markp
Newbie
I currently have an M7 with a 35/1.4asph lens and am considering the purchase of an M8 camera. On the M8, my 35mm lens will give me the FOV of a 46mm. I'd like to have something wider and something more tele.
The choices I’m looking at are either:
--------------------------------------
24/2.8, 35/1.4asph, 50/1.4asph --> (35mm equiv.: 32/46/67)
pros: Nice spread, compact&easy to frame tele
cons: expensive 24 and 'only' 2.8
28, 35/1.4asph, 50/1.4asph --> 37/46/67
Pros: either extra stop (28/2 asph) or very compact 28/2.8asph, compact&easy to frame tele
Cons: 28 too close to 35(?)
24/2.8asph, 35/1.4asph, 75 (f/2 or f/1.4) --> 32/46/100
Pros: nice spread. Very interesting portrait lens.
Cons: expensive 24 and only 2.8, tele (100mm) might be difficult to use?
28, 35/1.4asph, 75 (f/2 or f/1.4) --> 37/46/100
Pros: either extra stop (f/2) or very compact 28/2.8 asph, very interesting portrait lens.
Cons: 28 too close to 35? Tele (100mm) might be difficult to use?
Some more information/questions:
--------------------------------
I will use the lenses for portraits, landscapes, architecture, ... just about anything.
For the 50mm lens, I'm considering the 50/1.4asph and not the 50/2 because I think the 50/1.4 can give me more background blur.
Do you think the 50mm is 'tele enough' for making portraits with blurry backgrounds? Would you rather take one of the 75mm? To me, the advantage of the 50mm is its compactness and it should be easier to use with the viewfinder/rangefinder.
Are the 75mm lenses reasonably easy to use on the m8? The magnification is only x0.68 and they have a FOV of 100mm. what is you experience? Is the 1.25x loupe required for practical use?
On the wideangle end:
Is the difference between 24 and 28 significant enough to choose for the 24? It's a lot more expensive than the 28/2.8asph and it's also bigger. For the price of the 24 I can (almost) get the 28/2 asph.
Another thing I'm taking into the equation is that the choice of which lens to use should be easy: if their FOV differs enough, the choice is easy. If they lie too close to each other, the choice may not be that obvious.
Given all of the above, I'm currently inclined to go for the following setup:
For the wideangle: 24/2.8asph instead of a 28mm because of the larger gap in FOV compared to my 35/1.4.
For the tele: 50/1.4asph because it's small and should be easy to use on the M8. the 75/1.4 should give more background blur, but I'm hoping the 50/1.4 will give me enough.
What are your suggestions?
Mark
The choices I’m looking at are either:
--------------------------------------
24/2.8, 35/1.4asph, 50/1.4asph --> (35mm equiv.: 32/46/67)
pros: Nice spread, compact&easy to frame tele
cons: expensive 24 and 'only' 2.8
28, 35/1.4asph, 50/1.4asph --> 37/46/67
Pros: either extra stop (28/2 asph) or very compact 28/2.8asph, compact&easy to frame tele
Cons: 28 too close to 35(?)
24/2.8asph, 35/1.4asph, 75 (f/2 or f/1.4) --> 32/46/100
Pros: nice spread. Very interesting portrait lens.
Cons: expensive 24 and only 2.8, tele (100mm) might be difficult to use?
28, 35/1.4asph, 75 (f/2 or f/1.4) --> 37/46/100
Pros: either extra stop (f/2) or very compact 28/2.8 asph, very interesting portrait lens.
Cons: 28 too close to 35? Tele (100mm) might be difficult to use?
Some more information/questions:
--------------------------------
I will use the lenses for portraits, landscapes, architecture, ... just about anything.
For the 50mm lens, I'm considering the 50/1.4asph and not the 50/2 because I think the 50/1.4 can give me more background blur.
Do you think the 50mm is 'tele enough' for making portraits with blurry backgrounds? Would you rather take one of the 75mm? To me, the advantage of the 50mm is its compactness and it should be easier to use with the viewfinder/rangefinder.
Are the 75mm lenses reasonably easy to use on the m8? The magnification is only x0.68 and they have a FOV of 100mm. what is you experience? Is the 1.25x loupe required for practical use?
On the wideangle end:
Is the difference between 24 and 28 significant enough to choose for the 24? It's a lot more expensive than the 28/2.8asph and it's also bigger. For the price of the 24 I can (almost) get the 28/2 asph.
Another thing I'm taking into the equation is that the choice of which lens to use should be easy: if their FOV differs enough, the choice is easy. If they lie too close to each other, the choice may not be that obvious.
Given all of the above, I'm currently inclined to go for the following setup:
For the wideangle: 24/2.8asph instead of a 28mm because of the larger gap in FOV compared to my 35/1.4.
For the tele: 50/1.4asph because it's small and should be easy to use on the M8. the 75/1.4 should give more background blur, but I'm hoping the 50/1.4 will give me enough.
What are your suggestions?
Mark
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
Lots of questions!
If you are not familiar with Sean Reid's subscription site www.reidreviews.com I'd suggest starting there for image-based comparative reviews of lenses on digital RF cameras.
Unless you really need the super fast 75 Summilux, take a serious look at the very affordable Voigtlander 75/2.5 Color-Heliar.
The fact that it costs less than the sales tax on many Leica lenses is simply an indicator of its superb value.
I also very much like the CV 15mm (eff a 20 on the M8).
If you are not familiar with Sean Reid's subscription site www.reidreviews.com I'd suggest starting there for image-based comparative reviews of lenses on digital RF cameras.
Unless you really need the super fast 75 Summilux, take a serious look at the very affordable Voigtlander 75/2.5 Color-Heliar.
The fact that it costs less than the sales tax on many Leica lenses is simply an indicator of its superb value.
I also very much like the CV 15mm (eff a 20 on the M8).
ian_watts
Ian Watts
markp said:
I tend to use 28 and 35 almost exclusively on the M8 (occasionally something longer like a 50 or 90). I don't find the 28 and 35 particularly close.
markp
Newbie
The silly thing about the 24/2.8asph is its ridiculously high price compared to the 28/2.8 asph. I think it's more than twice the price. Considering value for money, the 28/2.8 is the better choice. But its FOV seems very close to that of the 35mm (37 vs. 46). On the other hand, 32mm isn't that much different from 37, so... Perhaps I should go for the 28/2.8asph.
What do others think about the difference between 28/35 ?
[If I wouldn't have had the 35mm, I certainly would choose the 28/2.8asph.]
What would your choice for a tele be? I've seen pictures taken with the 75/1.4 and I really like the way it draws the out-of-focus areas. But 100mm seems long for a rangefinder, hence my choice for the 50mm. Of course, the M8 is a digital camera, so it's easier to check things. I didn't know the VC 75/2.5 was so cheap (relatively speaking). Can it focus as close as the Leica 75's?
Thanks,
Mark
What do others think about the difference between 28/35 ?
[If I wouldn't have had the 35mm, I certainly would choose the 28/2.8asph.]
What would your choice for a tele be? I've seen pictures taken with the 75/1.4 and I really like the way it draws the out-of-focus areas. But 100mm seems long for a rangefinder, hence my choice for the 50mm. Of course, the M8 is a digital camera, so it's easier to check things. I didn't know the VC 75/2.5 was so cheap (relatively speaking). Can it focus as close as the Leica 75's?
Thanks,
Mark
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The 24/2.8 is arguably one of the finest drawing lenses in the Leica stable. Not putting the 28 down, it is a more than excellent lens and a steal at the price but these are two different beasties.
tightsqueez
Well-known
I couldn't agree more with Jaapv, the 24 is a great lens. It has a certain look that many other lenses don't. The 1-2 meter range is its "sweet spot". However, I find it harder to use on the M8 with the framelines. One thing you should consider is what lens will add to both your M7 and M8. I think you'll get more out of the 24 than with the 28 rit, especially with 35mm film on the M7. The 24/35 and 32/47 are good combos and it takes care of the 28 being close to the 35 as you had mentioned. I own the 28 cron and use it more than the 24 or the 35 lux. It's a pefect balance of the two. Not so good for the check balance though.
As far as a tele? Well, the 75 cron is hard to beat. It has the same design as the 50 lux asph so it looks and behaves more like a normal focal length than your typical telephoto; images are very natural and realistic. And the 100mm crop isn't as intimidating as you'd think. Also, the size is very good compared with many other telephoto lenses. I'm quite unfamiliar with VC lenses but hear good things about them. It's always best if you can to test drive your options; it's the only way you'll really know what will work for you.
I would give a link to show some samples but the military Internet won't let me view Flickr...go figure. Guess they trust me with you guys huh? Look for tightsqueez on the site and you'll see a few samples.
As far as a tele? Well, the 75 cron is hard to beat. It has the same design as the 50 lux asph so it looks and behaves more like a normal focal length than your typical telephoto; images are very natural and realistic. And the 100mm crop isn't as intimidating as you'd think. Also, the size is very good compared with many other telephoto lenses. I'm quite unfamiliar with VC lenses but hear good things about them. It's always best if you can to test drive your options; it's the only way you'll really know what will work for you.
I would give a link to show some samples but the military Internet won't let me view Flickr...go figure. Guess they trust me with you guys huh? Look for tightsqueez on the site and you'll see a few samples.
K
krimple
Guest
I vote with my wallet for the VC lenses--I've spent far too much money on expensive lenses for my Canon and can tell you that, unlike many DSLR third-party lens choices, the Voigtlander ones are superb for the money.
I have the 75 Color Heliar and I'd say just go get one for now, saving yourself thousands of dollars. It's a phenomenal lens, sharp as heck, and lightweight as well. I don't have any Leica lenses on my M8 and I don't feel it's holding me back in my shooting, save maybe on wide angle if I used filters. I currently have a 39mm filter I use with my 35mm lenses, and a 43mm filter I use on the Color Heliar, but I have no cyan drift issues on the 75 at all (and frankly didn't notice anything on the 35 either).
Ken
I have the 75 Color Heliar and I'd say just go get one for now, saving yourself thousands of dollars. It's a phenomenal lens, sharp as heck, and lightweight as well. I don't have any Leica lenses on my M8 and I don't feel it's holding me back in my shooting, save maybe on wide angle if I used filters. I currently have a 39mm filter I use with my 35mm lenses, and a 43mm filter I use on the Color Heliar, but I have no cyan drift issues on the 75 at all (and frankly didn't notice anything on the 35 either).
Ken
Andy Aitken
Registered Loser
I'd say 24/25mm and 75mm. Leica if you can afford/justify it CV if you can't.
OR, dare I say, a nice 50mm instead of a 75mm. Personally, I like the rigid Summicron on the M8.
OR, dare I say, a nice 50mm instead of a 75mm. Personally, I like the rigid Summicron on the M8.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
My vote would be a ZI Biogon 21 for wideangle, despite the fact you'd have to change the mount. That lens gives the Elmarit 21 asph a run for its money.And a used 2.8/90 as tele. In quality very close to the 90 apo-Summicron, at a fraction of the price. And a fraction of the weight for that matter.
tore@havhest.no
Newbie
Hi there.
I've got two M8s, the entire range of the fastest lenses in addition to a Zeiss 15mm f2.8.
However you hve to consider what is affordable to yourself and sufficient to cover your primary needs.
As to what you indicate, for a three lens setup Iwould go for
Elmarit 24mm f2.8, alternatively a Zeiss 25mm f2.8. The latter is just as good but you'll have the fuzz with hand coding.
Summilux 35mm f2.8, alternatively a Summicron if you don't need the speed. An alternative to the Cron would be the Zeiss 35mm f2.0, which in som respects is iven better than the Cron w.r.t. flaring but then again, fuzz with hand coding.
Lastly, I would go for the Summilux 75mm f1.4, an absolutely perfect lens. For the sake of order, below follows a link to a couple of pics taken with my 75 at a Bob Dylan concert i Oslo under extremely difficult conditiones. Totally packed hall with guards everywhere to enforce photo prohibition.
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bilder/vis_b...sid=&nomenus=&serieid=0&minimumanbefalinger=1
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bilder/vis_b...sid=&nomenus=&serieid=0&minimumanbefalinger=1
Lastly, I myself find f2.8 acceptable on the wider angles but for the longer lenses I would get the fastest there is.
At alater stage I would seriously consider a Summilux 50mm f1.4. Absolutely brilliant but expensive.
Good luck on your choice. The pond to fish in is plentyful!
Best regards
Tore
I've got two M8s, the entire range of the fastest lenses in addition to a Zeiss 15mm f2.8.
However you hve to consider what is affordable to yourself and sufficient to cover your primary needs.
As to what you indicate, for a three lens setup Iwould go for
Elmarit 24mm f2.8, alternatively a Zeiss 25mm f2.8. The latter is just as good but you'll have the fuzz with hand coding.
Summilux 35mm f2.8, alternatively a Summicron if you don't need the speed. An alternative to the Cron would be the Zeiss 35mm f2.0, which in som respects is iven better than the Cron w.r.t. flaring but then again, fuzz with hand coding.
Lastly, I would go for the Summilux 75mm f1.4, an absolutely perfect lens. For the sake of order, below follows a link to a couple of pics taken with my 75 at a Bob Dylan concert i Oslo under extremely difficult conditiones. Totally packed hall with guards everywhere to enforce photo prohibition.
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bilder/vis_b...sid=&nomenus=&serieid=0&minimumanbefalinger=1
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bilder/vis_b...sid=&nomenus=&serieid=0&minimumanbefalinger=1
Lastly, I myself find f2.8 acceptable on the wider angles but for the longer lenses I would get the fastest there is.
At alater stage I would seriously consider a Summilux 50mm f1.4. Absolutely brilliant but expensive.
Good luck on your choice. The pond to fish in is plentyful!
Best regards
Tore