Thanks for sharing your opinion... Let me tell you about my situation. I had Two Leica M6 TTL and Summicron 50/2, Hexanon-M90/2.8 and Elmarit 28/2.8, but I have sold one M6 and 28/2.8. I am wondering between following option; 1. Sell Summi50/2 & Hexanon90/2.8 and buy Summicron 35/2 ASPH. 2. Keep current system and add 35/2 or 28/2. That's why I posted two more questions on this site. BTW, I have got Hexar Silver 35/2 about 2 weeks ago. I think it is pretty good, but I am not sure about its quality and performance in compare with Summicron 35/2 ASPH. My specialty is in Architectural, Still Life, and Street Photography. You can see my images at www.welcome.to/studionaki. Leica M was, is my dream camera since I had studied photography, and I love to shoot people in the street with M6. Therefore, at least I want to keep this M6 even if I quit photography for any reason. Well, what do you think about this situation? Of course it's up to me, but I want to know your thought. Thanks for help.... ^L^... http://welcome.to/studionaki

-- NHP (sn4396@prodigy.net), November 08, 2000

Answers

I suppose it would help to know something more about your options: Re #1, do you like using a 50mm lens for the shooting you do and likewise, do you like the 90mm? Both are excellent lenses, quality should not be at issue here, but are they at all useful to you? If the answer is no, then selling them might make sense even if you don't buy the 35/2 in their place. Secondly, do you like the 35mm focal length? Is your reason for buying the 35/2 summicron to add versatility to your Leica? The Hexar gives you the same speed, focal length, rangefinder compactness and optical quality as the M6 (and at half the cost of the summicron alone, FWIW), only you have no advantage of lens interchangability. Is that important to you? Do you like to carry both cameras or do you want the flexibility of shooting at 35mm with either? Is the 35/2 ASPH your only option or could you consider the 35/1.4 ASPH as well? Did you not like the 28mm focal length and therefore not use the 28/2.8 lens much? If so, then how much more useful would you find the extra stop of the 28mm summicron ASPH? What about a wider lens instead: the 24/2.8 or 21/2.8, do they make sense for you? Or does the tri-elmarit lens appeal more, slower speed notwithstanding? All of your choices are high quality lenses and cameras but none of them make sense to have if you don't like using them.

-- Chris Henry (henryjc@concentric.net), November 08, 2000.

Everyone has a favourite point of view, a lens that feels natural to use. No one can help you here, it is your vision that needs to be satisfied not ours. I started with a 50/2, a wonderful lens, and gradually, after ten years, I realised that I see the world more with a 35 or 28 framing. I think the 28 would have been best but, as I often shoot in very low light, I settled on the 35/1.4 Asph. Happy as a clam now and I seldom use my 50/2, wonderful lens though.

Cheers

Cheers

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), November 08, 2000.

NHP, I think you are moving too fast! Please make one change at a time, and take time to evaluate whether the change was useful. I regret every time I traded a piece of Leica gear! I'd like to have back my M3; my 35mm summaron (even though I love the 35 Summicron & Summilux); my 50 mm f:2.8 Elmar; my IIIF with 50mm 3.5 Elmar, and my Leica D with uncoated 3.5 Elmar (well, maybe not that one). I'll never part with my M2, M6, or any lenses I still have. I've learned my lesson.

Now: what are you trying to accomplish? I looked for your website, but your URL didn't work. Seeing your images would have helped. Ultimate sharpness isn't the be-all and end-all. See, for example, Degas' ballerinas. Or see Renoir. I'll bet top technical quality isn't why you use a Leica for street photography. But it's good for architecture, and I guess, for still-lifes. You have diverse objectives.

For architecture I think you should have a perspective-control shift lens. This means Leica-R or Nikon. Olympus has one, too. Better yet, get a view camera. With a little practice, you can flip one around pretty handily.

For still-lifes, you can use a lot of things. Leica-M, Leica-R. 50mm Summicron. Nikon with 55mm Micro-Nikkor. Hasselblad with 120mm Makro-Planar. Whatever.

For street photography, you're all set with what you've got. Take it slow! Explore each camera & lens. Don't part with anything unless you're SURE!

Yours for continued growth-personally and photographically--

Bob

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@juno.com), November 08, 2000.

It seems you are NOT enjoying your photography or your on permanent buying spree...Leica for me means less equipment not more!If I use SLR I usually carry 3~5 lenses.I very seldom rely on one.The M3 usually only the 50.Architecture may need PC-lens,available only in SLR.Do you in fact own other cameras?I have been a long time ago on that pursuit of the "Holy Grail" in a perfect camera combo.There is no such thing.Stop opening boxes and open your shutter and just work at taking photos.

-- jason gold (jason1155234@webtv.net), November 09, 2000.

Thanks for help. Leica M6 is my latest camera for me, and I am expecting something from this camera such as excellent quality of image which I want to make. That is the reason why I am wondering about this nice camera. Maybe I could not enjoy the taste of Leica yet. Well, I am using Canon EOS system, Hasselblad system, Toyo 4X5 system and Nikon Digital camera for my photo assignment and self promoted project. I think Leica is perfect camera for street photography or Documentary, not for architectural, table top, commercial works. The reason why I got this Leica is simple. I want to carry reliable, high quality, and compact camera everytime, everywhere. I love to record everyday life of these days in my environment. I think most important and fascinating aspect of photography is THE RECORDING MOMENT and TIME. Thanks again, and you can see my works at www.welcome.to/studionaki If you have any comment or advice for me, please let me know. ^L^....

-- NHP (sn4396@prodigy.net), November 09, 2000.

NHP, let me jump in here one more time. It sounds like you want to do what Henri Cartier-Bresson did, capturing "the decisive moment." He used a Leica, you know. I don't believe his lenses were anything too fancy. Probably 35mm and 50mm lenses available at the time. Maybe Elmar, maybe Summar, Summaron, who knows. He learned to use them to meet his objectives.

Now consider the Life Magazine photographer, Alfred Eisenstadt. You know, the one who took the picture of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square. Another Leica man. "Eisie" said that whenever he felt tempted to buy something, he always asked himself whether it would really improve his photograpy. Usually the answer was "no" and he didn't buy it. He said he couldn't justify a new Gadget bag for that reason. Eisie talked, not about Leicas, but about the importance of developing a rapport with his subjects.

Let's move on to W. Eugene Smith. He shot mostly with cameras borrowed from friends. Nothing fancy. Yashicas and stuff. The country doctor. The two kids walking down the tree-lined path. The death of Gus-Gus. According to the latest issue of Aperture, you can get five prints of Smith's work in a nice little cloth-lined box, for only $1500.00.

Now imagine the following scenario. A painter goes to Claude Renoir, and asks him whether he should trade in his 35mm Sable brush for a 35mm camel's hair; or whether a 28mm or 50mm brush will make him a better, more famous painter. What do you think the master will say?

A driver in New York City rolls down his window, and yells to a cab driver: HOW DO YOU GET TO CARNEGIE HALL? The cabbie yells back, "PRACTICE! PRACTICE! PRACTICE!

Best Wishes,

Bob

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@juno.com), November 11, 2000.

NHP,

Bob is giving very good advise here. There was a time that I was making quite a bit of money, and my every whim for new photo gear was met. I have cameras with literally one roll of film though them. While my knowledge of the science was good, my selection of equipment un-matched, my photography was very uninspired. My ratio of true subject photography to "lens testing" was pretty slanted. Gear does not equal results! Too much gear gets in the way of using it... too many choices cause delays and lost opportunities.

After a process of streamlining in my life that also effected my hobbies and extra curricular activities, it became clear...LESS, NOT MORE. I use to drool at the announcement of any new Leica (or Nikon)... but now I apply the question that Bob attributed to Eisenstaedt... "Will it make my photography better?" The answer is usually no. The 1400 Dollars I didn't spend on the new Aspheric 35mm Summicron, to replace my perfectly fine Pre-Asph model, has gone into film and travel... and that has made my photography better.

As a practice, you can do a lot worse that a total immersion into one lens, one camera. Live with it for a long time. Eventually you will know what you need... wider or longer. Or you will realize that it matches your vision and it will be "your outfit". Nobody ever recommended to Henri Cartier-Bresson that he needs a few more lenses.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 11, 2000.

Mr. Naki, having viewed a small sample of your architectural work on the internet, I would say that you will make outstanding images with whatever gear you use. Based on this small sample, It appears to me that you are an artist who can achieve the sort of work the best equipment is designed for. While other makes may be almost as good as, and maybe in some instances as good as, Leica products, I think for street photography, you should go for Leica wherever possible. Don't waste time agonizing over other brands. While your URL address doesn't seem to work directly, I was able to access a cached version of your site via Google.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), November 11, 2000.

Your photos are excellent! Congratulations. I have to say that I do not think that I would choose the Leica M for architectural photography, in fact I would not choose any rangefinder camera for this. You can make excellent photos of archiotectural subjects using an M6, of course, but I do feel that the direct-parallax-free-precise alignment kind of photography that you can get with a reflex is much to be preferred, unless you are superb at previsualising the outlook. With a rangefinder you cannot even really see converging verticals so I wonder whether it is suited for the kind of work you are so expert at. Likewise the Ms are not good for macro work. For general street/tourist type work or low light candid photography then the Ms are superb, so if you want to do this then an M will suit you. If you will mainly carry on doing the kind of work your web pages show then I think you might be making an expensive mistake in hankering after M Leicas. In this case perhaps you should start considering R Leicas...Personally I think I would want to think medium format or even large format looking at your portfolio.

-- Robin Smith (rsmith@springer-ny.com), November 13, 2000.