chuckroast
Well-known
Agree entirely. Me, I would go 28/85, which would see me through just about all I want to photograph. Options at the low end could be 35 or even 24 if one is a panoramic type, at the top end 105 or 135 or even 180, which in the Nikon D range is a superb lens (I have one, trust me on that). So a little flexibility fits in well here.
Come to think of it, why only two lenses? If we have to talk minimalism, as I see it, to me lenses are like bods in a bed. Two are fine, three can be a crowd. Unless the third in the trio is a cat, which given your poster photo I'm sure you entirely understand.
All this said, a sensible compromise (photographically) would be to go three ways. One wide angle, one standard, one longer lens. As I'm not a '50 sort of photographer, I'm happy with my 28/85 combo. Of course YMMV...
But let's do go on disagreeing about all this. It's such fun to disagree.
I have lots of choices for both Leica and Nikons (an OM-1s before that), and for reasons unknown to me, I have never owned a 28mm for either.
My Nikon stock kit for many years was 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 105mm. I say "was" because once I latched onto a 20mm f/2.8, the 24mm started gathering dust.
My Barnack and M bodies walk around with 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm options, the M also having a 90mm available. I'd guess that 50+ % of what I shoot with Leica is either 21mm or 25mm, about 45% is 50mm, and 5% is 90mm.
But I have never really seriously considered a 28mm since I don't see it as being remarkably different than either the 21mm or the 35mm.
Then again, the local shop has an M4-P with a 28mm going out for service, then to be sold and ... there is no such thing as too much Leica ...