what is the best lens for an M3?

All of the above recommendations are correct. What sort of "look" are you seeking? A Nocti, Summi, Elmar or Sonnar are all brilliant lenses, but don't all excel in the same way.

If I had just gotten an M3, and money was no object, I would look for a clean collapsible Summicron, and a Zeiss C-Sonnar 50/1.5. I could cover all the kinds of photos I like to take with those two lenses. YMMV.
 
The 50mm 2.8 Elmar is a wonderful, under appreciated lens. Very compact, makes lovely images.

I also have a 1955 M3 with a 2005 50mm Summilux asph. 50 years of Leica's best.

Joe
 
beautiful John I wish I had that combo but I would have to buy Swarosvky shoes to my girlfriend if I do that to compensate :p
 
I've used them all... from the collapsible radioactive summicron, to the current production one. I've also used the Nikkor 1.4 LTM and the Canon 1.4 LTM, as well as the plannar Contax G 45/2. In the end, I feel that the current version summicron works best for my M3.
Indianred2.jpg

Indianred1.jpg
 
You might look for one of the goggled 35 lenses--they came in three flavours, Summilux, Summicron and Summaron. I've got the latter, and while of course the view is not quite as nice as, say, a 50 without goggles--it is just a bit darker and there is a little distortion--you get the huge viewfinder, the complete and easy-to-see framelines (the goggles convert the 35 mm field of view to fill the 50 framelines), and what to me is really a more "normal" focal length. Plus it's superbly sharp.

The Summaron is still a bit of a bargain, even though prices have risen significantly the last couple of years. The goggled versions are less popular though, and so can often be found at reasonable prices. And it looks wicked cool on the front of an M3!

I not only use mine on the M3, but also on my recently-acquired M6, where it works just as well. As mind-bending as used 35 Summicron prices are nowadays, I'm sure it will see good service for some time to come.
 
kosta_g said:
i'd vote for the regular summicron rigid. same optics as the DR without the extra weight. Close focusing is nice though.
Click to expand...
Amen to that! I had the DR and loved the optic, but hated the weight. Since I had a Collapsible 'cron as well, I traded the DR for a 35 Summaron 2.8 w/goggles. The rigid-same-as-DR would be the ticket!
 
"The Summaron is still a bit of a bargain, even though prices have risen significantly the last couple of years. The goggled versions are less popular though, and so can often be found at reasonable prices. And it looks wicked cool on the front of an M3!"
Amen to THAT. Makes the M3 a total Buck Rogers rig. And the photos are very beautiful!
 
my vote goes for the goggled summaron (2.8) as well. Im guessing price IS a factor, and this is the most reasonably priced lens, in the most useful focal length for your M3. I got a 90 (rokkor, CLE) to compliment mine, and have a blast shooting this set up...

you can see some of the results I have gotten with this set up here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50955665@N07/
Its not a great sample of the quality you can get with these lenses since I was processing my own film with Diafine, and scanning with a crappy scanner. But I think you can get the idea...
 
I'd get the 50 Lux ASPH

imo the best combination of low light ability, comparatively low finder blockage to the noctiiuxes and weight paired with great performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom