Need for Speed, but what?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I find myself with my Summicrons (35mm and 50mm) twisted all the way to f2 frequently. I'm good at 1/30 and even 1/15 second, but my subject are not always that still (my kids and Texas wind are limiting factors).

So, I am thinking of updgrading one of my lenses to f1.4. But which one?

I love the diminutive 35 'cron. But, 35mm at f1.4 would be good for hand-holdability. The 50 'cron is great too, and I think I'd like the shallower DoF of a 50 'lux. The 35 'lux costs more, the 50 'lux in the last generation would be fine (same optical formula as the current).

So, please give me your opinions...

And, anybody got a Summilux they would like to work a swap deal (of course I'll add some $$$).

Thanks...

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 11, 2002

Answers

One other point, I use the 35 and 50 about equally as often.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 11, 2002.

dan, that's a good question, but you don't mention what vintage you have and seek. i have older crons and don't intend to "trade up" to the asph's, neither being particularly compact. did you consider the noct?

i guess it depends upon what you currently use your crons for. going wide with the 50 would give you faster shutter speeds for hand holds and is more or less the same size. my old 35 cron is so compact that going to the asph would big jump in size. i like wide 75/25 so am set. since your 50/50 it's up to you. the 35 is a newer design than either the 50 lux/noct.

for me $$$ no object, i'd keep my 50 and get the 35 lux.

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 11, 2002.


That's a tough choice. I would just wait & get both! But seriously, I would begin by looking @ it from strictly a focal length perspective. Although you say you shoot 35 & 50 about equally, pretend that you only have 1 or the other. Do you think you'd prefer to move closer in w/the 35 or back up w/the 50? Is shallower DoF more or less important than "hand-holdability"? Are you better w/35 or 50 (based on your output of "keepers" so far)?

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 11, 2002.

I find that I can handhold a 35 1 speed slower than a 50, so the 35/1.4 is like a 50/1 in terms of extended range. Also the sharpness out to the corners, the overall contrast, and the DOF are all noticeably greater with the 35/1.4ASPH than the 50/1.4. Because I shoot a Tri-Elmar as my main lens, the 35 is in the middle of the Tri- Elmar's focal range, so a couple steps forward or backward and the 35/1.4ASPH is almost as functional as the Tri-Elmar.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 11, 2002.

If you are like me, then get the 35/1.4. Why? Because you are more likely to be using the 35mm in cramped indoor spaces than the 50mm. And that's where you will more likely encounter low light conditions in which a f1.4 lens comes into its own. Throw in the additional depth of field of a 35 over a 50 in those conditions, and the 35/1.4 begins to look even more useful.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 11, 2002.


Dan:

I found myself in your situation about a year ago, so I did what Mani suggested for the reasons he suggested and bought a 35 Lux asph. Love at first use, so I sold my 35 Cron asph, which BTW I felt was an awesome lens. Then I got a new version 50 Lux as part of a deal. Used it once and sold the Cron and have never looked back.

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but while the 50 Cron is a sharper optic than the 50 Lux corner to corner at f2 and f2.8, I find the 50 Lux more versatile. It is plenty sharp corner to corner, even at f1.4, and it shows almost NO flare tendency wide open from point light sources. Very sweet lens. FWIW, I would get the newer version over an older version for one reason; minimum focus on the newest version is .7 meter, while it is 1 meter on the older versions. Lastly, keep in mind the 50 Lux and the 50 Cron are the same diameter, yet the Lux is only 3mm longer and weighs only 35 grams more than the Cron.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 11, 2002.


I shoot K64 and TMX so understand the need for lens speed. Without hesitation I recommend the 35mm Summilux ASPH (regardless of whether you need to speed or not). It is just the greatest thing out there for the M6. Sell whatever else you have to get it. As for the 50mm I recommend you keep the Summicron because it great lens, period! I agree with Jack the Summilux is more versatile but I will only recommend it if you didn't have the Summicron already. For the fast 50mm I suggest you consider the Nokton. It is very sharp and crisp wide open - a true f/1.5 lens and unbeatable for the $375 thereabouts. (But don't use a filter with the Nokton.)

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 12, 2002.

I think this is a pretty simple answer:

As much as the Noct is a great lens, who would argue that for low light, there is a more versatile and better performing lens that the 35mm Lux Asph. It is cheaper, smaller, lighter and sharper than the Noct.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.


Why such a technical approach? it's not even one stop of a difference. So your kiddies move a bit sometimes, so what? so the trees in Texas are a bit blurred because they wave in the wind. which god ever said photographs should not have any motion?

Many photographs gain from these unexpected factors, many photographs loose if we stay in control. Ciao, Machiel

-- Machiel Botman (machiel.botman@worldonline.nl), April 12, 2002.


Thanks for all the excellent answers, it's a tough choice and one of those darn "help me make up my mind" questions.

On balance, I'm leaning toward the 35 'lux because of the superior imaging qualities wide open (as compared to the 50 'lux) and the better hand holdability due to shorter focal length.

BTW, both lenses I now have are the current versions in black. The 50 is about 14 months old and the 35 is about 8-9 months old. They were bought in the US grey market. I have all the original stuff.

One interesting twist (a spanner in the gears if you will) is Erwin Puts' #67 newsletter where he explains his reasoning for selecting a 50 Elmar for his new M7 over a 'cron, 'lux or Noct'!

Choices, choices, ain't it great to be a Leicaphile?

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 12, 2002.



I asked a question going on two years ago about how to inject a fast lens into my existing line-up of f/2.0 lenses. I received a few opinions from the readers, and you may like to read them at the following link.

Old thread on fast glass

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 12, 2002.


Well I'm surprised no one mentioned the following, either in this thread or the old one. You guys must all be a lot richer than I am...

Dan, what film are you using? Getting a 'lux only gives you 1 more stop. Why not step up in film speed? The current ISO 800 negative films (e.g. Superia) are great. Grain size is better than ISO 400 films of yesteryear, provided you don't under-expose. I'm not very familiar with reversal films but ISO 200 and/or 400 seem very nice too.

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), April 15, 2002.


I'm using Delta 400 at EI 400 and Fujichrome 100.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 15, 2002.

Andrew, it's true what you say, but fast film doesn't look like slow film, it's handy to have 1.4 for 100 asa slide.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 15, 2002.

Why not go all the way.....f1 Noctilux!!!You gain two whole stops!! Fastest lens in the world. Why be satisfied with only a paltry f1.4?...when for a little more.....

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), April 16, 2002.


Emile is righ. With ISO 100 film, I guess you'd better have the fastest lens possible - or a tripod. Personally I don't think using a film twice as fast would result in any appreciable reduction in quality. But the Noctilux is indeed 2 stops faster and more versatile than a "mere" Summilux. Buy it (used or even new) if you absolutely won't change your choice of film.

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), April 16, 2002.

You can get the true speed of your Delta 400 up to 640. So that's 2/3 of a stop right there. Then play with pushing it up to 1250...
My point is that I have a noctilux and have stopped using it much because of the lack of DoF. I would prefer shooting at f2 whenever possible and using faster film.
Next I will play with hydrogen peroxide treatment. This is supposed to give between 2 and 3 stops of "real" speed...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), April 16, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ