I just bought a M6 TTL with 90MM APO- at the age of 48. I think the camera can live longer than I do so I will start teaching my son to learn photo shooting so that I can pass the camera onto my son sooner or later. I think I can afford to buy two more lenses. 50mm f2 + 24mm f2.8 or 35mm f2 + 21mm f2.8. Can anybody help me to choose? I like to make photos with people and landscape. I also plan to have an indoor B & W exercise with ASA 800 film (no flash just the 90mm f2 APO)- any advise on use of filters and technique are most welcomed.

-- tom tong (tong248@netvigator.com), September 14, 2001

Answers

A 35 īlux asph would make your combo a top performer, after this I would see where I want the next.And since I hope you can live to one hundred, well enjoy it!

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.

It's not what we think--it's what you'll use. I, for instance, think a 35mm is a waste of good money.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.

Tom:

I agree with Roberto. Buy the 35 asph, use it, and then decide which focal-length oyu want after that. If you find you're like Michael, and don't like the 35 perspective, you'll have no trouble selling it as it is a highly prized acquisition by Leica M users. You'll then know if the tighter perspective of the 50 will better suit your needs. After that you'll have a little more personal data to help you make the 21/24 decision. For what it's worth, if I could only have three M lenses, they would be the 35 asph 'Lux, the 90TE, and the 24... no, perhaps the 21 asph... :-)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 14, 2001.

"I, for instance, think a 35mm is a waste of good money."

Michael, that's a very surprising thing to hear anyone say - the 35 must be the most widely-used and versatile lens around. If I had to choose a single lens it would be the 35 1.4.

I think that you'd need at least two lenses to have the variety of viewpoints and perspectives of the 35 (I'm not talking about perspective in a purely geometrical sense here).

I'm not arguing against you, it's just that I'd never have expected anyone to say that, and I know you're an experienced photographer.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 14, 2001.

I know that many people consider the 35 to have a "normal" perspective, and I guess that's my problem with it---it doesn't have an "opinion" on the subject. I think a lens should be picked to isolate or enhance a subject, to help *stress* what the photographer sees, and that's where the 35mm focal length falls short for me. I find that a lot of photography I see lacks impact, and we all know there's a lot of bad photography around. Given that bad photography out numbers the good, and that the 35mm is an extremely popular lens, I'm tempted to say there's a connection. . . . but I'll only say that when *I* use a 35mm the resulting pictures are, too often, boring, so *I* don't like to use it. Opinions were asked, and that's mine :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.

For me, the 35mm lens is an essential ... I use it more than any other.

When I got my M6, I already had a Heliar 15 ultrawide (from the CL that I had before the M6) so I bought a 35 and a 90. Those three lenses were a fantastic kit. I find, however, that the 15 is a hair too wide and too slow, and the 90 a bit too long, for much of my usage. I knew a 21 or 24 were likely much more useful to me and agonized over that choice. A friend loaned me the 24/2.8 ASPH that he wanted to sell and I shot 10 rolls of film with it ... and realized that I found it just fantastic for all-purpose shooting.

Next, I acquired a 50/2 and find that that is now a very nice medium telephoto in my use.

I find I use the 35, 24 and 50 about equally now, with the 15 and 90 following in that priority.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), September 14, 2001.

Tom:

What lenses you should buy next depends on your style of photography and the subject matter. You have mentioned people and landscape as your preferred subjects. The 90/f2 APO is an outstanding lens for both. I have the non-APO 90/f2 lens, and also the 21/f2.8 ASPH, 35/f2 ASPH and 50/f2 and 135/f4 T-E Leica lenses. I use all of them on a regular basis, so it would be difficult to limit myself to only 2 of the 4 you are considering. If forced to do so, I would chose the 21 and 50 lenses. Those two plus the 90 APO would give you an outfit suitable for a wide range of photographic interests...........

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), September 14, 2001.

It seems to me the 90mm is an odd choice for your first lens, although it is a wonderful lens, it's not very general purpose. The best general purpose lens, I believe, is the 50 summicron. Check out the work of Cartier-Bresson or Ralph Gibson, they both mainly use a 50mm. After that you can't go wrong with the new 28mm, probably the single best lens made by Leica. With those three lenses you have the very best Leica makes.

-- Bill Magness (bdmagness@aol.com), September 14, 2001.

I'd suggest not getting two new lenses together. Get one at a time, use it for a while, and try to figure out what you're missing. With that in mind, I'd say the 35 is a no-brainer for your next purchase.

OTOH,used 50's are pretty inexpensive by Leica standards, and you're fairly sure to need (want) one in your bag at some point, so maybe consider a used 35/2.0 ASPH and a used 50/2.0. That gives you the three classic Leica focal lengths, and after six months of using them, you'll be pretty sure about what else you might want.

I'm no help with the 21 vs 24 debate - I don't see that wide, so my attitude is "a pox on both their houses". The 28 Summicron is a phenomenal lens, though.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), September 14, 2001.

I have the 21-35-90 combo. I'm considering a 28 but find that the 35 really covers anything I need in the 90-21 gap. I find the 50 even more boring than Michael finds the 35, but thousands don't. The 21 and 24 are very close, but I like the 'wide-angle' look and just felt too cramped at times when I tried 24s on SLRs.

As an alternative to your expressed options I might also suggest that you consider adding just a 28 (either f/2 or f/2.8) to begin with. It simplifies the creative choice to 'wide' or 'tele', which can make for faster shooting, and would be a very compact, very powerful package.

If I do get a 28, it will precisely so that I can sometimes leave the 21-35 (plus accessory finder) at home and still have a lot of variety in 'look' available.

But in truth, ALL of the following combos will do spectacular work.

90/35/24 - - 90/50/28 - - 90/35/21 - - 90/50/24 - -

The process probably needs to be'subtractive'. Is there any particular focal length you DON'T like? Pick a combo that allows you to avoid it.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 14, 2001.

I use the 90 APO and the 35/2 Asph the most followed closely by the fantastic 50/2. I think the combinations mentioned by Andy are all great. Personally if I were buying again I would choose the 90 APO, the 50/2 and the 28/2 Asph which is reputed to be the sharpest Leica lens ever made (followed by the 90 APO) and which to my eye has a very pleasing perspective. The 35/2 Asph is a beautiful ultra sharp lens but I find that something a little wider would cover my needs better with a three lens outfit.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.

Michael Darton; if as you said out of 35mm lens pictures you only get bored pictures, I am sure it is not a problem of a lens; 35 and 50 are very alike prespectives, and the interesting thing for me about this "normal" prespective lenses is that you donīt depend on enhanced prespectives to get more interesting pictures; lenses donīt make photographers. Hope I donīt sound hard in my reply.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.

I would purchase a tri elmar next. That gives you 28, 35 and 50mm. From there you can decide what lens sees things the way you do. It is a bit slow but very handy. Like Michael above, I find the 35mm to be mostly a waste of time. With the 3E lens, I find myself using either 50 or 28.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 14, 2001.

Thanks a lot for all the advices. Can anybody advise on use of filters when shooting with B&W film under artificial lights? Thanks

-- tom tong (tong248@netvigator.com), September 14, 2001.

Tom, when you go out shooting with your M6, try sizing up your subjects when viewing with the frame selector lever held to the 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm positions. This will tell you whether you like or need either of these lenses. If the 28 doesn't seem wide enough, much of the time, then you need a 24 or wider.

Years ago, I started with a two lens outfit, using the 35mm and 90mm. Once in a while I noticed that the gap between them was a little too wide, and eventually filled in with a 50. But the point is that I did manage. So the 21 + 35 + 90 idea would work, and you wouldn't have to guess which lens you need for the shot. They are far enough apart that you'd know. It would be obvious. The same can be said for the 24 + 50 + 90 setup. The way I see it, It all hinges on whether the 35 or 50 is better for you, since you don't plan to get both. So, why not do a little no-cost "research" with the frame lever?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 14, 2001.

Tom: B&W under artificial light. You do NOT need or want to use any filters. The only reason you need filters with color film under artificial light is to correct the color, so if there IS no color (B&W film), you don't need filters.

All they will do is cut down on the already limited light available and make photography more difficult.

A UV 'protective' filter is OK if you already use one, since it has little effect on the visible light, but it's not required.

I suppose a polarizer might be useful for cutting down reflections, but it also turns your nice, new f/2 lens into an effective f/4.5 - terrible for available light settings.

I suppose you could also use 'star' and other special effects filters, but that sort of runs against the grain of available light photography, too. Plus they are ALMOST impossible to use with an M6 since you can't see the effect through the lens.

Other technique tips: watch the light closely. Keep the significant things in the light (wait for someone to turn TOWARDS the light source so their face is lit, etc.) and then expose for the highlit areas and let the shadows go dark. It's not the only way to do it but makes for dramatic pictures and puts the light where it's most important. Also watch for silhouettes or backlighting as ways to use what little light there is for drama. Lean against things to make a tripod out of your body to handhold longer exposures. Breathe in and then halfway out, and then hold your breath just before shooting to cut down on chest/body movement.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 15, 2001.

Tom:

I shot pictures in Europe years ago with a Nikon F, 24 f:2.8 and 85 f:1.8 and didn't miss any shots that I wanted. I have used M's for 30 years and now have a 28, 50 and 90. I feel I could do quite well with a 90 f:2.0 and a 28 f:2.0. I presently have a 28 f:2.8 and would like to upgrade to the f:2.0 for the low light capabilities but not carry another lens. I thought about a 35 f:1.4 but it would mean more to carry and would probably get left at home. The 28 is the widest lens the M6 .72 has a brightline for, so anything wider would be with an auxilliary finder or visual perception. I can carry three lenses comfortably, one an M3, another on the M6 and a third in a belt pouch and switch easily. I do not like to carry a bag. Have you tried renting or borrowing a lens that you would like to purchase and trying it out for a couple of days?

Enjoy.

Mark J.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logic@gci.net), September 15, 2001.

Bob Fleischman said:

Tom, when you go out shooting with your M6, try sizing up your subjects when viewing with the frame selector lever held to the 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm positions. This will tell you whether you like or need either of these lenses. If the 28 doesn't seem wide enough, much of the time, then you need a 24 or wider.

Probably the best advice here. Lens selection is really a personal thing, and depends on working style (especially distance from subject), how you want the images to look, and how the ergonomics feel. It's not about what someone else uses, or about the spread between focal lengths. It's really something you need to figure out, and the frame preview capability that Bob mentions will let you do this.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 15, 2001.