FrozenInTime
Well-known
That's the combo I've just managed to complete - but to get it, it means I will be sticking with film until al least next summer.
If the OP is not alone giving Leica Ms a go, there is going to be one major shortage not just of M9s but also lenses for the next 6 months.
If the OP is not alone giving Leica Ms a go, there is going to be one major shortage not just of M9s but also lenses for the next 6 months.
wayneb
Established
I don't think this aspect is that fuzzy. Humans have a tendency to practice traditions and try to repeat and quote history in really everything they do. This Leica camera design is one of the classics of the 20th century that has somehow survived into the contemporary era, because it was a great mechanical design.
ferider
Veteran
Alright, if you want to jump right in ..... I recommend 35/1.4 + 75/1.4 or 35/2 + 75/1.4 though. The 75/1.4 is phenomenal, and speed is more useful for the longer lenses IMO.
Have a look at the flickr M-mount forum (see my signature) and at the fingerprint of the different lenses.
To be honest, very few people here use an M9 (yet), and I haven't seen any M9 75 photos. You'll be on quite new territory.
Roland.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
If I were dreaming it would be 21/1.4, Voigtländer Nokton 35/1.2 and a nice all-round 50, possibly a Dual Range Summicron.
tightsqueez
Well-known
Think fast...
Think fast...
My vote is for the 75 Cron. Focuses fast and is a good size. You'd be well rounded with a 35-75. Image below was with 75 Cron and M8.
Think fast...
My vote is for the 75 Cron. Focuses fast and is a good size. You'd be well rounded with a 35-75. Image below was with 75 Cron and M8.
Last edited:
samoksner
Who stole my light?
You're going to need an external finder for the 24mm and 21mm lens' I would personally go 21 1.4 ASPH, 35 1.4 ASPH, and 75 f2 APO, unless you want f1.4 all the way around, in that case, get the 75mm f1.4, a bit older, but a superb lens in everyway.
axiom
Non-Registered User
What a shot
I am speechless
I am speechless
My vote is for the 75 Cron. Focuses fast and is a good size. You'd be well rounded with a 35-75. Image below was with 75 Cron and M8.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Back to the focal length issue. Lovefinder, your question indicates that you have a strong interest in wide-angle lenses, as well as a need for one longer than normal. You also said you don't really need a 50mm, especially if you get a 35. So with that in mind, several people have suggested the 35 and the 75 as good choices, and I agree with that. I find the 35 essential, and the 75 to be more useful than a 90 on the Leica rangefinder. That only leaves a question of which wide-angle to get: 21 or 24? Or the 25mm Zeiss? I feel it is important to view a set of lenses as a system, that has to work together. I think that skipping from 21 to 35 leaves a bit of a wide gap in between. Sort of a hole in the middle. If you really need a 21, then I would get one. But if 24 is wide enough, I think 24 (or25), 35, and 75 makes a really well-spaced set of lenses. Take your time, think it over.
Rob
Rob
Frank Petronio
Well-known
You know in thinking about it, if it were I, I might forgo the 21/1.4 in favor of getting a second M9 as a backup. If we're talking about a bread and butter camera system.
Scratch that, it's silly. He could always pick up (or keep) a cheap Pany/Canon/Nikon for backup.
Scratch that, it's silly. He could always pick up (or keep) a cheap Pany/Canon/Nikon for backup.
bwcolor
Veteran
lovefinder:
Prior to everyone suggesting lenses, what lenses do you primary use on your D700?
What type of subjects do you shoot?
What do you expect from a digital rangefinder?
Prior to everyone suggesting lenses, what lenses do you primary use on your D700?
What type of subjects do you shoot?
What do you expect from a digital rangefinder?
maddoc
... likes film again.
About focusing .... I stopped using (D)SLR because I can't focus them reliable anymore at apertures > f/2.0, ~ 50% of the shots are blurred. That's why I started using RF cameras (first Epson R-D1s and later Leicas) and focusing is a lot easier and more exact for me.
What takes more practice and experience is that you have to imagine the depth of field and field of view. The frame-lines are just guarding what will be on the frame.
If money would be no problem, digital my preference and I would have to start from the scratch, 35/1.4 (either ASPH or pre-ASPH) would be my first lens for the M9. That set-up should give you the most possibilities, including low-light and you can't blame the camera for bad photos (except the 35/1.4 ASPH has a back-focus problem with the M9, too ...)
What takes more practice and experience is that you have to imagine the depth of field and field of view. The frame-lines are just guarding what will be on the frame.
If money would be no problem, digital my preference and I would have to start from the scratch, 35/1.4 (either ASPH or pre-ASPH) would be my first lens for the M9. That set-up should give you the most possibilities, including low-light and you can't blame the camera for bad photos (except the 35/1.4 ASPH has a back-focus problem with the M9, too ...)
James R
Member
Achieving proper focus @ 1.2 or 1.4 is not that easy on a DSLR. Can't tell you how many times I got an ear instead of an eye.
The only way to get technically good with any camera is shot lots of pics. I haven't used a RF in 20 years, but will move back when I'm able to secure an M9. Too often I leave the D3 and lens in their pack because I'm tired of lugging that stuff around every venue. Besides, Leica glass is special.
BillBingham2
Registered User
bwcolor asked some questions that might send the answers down different paths.
Expensive Leica glass these days is better than ever, but it's expensive. ZI has some stellar glass that has somewhat of a different signature and a lower price point. Older glass, while not as "Perfect" again gives a different signature that some people prefer. Not knowing what you shoot, what's important, what your experience has been with the DSLR it's hard to suggest other than what I would do.
Without budget worries for my style of shooting I'd do ZI 15/2.8, Leica 24/1.4 and 35/1.4. With the money I saved on the 15 (from buying another Leica lens) I would by an X1 as my backup camera. The Leica 24 might be swapped out if the distortion is to high (why I never used my Leica 21 years ago) for a ZI 25/2.8. Much less expensive and rather than an X1 I might look to two M9s then, if I was using them professionally. If not perhaps spend the money on a kick butt Mac setup with speed (quad core & LOTS OF RAM), lots of monitors and storage out the wazzzuuu!
Tell us about what you shoot, how and why you shoot it.
Thanks.
B2 (;->
Expensive Leica glass these days is better than ever, but it's expensive. ZI has some stellar glass that has somewhat of a different signature and a lower price point. Older glass, while not as "Perfect" again gives a different signature that some people prefer. Not knowing what you shoot, what's important, what your experience has been with the DSLR it's hard to suggest other than what I would do.
Without budget worries for my style of shooting I'd do ZI 15/2.8, Leica 24/1.4 and 35/1.4. With the money I saved on the 15 (from buying another Leica lens) I would by an X1 as my backup camera. The Leica 24 might be swapped out if the distortion is to high (why I never used my Leica 21 years ago) for a ZI 25/2.8. Much less expensive and rather than an X1 I might look to two M9s then, if I was using them professionally. If not perhaps spend the money on a kick butt Mac setup with speed (quad core & LOTS OF RAM), lots of monitors and storage out the wazzzuuu!
Tell us about what you shoot, how and why you shoot it.
Thanks.
B2 (;->
rashumon
Member
Hi, I did the same recently, fulfilled a dream I had for many years to get a Leica RF to compliment my Nikon D700 kit. But I'm not yet looking at the M9 so much as I specifically got it to shoot E6 film again. Having said that I think i'll end up getting an M9 because I find it impossible to go back to SLRs now 
I ended up getting:
chrome M6 Classic - the sweetest little camera I ever used and the best value in the whole M range at the moment. you can get a pristine late serial number for around $1200 or £750 on ebay!
35 Cron ASPH - such a lovely sharp little number, I actually much prefer it to the Lux ASPH which is huge heavy and not any sharper (I might get the VC 35 1.4 classic at some point for the 1.4 and the old school bokeh its got & and cos its so small)
50 Cron latest version - you can't go wrong! and you say you don't like 50 - I'd double check that assertion - on an RF 35 and 50 are the only lenses really worth heaving...
90 Elmarit (90s model) for portraits and the occasional landscape...
Don't think I'll ever bother with wider than 28 - too much mess with a separate VF but I guess that depends on what you shoot, you might have to have WAs...
ENJOY!
I ended up getting:
chrome M6 Classic - the sweetest little camera I ever used and the best value in the whole M range at the moment. you can get a pristine late serial number for around $1200 or £750 on ebay!
35 Cron ASPH - such a lovely sharp little number, I actually much prefer it to the Lux ASPH which is huge heavy and not any sharper (I might get the VC 35 1.4 classic at some point for the 1.4 and the old school bokeh its got & and cos its so small)
50 Cron latest version - you can't go wrong! and you say you don't like 50 - I'd double check that assertion - on an RF 35 and 50 are the only lenses really worth heaving...
90 Elmarit (90s model) for portraits and the occasional landscape...
Don't think I'll ever bother with wider than 28 - too much mess with a separate VF but I guess that depends on what you shoot, you might have to have WAs...
ENJOY!
wjlapier
Well-known
Hmmm...interesting topic. One I've been thinking about lately. I have a D700 kit and MP/M3 and a pair of each 35/50 crons. I've been trying to convince myself that I can shoot sports ( my kids---soccer, xc, basketball, softball, LL, track ) with a M9 kit. Not impossible I know. I've shot most of those sports with a RFer kit last year. I'm very dependent on AF and the D700's clean high ISO, which make the decision that much more difficult.
I too would be interested to know your D700 kit, and your style of shooting.
I too would be interested to know your D700 kit, and your style of shooting.
mfogiel
Veteran
I think there's a lot of sensible advice here, however, I'd like to say that Frank's post above is spot on. Rangefinders are cameras that shine with lenses up to 50mm. From 75mm on the SLR is simply more practical. An intelligent way of starting would be to get just the 35mm lens , and if you do not mind the size, the 35/1.2 Nokton is perhaps a better lens than the Leica 35/1.4 for one fourth of the cost. Start looking through the VF and learning how to frame, focus and how to live with a partially obstructed vision due to the protruding lens and shade...
BillBingham2
Registered User
You can shoot many sports with an M9, I do it with my S3 and did it with my M6.
For Soccer I use anything from a 28 to a 105 depending upon what position my son is playing. I move from the group of parents at the side lines so I can get the angles I want. Shooting from the crowd never works. Sometimes I’m down on the ground, other times I’m standing, depends on the position and what’s going on in the field.
XCountry is easy but you generally only have one or two shots at most, unless you hustle to the finish line. There I use a 105 for the finish as I am never allowed to get that close. Shots on the course are done with between a 25 and a 50. Depends upon the light and where I am .
Basketball again, I get down low near the court and shoot with a fast 35. If I’m up high I shoot with a 105 or 85. I move up and down the court (walking) to shoot different plays (defense or offense). Sitting second row here, first row there. I never sit in one place and shoot with a telephoto. In High School I would climb up and sit on places that I shouldn’t have to get a different angle.
Track is all about getting close, on the inside of the track to shoot. They go around and around so depends upon how they run, are they leaders from the start, do they have a strong kick, my position depends upon the style of the runner I want to shoot and where I will get the best picture of them.
Softball is the place where RFs suck. You need a telephoto to reach out to people, 200, 300, rarely is the action moving towards you. This is the only sport you listed (other than LL, what is LL?) where the action does not come to you too often. You need the wide angle on a body for those times that it does, but more often than not it’s longer is better.
I find the key is not sitting with the other parents, not being lazy and getting involved with shooting pictures rather than visiting with other grown-ups. I’ve seen a couple of photographers who have studios (wedding and such) sit and take pictures from one place and try to sell them. The pictures sucked, great idea, but you could not see faces, no action filled the picture.
With respect to focusing, learn the sport, prefocus where the action will be and trust depth of field, zone focus, it works really well once you get the hang of it.
B2 (;->
For Soccer I use anything from a 28 to a 105 depending upon what position my son is playing. I move from the group of parents at the side lines so I can get the angles I want. Shooting from the crowd never works. Sometimes I’m down on the ground, other times I’m standing, depends on the position and what’s going on in the field.
XCountry is easy but you generally only have one or two shots at most, unless you hustle to the finish line. There I use a 105 for the finish as I am never allowed to get that close. Shots on the course are done with between a 25 and a 50. Depends upon the light and where I am .
Basketball again, I get down low near the court and shoot with a fast 35. If I’m up high I shoot with a 105 or 85. I move up and down the court (walking) to shoot different plays (defense or offense). Sitting second row here, first row there. I never sit in one place and shoot with a telephoto. In High School I would climb up and sit on places that I shouldn’t have to get a different angle.
Track is all about getting close, on the inside of the track to shoot. They go around and around so depends upon how they run, are they leaders from the start, do they have a strong kick, my position depends upon the style of the runner I want to shoot and where I will get the best picture of them.
Softball is the place where RFs suck. You need a telephoto to reach out to people, 200, 300, rarely is the action moving towards you. This is the only sport you listed (other than LL, what is LL?) where the action does not come to you too often. You need the wide angle on a body for those times that it does, but more often than not it’s longer is better.
I find the key is not sitting with the other parents, not being lazy and getting involved with shooting pictures rather than visiting with other grown-ups. I’ve seen a couple of photographers who have studios (wedding and such) sit and take pictures from one place and try to sell them. The pictures sucked, great idea, but you could not see faces, no action filled the picture.
With respect to focusing, learn the sport, prefocus where the action will be and trust depth of field, zone focus, it works really well once you get the hang of it.
B2 (;->
Tim Gray
Well-known
I shot a couple of softball games this past year. I used an SLR with a 200 mm and 1.4x teleconverter. I got some ok shots, at 200 and 280, but you can only shoot from limited locations and angles, so getting anything tight of the outfielders, pitchers, 2nd baseman, etc. are difficult. Tight shots were near impossible even with 280 mm. So for RFs, no.
Other sports where you can get close to the action might be ok, especially if you can pre focusing. Basketball comes to mind - a lot of action is right under the rim, so I can't imagine using much more than a 50mm in those situations. Soccer might be a bit tough since you wouldn't have the reach to really get to the goal or the other side of the field.
Also, depending on what level of sports you are shooting at, you need to be further and further back from the action.
Other sports where you can get close to the action might be ok, especially if you can pre focusing. Basketball comes to mind - a lot of action is right under the rim, so I can't imagine using much more than a 50mm in those situations. Soccer might be a bit tough since you wouldn't have the reach to really get to the goal or the other side of the field.
Also, depending on what level of sports you are shooting at, you need to be further and further back from the action.
kshapero
South Florida Man
35/1.2 and 75/2.5 done.
wjlapier
Well-known
Good stuff B2.
Yeah--I shot everything but basketball last year with RFers. Softball with the Nikkor 135/3.5 LTM on a M3--dugout shots with Canon 35/1.8 and Zeiss Opton 50/1.5. Track with M3/DRcron/Nikkor tele again and IIIf and 50 elmar. LL--Little League. Used a 90 cron mostly. I guess I didn't use a RFer for soccer.
Never sat with the parents. Always moving around.
So, yep, I know it can be done.