After spending a year shooting with a contax IIIa and shooting with a friends m3, I am thinking of adding a leica M to my collection of camera equipment. With slr's I am not usually put off by the cost of the camera body, it is the cost of the lenses that kill me. By the time I get a lens for birding, for sports, for portrait, for landscape, for... for my slr's I am fairly heavily invested. From previous threads it appears that most have lenses that fall somewhere in the 35/50/75 or 90 range. it also appears that most have one lens that gets the bulk of the work. is this true, and if so, is this the nature of the photographer or of the camera? Which lens gets the most work, and are the remaining lenses rarely used but vital for those few shots where they fit or they lenses that can simply be worked around if need be.

thanks in advance for you input.

greg

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), January 13, 2002

Answers

I'm not a pro, nor a heavy volume shooter and far from an expert, but I've followed similar threads to your question on other forums. Since you're talking about M rangefinders which eliminates the zoom option, I suspect the responses from the more experience photographers will come down to about 45-50% using a 35mm mainly, 40-45% using a 50mm mainly and 5-15% using something else either shorter or longer.

Personally I use a 50mm for my M2 exclusively - that's all I've got. But it seems to fit quite well for the photos I make most.

For an SLR 50mm is also my most heavily used lens (I also have a 35 and 70-210), but I prefer a 50mm macro on an SLR.

A nice thing about the M Leica is the ability to use the preview lever to view frames for other focal length lenses, even though you don't have one. By doing so, I've found that if I had a choice I'd still use a 50mm most all the time because it comes closest to fitting the way I see. I guess that makes the choice of lens in the photographer. At least for me.

-- Tod Hart (tghart@altavista.com), January 13, 2002.

Simple answer: Yes, the 35 asph 'Lux.

Complex answer: A year ago that lens was the 35 asph 'Lux. Six months ago that lens was the 50 'Lux. Four months ago that lens was the Tri- elmar. Two months ago that lens was any of my 90's. Last week that lens was the 28 asph.

More complex answer: This week if I could only keep one lens it would be the 50 and the 28 or the 35 and a 90.

Answer to second question: Either yes to both or I'm not sure.

To answer your last question: My lenses are used (in order) 35, 50, 90, 28, 24, 135, 21. This week, the only lenses I consider not vital are the 21 and 135, and possibly the Tri-elmar. But they are not for sale either.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 13, 2002.

35 Summilux-ASPH. Before that, 35 Summicron-M. I'm starting a serious drift to the 28 Summicron, however. It tends to live on my .58 body and I love the .58 body. . . .

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002.

For me it's definitely the nature of the photographer that determines the lens. The vast majority of my photos are made with lenses in the 250-560 range, depending on habitat and subject matter. See 'em at .

I'm considering selling several shorter lenses that don't see much action: 35mm Summicron-R, 50mm Summicron-R, 135 Elmarit-R, 180mm Elmar-R (safari). I've finally realized that wildlife is my "thing" and I want to concentrate my photo hardware in that area.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), January 14, 2002.

Tri-Elmar.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002.

I only have the 35 and the 90. Today I went for a walk in a regional park that's on the ridge of some hills. I found that when I wanted to isolate a scene, I wish I had a 50. The 90 felt too long, and I wasn't able to relate to a subject that far away (I shoot the .72), the 50 seemed just right, and the 35 was basically a wide angle. My 90 gets little use, unless I'm doing portraits. In the desert recently, I found I was shooting the 35mm 90% of the time. I did not feel I was missing a 50mm. When the moon had risen, I pulled out the 90 much more often. Or to catch rock climbers.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002.

My shooting gets fairly evenly divided between the 21/35/90s, with the 28 and 15 filling in the gaps.

I notice that I publish or sell more pictures made with the 21 - either editors/buyer prefer the drama of that focal length or I just handle that lens better - I'm not sure which.

The 28 is probably 'least' vital. Even though (IMHO) I've made some very good shots with it, I could probably have gotten essentially the same shot with the 35 or 21 if the 28 hadn't been on the camera.

I think the preferred lens (if any) depends MOSTLY on the photographer - who may then determine the camera to match the lens. The nature of the modern Leica-M (post 1966 and esp. post 1983) is to be easiest to use with 28/35/50 lenses. Wider requires excess finders and longer gets into focusing issues. Photographers who aren't happy at least doing a LOT of their work within that range will probably end up unhappy with the M.

Compared with the time I was using SLRs, I notice with the Leica I worry less about the precise lens used. Unless I'm planning up-front to take "long" or "ultrawide" pictures and mount the 90 or 15, with the 21/28/35 I often just shoot for a moment or gesture with whatever lens is on the camera.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 14, 2002.

For me it would be the 24 and 35 almost equally. I once looked through the voigtlander 12 viewfinder and remember thinking, if this was an f2,8 it would be my number one lens. It just looks like _looking_. Pity about the speed.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 14, 2002.

M 2/35 > 2.8/21 > 2/50 > 2.8/90.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), January 14, 2002.

I dislike changing lenses if possible and the lens I find that I least want to change is the 35mm.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 14, 2002.

Most used focal length is 50mm, split roughly equally between a Summilux and Dual-Range Summicron (if I had to choose one, it would be the Summilux since I shoot at apertures wider than f2 more often than I shoot at distances closer than 1 meter). I have a 90 Summicron that is used less than the 50s but often enough that it still qualifies as essential. My 135 Elmarit comes in handy occasionally, but I could generally work around its absence.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 14, 2002.

Hello Greg,

my mostly used lenses are the M 35 mm CRON or LUX. Depending on the subjects or if I prefer to go out >light< I choose between the two. I liked the response of Jack F. above, this changes also from time to time. If have extremely good results with a certain lens, I use it more extensively. This happens of course when a lens is new in my stable, as was the HELIAR 15 mm some months ago. Couldnīttake it off the camera for quite a while.

With my LEICA R7 it is the F4/ 35-70 VARIO-ELMAR. With this one and an small M outfit (15, 35, 90) I go on holiday. With the rest of my family of course.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), January 14, 2002.

Greg,

I travel a lot and I take people (in their surroundings for contax, close-up for isolation) and landscapes. The lens I use most is the 35.

For hand held close up I can get head and shoulder shots of two or three people interacting (get your mind out of the gutter). Low light posed group photo's don't work well. For landscape I let my legs be the zoom. I study the landscape/architecture and will use the 35, and sometimes the 21 if I'm backed-up as far as I can go ar if I want some special perspective.

In low light I can't imagine using A tripod or flash when I can go 1/4 sec at f2.0 w/400. I don't know what I want to photo with these anymore. Sure, I did the fireworks, museum (no flash, many times no tripod allowed), etc. But, I usually got flat looking photo's. I never had the motivation to enlarge the Mona lisa and put it on my wall.

FWIW, 35 1:1.4, 50 1:1.4, 21 1:2.8, 90 1:2.8 in that order.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 14, 2002.

m6 .58 and 35f2asph. If I had a summilux, it'd be that. If I didn't have to wear glasses (rant, snarrl, envy) it would be the .72 m6. FWIW, when I used slr's predominantly, I'd always use an 85 1.4... there you go...maybe M's do make you see differently...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 14, 2002.

A 35 and a 50.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), January 14, 2002.

Sorry,

I HATE TYPO'S:

For context...I don't want a Contax; maybe it was subliminal.

The Mona Lisa...

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 14, 2002.

Chris - I did wonder...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 14, 2002.

Hda me scrtaching my hea dtoo. Th anks for clearig that eone up fro me, Chris.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 14, 2002.

Depends fully on what I'm doing. Outside I generally use 135 or 250 and rarely 50, indoors commonly 35 or 50. For portraits I use 135, gives real nice sharp pictures.

Just be patient and see what is offered in e-bay etc. I got pretty lucky with some guys who offered their stuff at the price they would get from a 2nd hand shop. E.g.

R4s + 50/2 + Leica-bag, all almost as new $580

winder+grip, normal use $120

135/2.8, as new, in box $325 (I could even have done better if I had choosen for 'normal use')

250/4, normal use, $270

35/2.8, normal use, $210

If I had bought this in a shop, I would have payed twice as much. There is a lot of R and M stuff on offer out there, just find one with the right price.

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), January 14, 2002.

Summilux 50/1,4

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), January 14, 2002.

With the Leica M the lens that undoubtedly gets the bulk of use is the Tri-Elmar.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 14, 2002.

MINOX, from close up to landscape all in one lens !

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 14, 2002.

For the Leica M, on average:

50mm Summicron about 50%

35mm Summicron about 40%

90mm Elmarit M less than 10%

If I were to start again, I'd forgo the 90mm lens, and get a 24mm Elmarit M. This is personal, but the Leica M stops being the thing I want it to be after the 50mm lens. Today, I go to an SLR for anything longer than that.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 14, 2002.

The lens I use with the M6 100%,exclusively,all the time,without exception,only and never off the camera is the 35mm 1.4 ASPH summilux......hold on....that's because it's the only Leica lens I own....mmmmm.

-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.com), January 14, 2002.

I use my 90 the least, about 10-15%. But many of my favorite pictures are with the 90. It is one lens I can almost always sense when I will need it. So I usually have it with me when I do need it.

I use the 35 about 30% of the time. I have really tried to like this focal length since it works for so many, but it does not work for me. When I look at the shots I take with the 35, I can almost always say they would have been better with the 50. I know all you have to do is take a couple of steps forward - but then I feel I am intruding on the scene and thus changing it. I fill up landfills with negs and prints from my 35mm. I don't think I will ever go wider than 35. Maybe I should try it. Maybe 35 is just limbo for me.

The rest of the time, 55%, the 50 is on the camera. I can almost always make the 50 work. I problably SHOULD have it on the camera 90% of the time. My work with the 50 is almost always keepers. It best matches what I see with what I think.

This of course will be completely different for different folks.

-- Hil (hegomez@agere.com`), January 14, 2002.

28 and 35 most of the time. 40 on the CLE. Also 20 and 15 when shooting wide open for depth of field. I'm a street photographer and tend to shoot from waist level and very close to the subject most of the time. 25 stopped down between f8 and f16 on bright days.

Lately I've been photographing "ditch cats" at a train station near my work. For that: 50, 75, 90. Next time I'm there I doing panoramics with my TX-1 using 40 and 90.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), January 14, 2002.

I would look long and hard at the 75mm Summilux 1.4. Great for night photography, portraits (blowing out the background at f1.4), Great for travel and not too long.

-- Rob Schopke (schopke@attbi.com), January 15, 2002.

I reckon the 50 is vastly under-rated.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.net.nz), January 15, 2002.