Best performing Leica M lens vote!!!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Well it is now time to see what we all belive to be the best performing Leica lens, perviously or currently available. I know similar posts have be done before, but I want to tally it all up and see what is the more preferred lens for ultimate performance among Leica M users. This is just for fun, so no negative comments please.

RULES of submission: 1. No mentioning of other brand lenses (for this purpose only) 2. Describe what lens you choose and WHY? 3. Give a description of the type of photography you do, and what apertures you usually shoot at. 4. Submit a photo for verification and showcase purposes if possible. 5. If you are looking to upgrade to a better lens, please indicate which one.

Let the games begin!!!!

-- Kronik (leicashot@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002

Answers

Ok then, let me start us off. I use an M6 Classic with a 34 Lux "Aspherical" first version. I generally shoot people, and mainly enjoy shooting children and older age fellas, especially in Indonesia. I usually shoot at apertures f/1.4 to f/5.6. I can't possibly imagine a better performing lens for what i do.

-- kronik (leicashot@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

You know, I just can't come up with an answer. While the quality of my photos can vary quite a bit, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between photo quality and lens used. None of them seems to perform any better than the others (which is kind of annoying since some of them definitely cost more than others).

I usually take pictures of people. Most often at f2.8 or wider, but sometimes stopping down is the right thing to do.

Here's a picture:

If I say I'm looking to upgrade to a Noctilux, will somebody send me one? Please?

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 23, 2002.


How do you mean the "best"? This will be different for everybody, depending on their preferred focal length, typical subject material, film stock etc, etc.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 23, 2002.

Personally, I can't imagine better image quality than either the 24/2.8 or 35/1.4 asphs. Any improvement would simply be irrelevant to my kind of photography. And the focal lengths suit me down to the ground as well.



-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 23, 2002.


Call me generous, call me an obsessive self-promoter, but here's another snap. BTW, this is a totally untweaked (colourwise) vuescan scan from negative using the LS2000 - pretty impressive performance, I think.



-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 23, 2002.



Hey Robert, I emailed you soem time ago about a transition from an F5 to an M6. You gave me very valuable advice at that time. Thanks. I then made the transition through an FM3a first. This was a helpful move as it got me back to basics. I now couldn't be happier. For others, check out Roberts website (hey when's it comming back online?). It is fantastic and the work is similar to my style. I just recently got back form Indonesia and will post images as soon as I can get some decent scans done...as I don't have a scanner.

As for performance....I understand there are many factors to consider. I just want people to list their favourite lens and an image to support their claim if possible. Lets have some fun with this one.

-- Kronik (leicashot@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.


My best performing Leica lens is my Leica 50 Cron BOX with a pinhole on one end and film on the other inside end.

No spherical distortion, 100% light transmission, durable, infinite DOF, sharp-as-a-tack pictures of boulders.

You get the gist...



-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 23, 2002.


Rob, damn you. I was perfectly fine with my set of lenses and now your pictures (here and on other threads) make me want a 24/2.8. The coverage looks oh so nice. Damn you. Keep your pictures to yourself!

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), January 23, 2002.

The 24 is a fine lens. So why do I want a 21? Because I'm always photographing in these really _tiny_ houses.

Fortunately I can't afford one.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 23, 2002.


Rob

Try the Voigt 21mm? I just bought one..

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.



No No! Tell me it's too expensive!

Actually it's an f/4, right? Which is just too too slow for me.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 23, 2002.


Rob, there's Kobalux 21/2.8 ;-) and it's not much more money then VC 21/4:

http://www.kobalux.com/k21-3.html

-- Alexander Grekhov (grekhov@wgukraine.com), January 23, 2002.


Haha. Buy it, Rob, you know you want it.

The VC 21/4 is a nice lens (got mine for $350). It is a slow lens. However, I used it extensively to protest the anti-war rallies in NYC in October (most of which took place at dusk/night) and didn't have a problem (though I was using TMax 3200). Though a bigger problem for me than the F4 is that I'm feeling that the coverage is a bit too much, hence the attraction toward a 24/2.8.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), January 23, 2002.


Very inspiring work Rob; this was made with a 35/2 first version, a lended lens in very bad conditions still a good performer.

Mexico City 1999

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.


Yes...Mexico City 1999

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.



There's something about a hat... What does the sticker on the wall say?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 23, 2002.

My "best-performing" lens is the Tri-Elmar. The darn thing seems to be as good as three regular lenses :-)

Seriously, for all-out crisp, contrasty, full-toned, count-on-it- every-time performance, my votes go to the 35/1.4 ASPH, the 90/2.0 ASPH and the 50mm position of the 3E (which I think is better than my tabbed 50 'cron...)

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), January 23, 2002.


Rob,

When is your gallery going to be back online?

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 23, 2002.


Good question! I hope soon, also because I need it. I took it down because I originally did it when I didn't know much about scanning or saving for web. Now that I understand the issues a bit better I should really get it back up, but probably only ten snaps from each area. It was totally bloated before. In the meantime I'm paying westhost for a load of empty disk space...

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 23, 2002.

Thanks, Rob. When your site is up again, hail the forum. I have shot in Tamil Nadu but have never stayed in Mumbai long enough to stop feeling overwhelmed. So I don't have anything good from there, and I'm interested in your take on the place. I did see your portfolio on the Digital Journalist, which I enjoyed very much.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 23, 2002.

Referring the "best performer" issue I think I'm not really entitled to post a solid opinion. I really know only my own lenses. But I agree that most of us seem to have a preferred lens. In my case, it is easy: 5omm f2 Summicron. A couple of old ones (around 1957 / 58).

Type of photography? The best I can, which still makes me feel largely unsatisfied. Portraits and city scape/street photo are my most frequent subjects.

Why this lens? It comes convenient for most suddenly found opportunities. And covers a wide range of large to smaller subjects.

Apperture? For a given lens, it depends upon lighting/film speed circumstances and/or intended depth of field, right?.

Upgrade? In time I'd possibly do something to get a more recent version of the same lens. Mine are somewhat prone to flare and I like shooting ā contre jour.

Succesful thread. Regards !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria @simltda.tie.cl), January 23, 2002.


I find that the 35mm summilux or cron and the 50mm summicron are absolute musts for the M system. Most of my work is of people in natural setteings usally at wider apetures.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=536546&size=md

-- Tom Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), January 23, 2002.


Any 35M the faster and lates the better; love my 35/2.8 now I use a 35/2 4th, would like to try the 1.4 asph. Other choices are the 28M in the same specifications as 35 and the 50, about the 50 I have the latest īcron, I have seen pictures of the īlux and like itīs look pretty much and an extra stop with almost not extra size and weigth than 50/2 must be fantastic; in this case 50/1 only attracts me as a lens to apreciate itīs design, but I donīt think I would like walking with it (any way I have never try one)

Agree with Tom completly about most useful focal lengths, vivid picture Tom!ī.

Canīt see what you donīt like of your work Iván; Iīm specialy proud of one of your pictures.It is so good to see pictures of you all, Robīs and Mikeīs always impress me.

Rob it is a man from country looking for a job in Mexico city, stamps like this offering jobs can be found allover the city. In the stamp could be read SOLICITO "REQUEST".

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.


Best performing Leica lens, in my opinion, of the lenses I use, it would have to be:

35/1.4 Summilux-M Aspherical.

(Maybe a few other lenses perform better at F/2,2,8,4 but there is none better at F/1.4.)

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 24, 2002.


Tom, that's a fine picture. Pity the woman and the man behind her just aren't slightly further apart. _And_ pity it isn't in colour! ;- ) I'd love to see more of your work.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 24, 2002.

Thanks for the comments about my photo Rob, I've seen some of your India work and was very impressed. I have a few photos on photo-net.

Regards, Tom Gallagher

-- Tom Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.


According to Leica the sharpest lenses at the moment are the 28 f/2 followed closely by the 90 SAA.

IMHO the 'best' overall Leica lens (optical performance + speed + size + usefullness) is the 35 f/1.4 ASPH. I don't own one - yet. (Take this as an answer to No. 5) 8^)

Of the lenses I DO own the sharpest esp. wide-open and corner to corner is the 28 f/2.8 (v.3)

The kind of photography I usually do - taken with the 28 f/2.8 @ f/5.6 or so: .

. I usually shoot anywhere from f/2.8 to f/8 depending on all the usual factors.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 24, 2002.

The Voigt 21/4 is a stop slower than the ASPH 'tis true, but it really is so much smaller that it seems to me that this is a fair and reasonable exchange, and the way I look at it now is that with a 21mm one can use a stop or two slower shutter speed compared to a 35mm so they are about equal. All hypothesis at this stage! Mine was $358 from Delta International.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

hey guys, ummm, just got a scanner. How do i post a pic?

-- Kronik (leicashot@hotmail.com), January 26, 2002.

Tom, I just took a look at photo.net and saw your folder. I recall seeing them now some time back. I especially like the picture of your wife and mother. Very very nice.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 26, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ