A few of you have asked me to post an explanation of the equipment I finally decided to keep, and why, so here it is – but to begin with, I’d like to offer the following disclaimer so as not to set off any flame wars: Please realize that these are only my personal choices as they fit with my personal style of expression in the photographic medium, and by no means am I suggesting them as the only possible solution set for other users!

What I chose:

M6TTL .72 body M6TTL .58 body

15mm Heliar 24mm asph. 35mm Summilux asph. 50mm Summilux 90mm Summilux APO asph.

Why I chose it:

The Heliar 15… What can I say, I like the idea of occasionally having some fun with an ultra-wide, and this lens is so affordable compared to Leica standards – I paid $390 for mine with the finder and “M” adapter - I had to give it a try. While it is not comparable to Leica glass in optical or mechanical quality, it is still a very impressive performer when stopped down a few stops, and especially so given its cost.

The 24 or the 21? For me, this was a tough one as I really like the perspectives from both of these focal lengths. I ended up choosing the 24 because I felt it is a bit more versatile than the 21 overall. Also, the 24 is incredibly sharp from corner to corner - second only to the 90 SAA - at all f-stops. None of this, however, precludes the possibility of my obtaining a 21 at some point in the future!

Choosing between the 35 asph’s was very difficult as they are both excellent - so excellent I actually considered keeping both of them. The Summicron is sharper corner to corner and a bit more compact than the Summilux, but the Summilux is a bit sharper in the center and a full stop faster than the Summicron. In my case speed won out on the 35’s, as I found myself always grabbing the Summilux, even though it was a bit bigger, because I often shoot in low light and use f1.4 for at least a couple of shots.

When it came to the 50’s I assumed my decision was going to be a little easier because I knew I did not want to deal with the size and weight of the Noctilux, and I knew the Elmar would not be fast enough for many of my uses. So my decision was pared down to picking between the Summilux and Summicron. So wouldn’t you know, the first good deal on a used M6TTL body I found was as part of a package that included, of all things, a Noctilux! And of course, I really liked the results I got with it on the first roll of film, so I decided to go with the Noctilux/Summicron pair to cover all bases. In the end, the Noctilux was just so big and heavy (relative only to other “M” gear!) that it didn’t make it into the bag very often, while the Summicron was always in the bag. Unfortunately, I found myself looking for another stop on the Summicron more than once, so the 50 Summilux got a serious look. Compared to the Summilux, the Summicron is sharper corner to corner, and the Noctilux has that special “look” and incredible Bokeh, which left the Summilux as somewhat of a compromise lens between the other two, but one that works well for my uses.

Why the 90 APO asph over the Elmarit? I use the 90 for some very specific purposes, one being stage photography, the other being available-light portraits. The maximum aperture of the 90 SAA not only gives me an extra stop when the light levels are low, it also gives a shallower DOF in portrait compositions. In addition, this lens is a stunning performer optically at all apertures, and was the sharpest overall of all the lenses I tested (!). I’ll point out here, that I also was very much enamored with the minimal size and weight characteristics, as well as the optical performance of the 90 tele-Elmarit I tested, but in the end the extra stop and the stunning performance of the SAA wide-open won out.

I should also comment on a few of the lenses I did not choose… As for the 28’s, the perspective offered by them simply does not match the way I see very often, and I generally can make do with either the 24 or the 35 in its place. The 75 intrigued me as a possibility, but again, the perspective it provides is not quite a match to the way I see, so the 90 was a better choice for me. (The 75 does, however, seem like an ideal candidate for a longer low-light lens, and could make half of a very nice low-light pair when coupled with the 35 Summilux.) The 135 is another focal length that I never seemed to get the hang of seeing with. It always seemed either a bit too long, or a bit too short, depending on the subject, hence it was not considered.

Now for the bodies. To begin with, I need two bodies as I regularly shoot both color and B&W emulsions. I wanted a meter in the body, and I liked the larger shutter-speed dial of the M6TTL over the classic M6. I find the larger dial easier to reach and adjust with my trigger finger, and I don’t need to move the camera away from my eye to change its setting. Also, the TTL’s dial is directionally synched with the metering LED’s in the viewfinder, another nice touch over the classic. So the M6TTL it was. The only question remaining was which finder magnification(s) to get. Since I shoot primarily with the 35, I dismissed the .85x body – I don’t wear eyeglasses (yet), but I had difficulty seeing around the 35 framelines in the .85x body. The .72x body framelines worked fine for me with the 35, plus it offered enough magnification to reliably focus the 90 SAA and 50 Summilux wide open, so it seemed like a good choice. For the second body I checked out a .58x, and noted that the outer edge of the viewfinder frame was a tad larger than the view of the 24. Neat! With the 24 on the .58x body, I could get by without the 24’s viewfinder and compose, meter and shoot without moving my eye. So body number two is the .58x.

Lastly, I needed a bag to schlep all this gear around in. I tried both the Domke F3X and an M classics bag. Both bags work well, but the Domke is a bit more versatile and holds a bit more equipment. It has four separate compartments inside; the main two in the center hold both bodies with any combination of lenses attached, and the compartments at the each end hold the three other lenses. (The Heliar sits at the bottom of one of these compartments, wrapped in a trimmed-down Domke lens wrap, with another lens stored on top of it.) The outer pockets hold plenty of film, flash, extra batteries, lens cloths, etc. Since I prefer my camera bags to look like something else, (preferably something that nobody else has any interest in owning!) I ran the F3X through my washing machine a few times with a little bleach, which knocked the edges off and made it look like a skuzzy old shoulder bag. My only complaint about this bag is that it is a bit wide, so it doesn’t hug my side as nicely as the M Classic when fully loaded – but then again, it holds more stuff.

Am I happy with this system? You bet. The whole package, complete with film and ready for a day of shooting, weighs in at 10 pounds even, and rides comfortably on my shoulder. Is it perfect? Well, almost. I could trim a pound or so off by going with the 90TE instead of the 90 SAA, and there are occasions where I think a 21 (and sometimes even a 28!) might do a better job of capturing my intended vision, but netted out, this system should handle about 98% of the photographic situations I encounter in my travel, street and casual photography.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 18, 2001

Answers

your explanation on how to chosse the equipment to keep is interesting, specialy when you had so much to choose from, wich gives me an idea of what´s available by Leica now.I have a question Jack; how long have you been a Leica user and what other Leica M equipment or any other have you used in the past?, sorry for the long question.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 18, 2001.

Very interesting analysis. Thank you. I see that for the 35, 50, and 90, speed won the day, save the Noctilux, which is just so large compared to the 'lux for that extra stop. I guess this demonstrates that very often, speed is what M's are about.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), May 18, 2001.

Dan: Though I have nothing to do with the original question (which, in turn, is not a question) I'd like to contribute an opinion based on your observation: I love Leicas, I really enjoy my M3s and my R4 but I wouldn't agree that speed is what Leicas are about. Not Ms, at least. Certainly I know the much that have been said (fabled ..?) about Leicas' speed but I have used SLRs too (in fact I still do though seldom since the M3s)and I really think that the much regarded speed of Leicas is a concept inherited from the times they first got in the market. At that time and compared to the photo equipment current at the moment they were very fast to use, for sure. But no anymore since SLR's appeared in the world. However, I know I make much faster shoots with the M3s than with the R4 or the FM2. I mean I'm able to respond much faster to interesting photo opportunities and, even, get succesful images from time to time; not all the time, of course.But it is not because of the M3s themselves but because my attitude has evolved thanks to the demands the M3s impose on me in order for good results to be rendered by them and thanks to friendly help I have profited from reading these pages. Today I go to many more places with a camera than I used to, my lens is always focused to infinity in order to know in advance what its present adjustment is and in order to focus to usual distances faster than coming from the short distances end, I have learned to estimate the illumination level based on "Sunny 16", my camera is adjusted to the mean illumination level at any time (I'm mainly speaking about street photography) and I've become able to prefocus with reasonable accuracy while taking the camera up to my face to shoot and even to shoot without looking through the viewfinder. If you browse through this pages you will find all this techniques better explained by the original authors but this is only to explain why I don't think Leicas are specially fast. What they do is having you to learn your photography to a wider extent. At least that has been my experience so far. Finally, Dan, I don't intend to start one more discusion regarding the many good qualities of Leica cameras but mainly to profite from your note in order to thank to many people here for what they have tought me. Regards, Dan, and thanks to you too for this oportunity.

Ivan

-- Ivan Barrientos (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), May 18, 2001.

Roberto:

I have been persuing photography as a serious hobby (passion) for the last 20 years. I started out shooting with 35mm Nikon equipment, graduated into medium format - where I tried out several systems - and ultimately transitioned into large format photography. It was through these transitions that I became in tune with the "tonal range" of the final print, where the medium and LF systems performed significantly better than my Nikon 35 gear. About eight months ago, a friend encouraged me to try out his Leica gear - I accepted (a mistake on my part!) and I was blown away by the quality. Thus began the search for the ideal M system, which I have only been using for about six months. I still have some Nikon gear and a LF system, but no medium format gear any more. While I do not consider myself a professional, over the years I have been paid to do some commercial work, and have exhibited and sold several of my fine art prints. ***************

Dan:

If by speed you mean the ability to "get the shot" in low light situations, I agree wholeheartedly that the "M" is indeed the king!

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 18, 2001.

Jack--While I wouldn't exactly agree with your choices for myself, I'm really impressed with the logic you've used. An entertaining post!

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 18, 2001.

Jack, despite your best logic I would be very surprised if this outfit will be your "Final Answer" : )

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 19, 2001.

Wise observation, Jay. Please let me add my self up to your opinion ... Cheers Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), May 19, 2001.

Michael:

Thank you -- you obviously got the point. **********

Jay:

I do not believe I indicated anywhere in the post that this would be my "final answer" -- I did indicate, however, that this is what I finally decided to keep! To be sure, in the near future I will probably try out a 21 if I find one at a reasonable price, and perhaps try out the new version Tr-Elmar; I may also want to try out the motor winder, and may dump the Heliar if I find really do not use it very much, and I may keep the 90TE just for its size, and there is my continual search for the ideal bag, which I have yet to find :) **********

Ivan:

Ditto my response above above to Jay for you! **********

P.S. Jay & Ivan - Of course, you both now have me curious as to what your "Final Answers" on Leica equipment would be...

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 19, 2001.

Leica M is a system that can be adopted by diferent kind of photographers, we just have to read at diferent opinions in this pages. Is interesting to see where is Jack in his relationship with M system,I have been an amatheur photographer for almost as long, begining with a Ricoh when 15 years old, then a Canon four years latter, in a couple of years I begun to discover the work of some documentalist photographers, and bougth my first M3 with four lenses, for 500 USD in 1986 in Mexico city, since it was the system with more lenses (35,50,90,135) that I owned in that time (and still is) it became my main camera, with my Canon I only had a 50, so I was in a way forced to use the M3, now 15 years later it is still my main camera but lens selection has shifted to 21-50 range, with newer designs, but what I belive has been important is a development of confidence in the system, few years ago I did something interesting about my photography, I took all my favorite pictures and divided them as taken with diferent cameras and lenses, that was amazing for me, I recomend it, I realise what I was seeing and how I was reacting to a situation with diferent cameras (well SLR and M), wile SLR images were based on design mainly, the M without lossing that point was so aware of people face expresions, body language, something that in SLR systems I wasn´t seeing, of course it is in my own experience. Is intersting to read your coments and how the term fast may have diferent meanings among us, interesting the challenge way in wich Jay refers to Jack choice as surprised to be his "Final Answer".

IMOO, M Leica tends to shrink lenses choice, and makes it very easy to think in one focal length only, it is for certain a minimalist way to aproach photography, diferent from SLR systems in wich the most prespectives we got the better.Interesting post Jack.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 19, 2001.