.
Another consideration is weight and filter size - trying to keep that the same, if possible, and second hand cost - none of these lenses will be bought new if Leica, although new ZM are in my price range.
My current thinking is either 4 lenses-
21, 28, 50, 90
Or three lenses-
24(or 25), 50, 90
The advantage of the first set is that I think I can either move my feet or slightly crop without losing too much quality by heavy cropping. Also that 21 only used occasionally so the 'main three' lenses covered by internal VF is nice. Perhaps VC 21/4 for the 21, likely only to be used occasionally for landscape, the rest either Leica or Zeiss. Also I believe with Leica 28 2.8, 50/2, 90 2.8 I could use a 39mm filter for every lens(?).
The advantage of the second set is its lighter and cheaper, and I'm likely to use 24 more than 21, although perhaps less than 28. My fear is there's quite a jump between 24-50 which, if you can move feet might result in too heavy a crop for 35mm to take and print to a reasonable size? I could always add a 35 into the second set, which would probably be my first choice as a 'one lens' kit for light city walks?
What I have no experience of is FLs which are wider than the internal finder in a .72 Leica. Can you really see a 24/25mm by just squinting around the very outside of the VF?
Only other requirement is that the 50mm has great oof quality as I use it a lot for most portraits, etc., doesn't have to be quantity (f/2 is fine as I'll usually stop down to there to stand a chance of both eyes being in focus anyway).
What a long, rambling post. If anyone got to the end of that without losing the will to live, I'd really appreciate your thoughts!
James
