Shooting wider than 21mm on an M

[roscoetuff]

So I'm curious: Not many seem to favor the super, super wides (18mm and shorter). They seem to require an external viewfinder - which I'm getting for the 21mm I have on order, but I'm curious how they focus. Yes, there are those who'll say these guys will be on INFINITY anyway 98% of the time so why bother? But there are some other times. I think I've read that the 15mm (and possibly the 18mm?) doesn't actually trigger any frame lines in the viewfinder. Maybe that's just the ZM version? Maybe that's only on a digital M? Dunno. Wonder if anyone can share with me the scoop?

Oh... and seems like no one (okay... only a few) bother to shoot the 135mm on an M, too. Focus problems I think. Any better with digital than a film M?

 

[Roger Hicks]

So I'm curious: Not many seem to favor the super, super wides (18mm and shorter). They seem to require an external viewfinder - which I'm getting for the 21mm I have on order, but I'm curious how they focus. Yes, there are those who'll say these guys will be on INFINITY anyway 98% of the time so why bother? But there are some other times. I think I've read that the 15mm (and possibly the 18mm?) doesn't actually trigger any frame lines in the viewfinder. Maybe that's just the ZM version? Maybe that's only on a digital M? Dunno. Wonder if anyone can share with me the scoop?

Oh... and seems like no one (okay... only a few) bother to shoot the 135mm on an M, too. Focus problems I think. Any better with digital than a film M?

There are always SOME framelines (at least one) in any M finder. Just tried my 18/4 Zeiss on my M9 and MP -- 50mm.

And no: quite a lot of us focus our ultra-wides (I have both 18mm and 15mm, and have used the Zeiss 15mm and Voigtländer 12mm),

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dante_Stella]

They all trigger some framelines. They have to.

An 18mm is not that much wider than a 21, and the performance of the ZM 18 is pretty fantastic, right out to the corners.

The Zeiss 18mm couples to the RF but the 15mm does not. Likewise, the early CV 12, 15, 21, and 25 lenses do not have rangefinder coupling. Frankly, precise focusing is not much of an issue with lenses wider than 21mm.

Your best bet is to use an EVF with these lenses if you want nice level horizons (with an M240). Otherwise, zone focusing is fine with an optical accessory viewfinder.

D

 

[roscoetuff]

Thanks! for the rec's. Well... I'm shooting these pups on an M4-2 for now and lovin' it. And have a Zeiss VF for the 21mm I'm still waiting to receive.

Digital may eventually come to push me toward an M for that, too... but not real soon. EVF would be nice!!! For now, I'm filling out the lens arsenal, learning about developing, and just shooting. Plenty of time to ponder whether I start letting go of non-Leica stuff (aka my Sony's) to enjoy one set of lenses or not. No rush. But can say that if I do pick up an 18mm, I'd probably let go of the same from the Zeiss CY my Sony A7RII runs. Have the same question on the 135mm... but get the impression that's better run on the Sony.

Sounds like the 12's and 15's might be too far if they don't couple with the VF/RF

 

[Roger Hicks]

.. . Sounds like the 12's and 15's might be too far if they don't couple with the VF/RF

Not really. Scale focusing is more than adequate with ultra-wides (including most 21s, except at f/1.4) and there's just one viewfinder to look through, just as there is with any other lens on a viewfinder camera.

As for a "lens arsenal" I'd suggest you bear in mind a 50% rule of thumb: that at least 50% of your pictures are likely to be taken with one lens; at least 50% of the remaining half with your second favourite lens (up to 75% now); another 50% of the remaining quarter with the third lens (call it 13% to make the sums easy) so that gives you 88%... Your fifth lens will be used, at most, for 3% of your pictures.

This is, I suspect, why so many people entertain the fantasy of "one lens". It also explains why you shouldn't buy another lens unless you know what sort of pictures you plan on taking with it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

IMO, it makes sense to shot wide on M most and foremost. I've had 17-40 zoom for DSLR and 17 was ugly. Everything after 17 is fish-eye for DSLR and it looks even more ugly, sorry, creative. IMO.
I have zero need for 135 in DSLR, this is why I don't need it for M. Purchased it for M cheap and only once, but sold it without even single use.

 

[Roger Hicks]

IMO, it makes sense to shot wide on M most and foremost. I've had 17-40 zoom for DSLR and 17 was ugly. Everything after 17 is fish-eye for DSLR and it looks even more ugly, sorry, creative. IMO.
I have zero need for 135 in DSLR, this is why I don't need it for M. Purchased it for M cheap and only once, but sold it without even single use.

I had a 135/2.8; sold it because I used it so little on film; borrowed one for an article and used it on digi; and liked it so much I bought it off the guy I borrowed it from. The 12/5.6 was too wide for my taste but the 15 and 18 see more use than the 21s.

Cheers,

R.

 

[roscoetuff]

Roger: I'd call it more like 55-35-10 rule. Oddly, this is THE allocation of stocks, bonds and cash that institutions find themselves rolling around with, and it speaks to the way we use our lenses and just about everything else when we've got choices. I even tried to move my golf game along that with the 6 club carry. Some guys try to reduce the bag even further.

For me it's the 35 that does most of what I do. The 50 is basically a short 90... so I'll use either one depending on mood. The 21 or wider is good when the 35 can't get it done. I've found that a 135 (on my Sony A7RII) is a good sub for the 50 and 90 and better than a zoom where you want something close in a small crowd. I've got some small zooms for my Sony, but I guess I'm mostly an ex-zoomie. And I don't do big crowds. I'm just pondering whether the M4-2 is even the right vehicle for a 135, and trying to learn from observation and experience with the OTHER lenses. 😉

Thanks for the info guys! This is helpful.

 

[jordan.dickinson]

I got a 21mm Super Elmar ASPH, and then by a weird trade, I ended up with a 28mm Summicron and an 18mm Super Elmar ASPH. I've been using the 18mm more than any of other "wide" lenses mentioned above. I think in practice, the 21mm Super Elmar is a better lens and a lot smaller. However, I'm really enjoying the 18mm. I know it's not a big jump in focal length, and I should probably sell the 18 or 21, but still haven't gotten to that point. In terms of usage, I really just scale focus, frame with the external viewfinder, and just keep on movin. The one thing I have noticed though is that I often will accidentally bump the focus on the 18mm, meaning I've got to keep a close eye on the distances that will be covered at f8 or whatever aperture I'm shooting. Either way, I've been a long time resister of wides, but I'm becoming a convert, slowly but surely.

On the other end of the spectrum, I own a 75mm/90mm but rarely shoot them. For me, my Leica gear is best used at 50mm and below. In part it's related to the size of longer focal length lenses, and the other is just the practicality of focusing and framing. I'd rather make quick shots that interest me in the moment than carefully composing and focusing images with a 90mm+ lens with my fingers crossed that it's not blurry. Never used the 135, but I'm sure it's got even more pronounced versions of the issues I find with the 75mm/90mm focal range.

 

[Godfrey]

My focal length progression for most cameras has been 20 -> 35 -> 50 -> 90 for so many years I can barely remember when it sorted out that way. With RF cameras, I use mostly the 35/50/75 mm set nowadays.

On the ultrawide end of the range, after having both 21 and 24 mm lenses, I decided that the WATE (Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH) made the most sense for what I wanted to use. It is a stunning performer and worth every penny I paid for it.

I do still have both an M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 (circa 1973) and a Hektor 135mm f/4.5 (circa 1960). Both have produced lovely photos for me whenever I choose to use them.

M-Rokkor 90mm on Leica M9:



Hektor 135mm on Leica M-D typ 262:


​

I just use the rangefinder for them. No problems getting them focused right where I want the focus to be.

G