M2 + 35mm bad - M3 + 50mm good

[Austerby]

Confession time:

I don't like the Leica M2 and I don't like 35mm lenses.

Am I part of a silent majority - or one of those "special interest" minorities?

I've tried to like them, goodness knows - this forum gave me the impetus to actually go out and buy an M2 plus a 35/2 summicron (v4 no less) and a 35/2.5 skopar and a 35/2.8 Summaron too: but (after loads of films) it didn't work. I didn't get it and now the lot's for sale. I'm thankful to the forum for providing the information for me to try it out, but would encourage others who are not yet convinced it's for them to listen to this cautionary tale.

First the camera:

I found a battered but cheap M2 which I had serviced beautifully by Malcolm Taylor. It was covered in Cameraleather's finest slate blue kid skin leather. I treated it to Tri-x, Ilford's finest, Kodachrome, Velvia, Adox and more. It even had it's very own Luigi handmade case. Nothing helped. Me and the M2 just didn't get on.

My M3 on the otherhand has been like an extension of my very eye. It is part of me. I can simply convey my inner image and it captures it in ways of expression that delight and enthral me. It's only a light-tight box, so nearly exactly the same as the M2 that good, intelligent people I know struggle to distinguish them, but the difference in the end results and my pleasure in producing them is unquantifiable but present.

When I realised I began to resent the time I spent using the M2 when I could have been with the M3 it was time for the M2 to go, so it went.

Now, the 35mm focal length:

Heresy, I know, but I find a 35mm lens too much of a compromise - not quite wide enough and not quite long enough. I like either wider (currently loving my VC 25mm) or longer (I have a thing about 50mm lenses - I currently have six and have just sold three). I had some of the greatest of all lenses in the 35mm focal length but I always wished for more, or less.

I know that for many people an M2 and 35mm lens is a god's gift - and I'm happy for you. But it's not for me and it may not be for everyone.

I'm not trying to start a backlash here - I'm not trolling - and I don't want lots of "but the M2 + 35 is great" type posts. I'd rather hear from others who think the same as me - tell me I'm not in such a minority, please.

 

[Gary Sandhu]

35's a compromise; M3 and 50 is perfection.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Nah; M3+50 is a compromise; M2 or MP + 35 is a proper camera. Though I have to admit that 50 is good too. I used only 50 for the first few years I had a Leica -- all I could afford -- and I still like my C-Sonnar 50/1.5 and Retina IIa with 50/2 Rodenstock.

In other words, it's pure personal preference -- though if the M3 really were perfection, it'd be hard to see why just about every Leica since has also had a 35mm v/f frame.

Cheers,

R.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

honestly, I love a 50 on the M2. I like a some space around the framelines.

A year ago, I was a solid 28/35 man, but this year I've been going crazy for 50's. But I still adore the M2.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

My view of 35mm is that it is a slightly-wide normal lens as its field of view is in better line with the normal lenses of larger formats. 40mm is likely closer still, but to me the difference is a quibble. For me, it wide enough to photograph environments, but not so wide as to distort the perspective and thus look wide, ie "gumby-heads" are not part of the aesthetic I favor.

I like the M2 well enough, but more with a 50mm than a 35mm. For a 35mm lens, I find a Zeiss Ikon to be the best choice, even with my spectacles, as its view is generous enough for the bright-lines to work at their best. Perhaps with the higher magnification finder, the M3 offers a similar advantage for the 50mm lens. I do not know this myself as I have never used the M3.

Of lens focal lengths in general, I have noticed that more of my better appreciated photos come from lenses that are a bit longer than normal than those that are bit shorter. It may be something about the perspective, the FOV, or maybe how I frame a scene, nevertheless it is something that I have noticed and would like to figure out some day.

 

[Leica All Day]

I did the same thing as Roger....I used only a 50 with my first Leica (m6ttl) for a couple of years, I didn't have anything else...I learned a lot that way....now I am lucky to have an m3 and 50 and an m2 and a 35mm.....After 18 odd years of photographing, I bought my first 35mm focal length lens, a 35mm nokton 1.2 a couple of months ago.....The m2 and the 35 is my favorite set up now...and it has been ever since I got it..I got used to the 35m lens pretty quick and sadly to say, it has replaced my 50mm for now.....I will say this...if I would of started with an m3 (instead of my m6) and a 50mm...I dont think I would of ever bought another lens for my camera...the m3 and a 50 is perfection....well, almost

 

[thomasw_]

MP 0,85x + Summilux 50 ASPH = perfection. I shoot the 35 50 and 75 FLs exclusively, but if I went with just one focal length, it'd be the 50. But I am NOT into saying the 35 or 75 are compromises, they just do different jobs for my way of seeing. No lens is a compromise unless I select the wrong tool.

 

[Mongo Park]

Used an M2 and an M3 prior to purchase - I bought the M2. Whilst I quite like the 35 lens it sits on my M6 and the M2 is used almost exclusively with a 50 collapsible summicron. My view??? M2 good, in fact, very good. 35 mm good, but not necessarily better than 50.

 

[johannielscom]

I solved the riddle, I screwed the L-Hexanon 35mm f2.0 onto the M8!😀

Fifty is my length too, I have one on all three cameras (the 35mm turns into a 50mm on the M8). But, they come off just as easy if some other length is required. I'm considering a 15mm Heliar to mount on the M8 and have a true wide angle but again, only when the 50's don't cut it

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

My M2 and 35mm was my favourite combo, but is now not used so much, the reason? - a silly cheap Konica FT1 with 40mm f1.8 pancake lens, yes I know it's not a rangefinder, but not much bigger than an M! and boy!-what a camera! - what a lens!, Dave.

 

[marke]

When I got back into rangefinders about 3 years ago, I started with a 50 Summicron. Several months of using that, I picked up a 35 Summicron, which I still prefer for a lot of my street shooting. But for tha past year, I've gone back to the 50 (lux pre-asph) and that's the focal length that has become my all around favorite.

 

[arseniii]

I honestly dislike 35mm lenses in general. It reminds me of pictures taken by PS cameras in mid 90s when 35mm was the industry standard. Some masters, i have to admit, utilized them very well (Alex Webb). On the other hand, 50mm is classy and I merely use anything rather then cron 50mm with M3 body - it's just feels RIGHT!!! M2 is a great camera but nothing compares to M3 finder IMHO... If I'd have to pick a wide lens it would be 21mm or wider.

 

[elshaneo]

Well I have to admit that since I recently acquired the Canon LTM 50mm f/1.2, I'm not using my Leica M 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH.

I guess for some of us, You don't really need to be that close (and more stealthy) to the subject when you shoot street photography with a 50mm lens compared to a 35mm lens...

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I was never a fan of the 50mm lens. I have one... but use it sparingly.

However, I love the 35mm FOV.

And I really like using my M3 with its collapsible 'cron! 🙂

How come?

'cuz the VF in the M3 with the 50mm seems to cover pretty much the same area (to me!!) I see through the VF in any of my other Leica bodies (M6TTL and M4-2). In short, the 50mm in the M3's 0.91 mag viewfinder takes in as much as the framelines for 35mm do in the 0.72 mag VF of my M4-2, which has a nice Hexanon 35/f2, or one of my M6TTL bodies (with a 'lux 35mm).

Just my humble point of view. 😉

 

[Krosya]

I like to try all different FLs and I have lenses from 21mm to 105 for RF, but I always keep coming back to 50mm. Dont know why. Even lenses I really like for thier signature dont get used as much as my 50mm ones. I did this test a while back - used a zoom Canon lens on SLR and most of my pictures were from about 50mm FL. So, no matter what the camera is - Hexar RF or M5 or Canon - I always have 50mm with me.

 

[fixbones]

Hmmmm.... perhaps

M2 + 35mm - M3 + 50mm = M(-1) + (-15)mm

I obviously have too much time =D

 

[BillBingham2]

Every one has a different "eye". Many folks see 35, others 28, others 50. For me often it's 35, other times it's 85, of late it's been become more 28/25 and 105.

Do not worry, the M2 is not for everyone, neither is the S3 or the M8.

B2 (;->

 

[payasam]

I use both 35 and 50 lenses. For 17 years I did it with an M3 which had a SBLOO finder permanently fitted. I can't decide whether that combination was better or the M2 I now use.

 

[maddoc]

35mm is quite challenging for me, one has to get really close to get interesting photos, usually in the 1.5 to 2m range which is closer than the "comfort zone". With a 50mm I can get the same "information" in a frame from ~ 3m distance, much easier to achieve. As a a result, I often have to force myself to use the 35mm more often, the 50mm is easier and results more predictable, at least for me.

 

[fixbones]

I am comfortable with both 35mm and 50mm.
35mm when i am at a party or crowded places i.e markets, streets, indoors, museums...
50mm when i am out and about i.e hiking, driving around ....