I like the lightwight quality of Leica and am thinking of investing in a 3 lens system for travel and street photography. I've narrowed my choice to the following two sets: 1)21 mm, 35mm and 75mm or 2)28mm, 50mm and 90mm Please anyone who is presently using these lenses, I would greatly apreciate your advice and experiences.

-- Alex P. Schorsch (terraqua@uol.com.br), April 18, 2002

Answers

35-50-90

-- adam g. lang (aglang@hotmail.com), April 18, 2002.

Why?

-- Alex P. Schorsch (terraqua@uol.com.br), April 18, 2002.

Wow tough question. If you're talking 3 lenses, I'd go for the 28- 50-90, of course I'd want the noctilux 50. Some sweet chunks o' glass for sure. Go for the 28/2 as well. And the 90 APO/ASPH. *grin* am I a bad influence for spending $ or what?

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 18, 2002.

You mention "lightweight quality of Leica" and say that you'll use your setup for travel. The problem with your first setup that 75 and 21 are by no means small or lightweight -- if you go with Leica, that is. You can get smaller/lighter CV lenses (21/4 and 75/2.5) if you want. The second setup is what I use (but not all lenses are Leica), but my 28 is on a heavy side. Cosina is about to release new small 28/3.5 -- that should be a great travel lens.

The 35/50/90 is a classic Leica combo, which can be small and compact -- pre-asph 35/2, 50/2 (versions before current) and Tele- Elmarit. Most of the time I can do just fine with 50 and 90.

Good luck with your choices!

-- Alexander Grekhov (grekhov@wgukraine.com), April 18, 2002.

what versions of the 28,35,50 are you talking about? elmarit, cron, lux, noct?

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 18, 2002.

I'm not a Leicophile as of yet, but I would definately get the 28 f/2, the 35mm would be either the f/1.4 ASPH or the f/2 ASPH -it seems both theses 35's weigh about the same. The 50mm either the f/1.4 or the f/2. What do you think? I feel I need a 50mm - It's so honest, I was thinking about the 21mm because of travel photos which I do a lot - arquitecture etc.

-- Alex P. Schorsch (terraqua@uol.com.br), April 18, 2002.

I would go for the 21mm f2.8 Asph, 35mm f2.0 Asph, 50mm f2.0.

The 35 and 50 have 39mm diameters and are the smallest Leica lenses. The 21mm will give you the wide angle perspective, since you mentioned travel and street photography. The 75 and 90 are not "on- the-move" lenses like the wider angles.

Check out Wolfgang's Jordan pictures (a few threads down) for fine examples of the 21mm, 35mm and 50mm combo. The 3-lens total package. :)

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 18, 2002.

Alex: My uses are much the same as your intended uses, and my kit includes the 28/f2, 50/f2, and 90/f2.8. It's a great set up, and I'm very pleased with each lens. My primary lens tends to be the 50, although I know some prefer the 35mm. Since I rely on the 50, I wanted a wide-angle lens that gave me a bit more FOV that the 35. The 28mm does that well, and the f2 ASPH is a very sharp lens (and on the .72 M6, you have a frameline for the 28mm). The 50mm Summicron has a well-deserved reputation as one of the best (if not THE best) in the Leica line-up. I don't find I need the extra stop the 'Lux would give me. And the 90 Elmarit is a nice, compact, tack sharp lens. Some people like a 35/50/90 set up -- it's a matter of personal preference. These are all great lenses in this category, and if you choose a combo that meets your anticipated needs, its pretty tough get it "wrong" with any of these (current) Leica lenses.

-- Jim Reed (jimreedpc@aol.com), April 18, 2002.

For travel photography: (basic 3-lens outfit) Tri-Elmar, 35/1.4ASPH, 90/2.8. (expanded outfit)above plus 15 Heliar (or a 21mm) and 135/4 Tele-Elmar. Two bodies are strongly recommended: both 0.72, one with 1.25x magnifier attached (remove the clip-on chain and case).

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 18, 2002.

I offer this advice with total respect to your question; I am not trying to be a smart ass. Why don't you pick a lens between the 35mm and 50mm (flip a coin, you can't be wrong) and buy it. Go out and shoot about 25-30 rolls of film. You will then know what you need next. Maybe a two lens kit is enough. Maybe a wide to normal range is all you need at the exclusion of the longer lenses. Maybe the 35 or 50 can do most everything for you.

Only you know what you want to do, what you want to shoot, and how you like to work. Asking those of us here will only give you the results of our self discovery, and this might have nothing to do with your photography. You don't have to buy everything at once, and the other lenses will be waiting for you when you know you need them.

Good luck.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 18, 2002.

Do you think a 75mm can substitute a 50mm when one already has a 35mm?

-- Alex P. Schorsch (terraqua@uol.com.br), April 18, 2002.

What I have and love: current versions 35cron, 50cron, and 90E. This gives me 64, 45, and 27 degree angles of view respectively (neat the way they're ~20 deg. apart). Certainly not the poor man's 3 lens kit, but very practical and relatively economical by Leica standards.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), April 18, 2002.

I agree with Al Smith, that you should start out with one lens. I would also recommend a 50 or 35. I went with the 50 cron (f2), but kind of wish i would have gone for a 50 lux (f1.4). Lens focal length usage is a very personal issue, whichever way you do i would make sure either a 50 or the 35 is a lux (f1.4)... and if you like both focal lengths equally, i would get the 35lux ASPH (because it is the best high speed 35mm lens around). If it were me i would get a 24el, 35lux ASPH, 50lux and a 90APO (I know this is 4 lenses, but that is what i would want) but that is me... and your usage obviously would vary.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 18, 2002.

After much pounding about with different lenses, I find the 21/35/ 75 or 21/50/75 mix my favorites for Leica work.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 18, 2002.

Just to show you how personal this all is, after much pounding around I would take the 28/50/90 kit, all in Summicrons. For me the 75 is a nice idea, but not a useful lens.

Like Jay my travel kit has come down to 3E, 35/1.4 and a 90 - in my case the AA. The advantages of this setup are obvious.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 18, 2002.

I've been using a 35mm and 75-90mm combo with 2 bodies for the past 25 years, first c Nikon FM-2's, then with Leica M's. 90% of the time that is sufficient. I find myself in low light conditions frequently, so f1.4's let me take pictures in just about any setting. I had a 90mm Summicron for a while and found f2 inadequate. I use my Noctilux occasionally when taking pictures locally and very infrequently when traveling. I can't bring myself to part with it, because it has been such a rewarding instrument.

-- Sal Ortega (sal_ortega@hotmail.com), April 18, 2002.

You really need to decide if you are a 35mm kind of guy or a 50mm type and base your decision on the other two lenses around the hub of the most used lens whether 50mm or 35mm.If you need a low light lens by all means spend more for the fastest.Having said that you will most likely in the future get all the possibilities as you need them.Have you thought of the 15mm,35mm 1.4,90mm 2.8 combination? A nice small and light package that will provide you with the most different perspectives.But the 28mm,50mm,90mm sounds best to me unless you need a superwide!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), April 18, 2002.

Like Jay and Paul I've trimmed my M travel pack down too, only I sold the 3E. For three lenses I'd consider the 28/50/90 or 24/35/90. I guess you could go 21/35/90, but it seems like a wide spread.

-- J Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 18, 2002.

Alex, I agree with Al when he advised you to buy one lens and get to know it well before deciding on other lenses. Leica users are opinionated people; we know what works best for us. I use different focal lengths and suggest that before you rush out and plunk down your hard earned cash, that you get to know one body and one lens. My indispensible lens is the 50 Summicron. I use other lenses often, but IMHO the 50 Summicron would be the lens to begin your foray into Leica. You should be able to find a quality used lens at a reasonable price. Even if you decide that another focal length is preferred, I am pretty sure that you eventually will want the 50 Summicron; it is that good of a lens. My opinion FWIW

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), April 18, 2002.

Hi Alex:

I just returned from a 2 week trip to Shanxi Province & Mt. Huangshan, China. I used a CL with VC 21mm, 35mm summilux (pre-asph) and the latest 50mm summicron. It's an extremely compact outfit, which I found perfect for street and available light photography, as well as interior shots with the 21mm. I've never been a big user of longer lenses - I have a 90mm thin tele-elmarit, but it seldom sees the light of day.

Regards,

-- Jay D (jayd@netvigator.com), April 18, 2002.

Alex - I find myself using the wide end (VC 25/4) more than the long end (90/2.8) though I wouldn't have guessed it two years ago. I don't see how I could do without a 50mm lens. Ron

-- Ronald Blachly (theblach@swbell.net), April 18, 2002.

Alex,

I also agree with Al and others who say buy one lens eg. a 35 cron or 50 cron (I'd get the 50 as it is outstanding value)and add later.

It's tempting to go out and buy a whole kit but the initial excitement will pass and then as the old saying goes "Buy in haste, repent at leisure".

I can't imagine you would ever regret buying a 50 cron or a 35 cron.

If you can't resist and must buy three then the safest bet in my book would be 35 cron, 50 cron, 90 2.8 Elmarit M.

Reasons:

This is a light kit (which you said you want)and is of superb quality. It is not at the expensive end. It's comprehensive re. focal lengths (unless your emphasis is strongly wide angle), and if purchasing any of them is a mistake they are all very saleable second hand. The classical default position is 35,50,90. and if you are undecided then this is the safest bet.

I strongly advise the "Al direction"

-- Tim Gee. (twg@optushome.com.au), April 18, 2002.

I believe every Leica shooter owes himself a superfast lens. With your second grouping, that would be the Noctilux. The other lenses woud be the 28 'cron and the 90 Elmarit-M. With the first scenario, there is only 1 choice for the 21 (f/2.8) and the 75 'lux is your pick for super fast, and the 35 can be either the cron or lux. I don't like to choose lenses based on filter size. True, it is a consideration, but I don't like it weighing in too heavily. Even so, you should consider, if you are going to use filters muich, the 75 Summilux and 50 Noctilux use the Leica-only 60mm size, which are 3x more expensive than other sizes. I got a 50mm Elmar-M because the price was right and I needed one lens for my M4-P. Had I enough scratch from the start, I think a 28/75 outfit, or a 35/90 would work well. The 21 lets you do some neat things, but its kind of specialized. Expensive, too. BTW- When you say "lightweight quality" of the Leica, surely you mean: compared with med. format? When I got the 75 'lux, my kit reminded me of when I toted a Fuji 690 III around. The Noctilux is a bit heavier. My 3-lens kit eventually will be: 75 lux (superfast), the 50 Elmar-M (Super compact) and the 28 cron (reasonably wide & fast).

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 18, 2002.

My vote is for the 35/50/90 combo. My light weight travel kit is an M6, 35 & 50mm crons and a 90mm TE. Its compact, versitle, and all the lenses take E39 filters.

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), April 18, 2002.

I have a Mamiya 6 outfit (whose 50mm and 75mm act just like leica 28 and 50) so that's why I know the 28mm and 50mm lens combination can be a straightforward, honest and simple way to work. My problem is with the 150mm Mamiya (in 35mm would be a 90mm equivalent) which is a real pain in the neck to compose and focus. I think that I may find the leica 90mm to be troublesome in these respects, that's why I was hoping someone would come out in favor of the 75mm. I've seen some really fine work done with this lens, why doesn't anybody seem to be recomending it??

Thanks for all of your scounsels I really appreciate it.

-- Alex P. Schorsch (terraqua@uol.com.br), April 18, 2002.

Good question, and close to everyoone's mind based on the large number of replies. Here is my opinion:

As you want a small and light travel package that rules out some of the biggest lenses in my opinion. I would get the 2/35 because it is just about the smallest Leica lens, and a good general purpose one.

After that, 50 or 28 are a bit too close for me so I would get a wider one, 24 or 21 would be good. It depends a bit what you want to do.

On the longer end, the 2.8/90 would be a small and reasonably priced lens. If you want more speed, the size will also increase but then I might go for the 75 lux. Not that much bigger than the 2/90 and another stop more speed. Another good and small 75 alternative would be the Voigtlander 2.5 lens.

In the end, the choice comes to what is best for you. I use 35 most of the time, so I would start with 35 and go for 21 and 75. But if you mostly use 50 then that would be a better starting point for you, and probably lead to the 28/90 path.

It is surely true that some people actually do use their lenses at 1 or 1.4. But I do believe most of the time 2 is fast enough (or 2.8 in the longer/wider end). And it saves a lot in cost and weight. It is enough for me, and if it is for you, I strongly urge you to consider the speed you actually need before buying. Afterall, getting a Leica and three lenses costs a lot no matter what lenses you decide to get.

Ilkka

-- Ilkka (ikuu65@hotmail.com), April 18, 2002.

Sometimes I don't understand the logic when people talk about buying f/2 lenses instead of f/1.4 for travelling. When travelling, don't you ever require the f/1.4 f-stop? Is it that there is more light when travelling (well in Australia there may be)?

Sure the Summicrons are a little smaller and lighter, but not by much and the Leica M system is small enough as it is. I say that when I travel, I'll bring my best system that is the most versatile in helping me get virtually any shot, in any light. That's why I prefer having as fast lenses as possible. And if that means bringing a Noct to get those shots, then so be it.

Why? When you are out travlleing, there is not second chance. You can't say, "I'll go home and get my Noct/Lux and come back later". Well not always.

So for me, the right lenses for travelling are fast lenses and as fast as possible. Also as much as a Tri-Elmar is useful for its three-in-one-lens setup, it is also too slow for anything but outdoor/bright sun shooting. And if you own two Summicrons like me (50/90SAA), the 35 Lux is essential!!

but I'd say that the best 3 lens combination is the 28mm f/2, 50/1.4 and 90/2, OR 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4 and 75/1.4, or even combination of both combinations.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 18, 2002.

As a published travel photographer I can tell you that a 20/21 has been my main money-maker and portfolio-builder for 20 years. People, architecture, landscape - even the occasional ferret... 8^) The 21 gets 'em all.

Out of your preferred selections, therefore, I would choose the 21/35/ 75.

Personally I don't like the 75s currently available, so I substitute the 90mm Tele-Elmarit, and use it almost as much as the 21. If someone comes out with an APO 75 f/2 under 425g and with 46-49mm filters I might jump at it, but on the whole I have found no need for anything between the 35 and 90. The 50, for me, is just not interesting enough to spend money/bag space on.

I have a 28 f/2.8, but haven't carried it in a while - most of the time any shot the 28 could make the 21 or 35 can make as well or better. But on rare occasions the 28 allows me to shoot as wide as possible without having to carry the 21 accessory finder. And it's nice to have as a 'chnage of pace'. But it's the first item I take out when I'm lightening the camera bag.

That's my experience. But there really are a lot of three lens combos that work: in the past I've used ALL of the following and gotten good results (some with SLRs): 28/50/105, 28/35/85, 24/35/85, etc.

I have noticed, however, that I've usually done my most boring photography when I had perfectly spaced lenses (e.g. 16/20/28/50/105/ 200) - and done my most interesting work when I had 'syncopated' lens spacing (i.e. skipping uneven numbers of lenses: 20 - no 24 - 28 - 35 - no 50 - 85 - no 105 no 135 no 180 - 200, etc.)

Don't really know why - the uneven spacing just seems to add an 'edginess' to my shooting. Sort of like 11/8 time in jazz.

but there it is....

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 19, 2002.

The 75 'Lux is a vast chunk of glass, and very heavy, the 21mm less so, but still big. I wouldn't take them on a trip unless I needed them specifically. The 21mm could be repleaced with a Voigtlander 21, which is very small and light. It also comes with a finder. The 90mm I would recommend a current Elmarit for its size. For focusing it with whichever body you have, get a magnifier with your change from not getting a a 75 Lux. That leaves the middle 28, 35, and 50. All these could be dealt with in one lens, the Tri Elmar, and maybe use a faster film if necessary. But if you want single primes, ask yourself what do you use most and get a 'cron or 'Lux. The Tri Elmar is not a gimmicky lens though, gives as good results as the primes, and using a rear lens cap and body cap combo, effectively three lenses and a body can fit in two pockets!

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), April 19, 2002.

I wouldnt say that Leica is 'light', infact I think they are extremely heavy for the size, but its true that they are very compact.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 19, 2002.

I would advise a two lens set, with a body for each lens. That way you'll be more likely to use each one to the extent required by the situation, rather than be blocked by the pain of changing lenses. I currently have four lenses but two of them never get used because I hate changing lenses. So I'm probably going to get rid of one and get another body instead. This is lazy, yes, but also realistic, since the moment can be long gone by the time you've changed the lens on a camera. Also, having a body for each lens means you have the potential to photograph any situation in a wide range of focal lengths, which is useful, it's not just a matter of changing the lens for the shot in question. Why should you be limited to shooting a 24 landscape shot if you can also do a 50 portrait of the same situation? Changing lenses is going to mean that inevitably something is going to be lost.

As for choices, that, of course, is too personal an issue for anyone else to resolve for you. Personally I use 24 and 35. It works for me.

To recap - two lenses = two bodies, three lenses = three bodies. Don't underestimate the value of having your range of focal lengths always available for use.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 19, 2002.

Old question  -->  old answer.

1. On the one hand, one lens might mean e.g. 35 or 50, two lenses meaning 35 plus [75 or 90], three meaning [21 or 24 or even 28] plus [35 or 50] plus [75 or 90 or even 135]. A sort of opening up your arsenal-array.
2. OTOH, you might some day like some of us (and HCB, too, I hear) end up -- no matter how many lenses you own -- still shooting 95% of everything using "only" both your 35 and 50. So everything else is secondary. Work with 35 and/or 50 first, before you worry about who has to come next!

If you're into the lightweight quality of it all, stick to 35 and 50 'crons and 90 Elmarit. Saves money too. Buy more film instead.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), April 19, 2002.

Rob wrote: 'To recap - two lenses = two bodies, three lenses = three bodies. Don't underestimate the value of having your range of focal lengths always available for use.' A good idea Rob, next time I buy a lens I'll buy a body to go with it. Also a nice lightweight setup for street photography, perhaps if you were in downtown Saigon in the seventies. Do you really carry three bodies around if you want to use three lenses? Does that double up if you are using colour and B&W?

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), April 19, 2002.

It all depends on the type of shooting you do. My main combo is 35 and 50. Depending on what I will photograph I take 35 'chron or 'lux and 50 'chron or 'nocti. The 90 doesn't see much mileage with me and using Tri-Elmar makes me wonder why I don't get a P&S.

As somebody above said 'chrons might be fast enough for you - again depending on the shooting you do. If you shoot people and other moving subjects then 1.4 won't do you much good (shallow DOF). Personally if I go out at night and I know I will be photographing people in bars and clubs I usually take the 'chrons because 'lux @1.4 has too shallow DOF. If I go somewhere that I know subjects will hold reasonable still the nocti of 'lux come into play...

I like to shoot tight so 35 is more than wide enough for ME! If I were in your place I would start with 35/1.4 and 50/2 (or even 50/2.8) and after using them for a year or so decide weather to go wider or longer.

From my personal experience: I started with 90/2 and 35/2, later got the 50/2.8 and Tri-Elmar. From this set the most used were 50 and 35. 90 saw the occasional use and Tri-Elmar was collecting dust. Later I got the 50/1 and 50/2. And this year I treated myself to 35/1.4.

The lenses I _like_ most are 35 and 50 ?chron. The lenses I _use_ most are 35 ?lux and 50 ?chron. Nocti gets used from time to time but due to its size and weight I wouldn't dream of taking it on any extended travel (backpacking), if your idea of travel is flying and driving to and from resorts then the weight argument loses it's value...

I was really sorry for Tri-Elmar, on the paper it seemed such a wonderful lens and I was absolutely sure and positive it would be my main lens, it was a lens I just had to have. Once I got it and started using it, I found that it is way to big and way to slow for my liking.

Wider than 35mm (maybe 28??) ? well I just don?t like the perspective anymore and I used to love wide angle, on Nikon 20/2.8 was my favorite lens. With Leica my taste began to shift ? could be that the constant looking trough the 0.85 viewfinder does that to a person :)

best regards,

-- Boris BRECELJ (bbrecelj@mac.com), April 19, 2002.

A heartfelt Thank You to all on this thread, I learned a lot from your comments. I can say that I can feel the real love that you guys have for your cameras and lenses. This must really be coming from the high quality of the images being produced.Makes me want to own a leica even more than ever.

I think I'll go with a 35mm lens as a starter, Thanks again to all.

-- Alex P. Schorsch (terraqua@uol.com.br), April 19, 2002.

It appears we have a variation on a theme with these threads. As stated in my thread below, I own the 35 'cron, 50 'cron, and 90 Elmarit. I recently purchased a second M6 "classic" body which allows me to keep either my 35 or 50 'chron on one body and my 90 Elmarit on the other. Since one body is chrome and the other black I can easily keep my favorite black and white film in one and color in the other and never get mixed-up. All of this resides in a Lowepro NOVA 2 bag. It's a very compact and sturdy little case and very well padded. It will easily hold both bodies with 35mm and 50mm lenses attached, 90 Elmarit safely snugged inside, a light meter, lens shade, film and other odds and ends. I have to say this is my "dream" Leica kit. However, as time marches on, my 'Leica dream' has become a little more jaded. One day, I would also like to own a Noctulux and maybe a 21mm or 24mm wide-angle. The Noctulux would allow me more opportunity to work in available darkness. Many years ago I owned the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and was bitten by the "available darkness" bug. The 50 Nocto' would be my only foray into the large, heavy glass choices. With those additional lenses in my kit I could die a happy man. Well, maybe an M7 with. . .

Cheers,

J.

-- J.L.Kuhn (james.kuhn-1@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov), April 19, 2002.

EVERYTHING within the Leica M system is light-weight, compared to carrying around similar focal length lenses (and camera bodies)with a professional SLR system. Since I bailed out of the Nikon auto-focus SLR system, now only my Gitzo tripod and Foba ball head are the heaviest peices of photographic gear I own, rather than my old N90s, motor drive, SB-26 flash, 12 AA batteries to run everything, and lens.

I own and use the 28mm f/2 ASPH, the 50mm f/2 and the 90mm f2.8 Elmarit and consider this range to be ideal for me. The 90mm is just long enough for those portrait shots I want, and the 28mm is wide enough - without being too wide. I've owned a host of SLR wide angle lenses, from the Sigma 14mm rectilinear, throught the entire Nikon range of the 20, 24, 28 and 35 lenses. I found that the 28mm wide angle fits most uses the best, for my style of M photography. Regards.

-- Steve Brantley (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), April 19, 2002.

Steve, I'm not old enough to have been in Saigon in the Seventies, and as I said, I only have the two bodies, but certainly, if I had a third body I'd carry it around with a third lens (probably a 50) on it. Where's the problem? It's just a matter of being ready for the opportunities. I don't use BW, so doubling up isn't a problem for me.

There are plenty of "which lens next" threads on this forum, but I think people often underestimate the value of having a couple of bodies, that's all.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 19, 2002.

<< I only have the two bodies, but certainly, if I had a third body I'd carry it around with a third lens (probably a 50) on it. Where's the problem? [etc.] -- rob appleby >>

Rob,

Let me second you on the 2 body, 2 lens philosophy. I have a 0.58 with the 35mm and a 0.72 with the 50mm, and it is a lovely combination *for me* at the moment. Locked and loaded 24/7. I'd like to spend some time with it and see where it takes me. It might take me nowhere because I just want to have fun, and if it isn't fun then I'm ok with that too. Following someone else's lens set up is a recipe for regret IMO, but it sure is fun theorizing about it. Some people load up on more lenses than they know what to do with, and as a Leica beginner that is a trap for many. Lens lust is a terminal disease. I got the second body because I wanted a backup manual body, and am very happy with my choice. Lenses are always available, and since I'm not a professional, I want to take my time. Just my $0.02.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 19, 2002.

Vikram and Rob While I would normally agree with you that two bodies (three has to be overkill!)is a good idea, I think looking at the original question may shed some light on the answers required. 'Lightweight' and more importantly 'three lens' travel and street photography, should gain your attention. How you blend in for 'street' photography with three or more cameras around your neck needs explaining, as does a lightweight setup for travel. I think Alex was asking primarily about 'lenses'. Shoot me down if I'm wrong.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), April 19, 2002.

This is getting off the original question, but ...

FWIW, a Nikon N80 and 50/1.4 lens is probably lighter than the equivalent Leica kit by 5-10 ounces. And the N80 is nearly the same size as the Leica as well...

You can quibble about build quality and all that, but it's not that hard to find very small, very light SLR kits these days.

My personal feeling is that one uses a Leica for different reasons than the fact that the body is smaller than an F5 or EOS 3. Most cameras are smaller than the bigger pro bodies.

Just MHO.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), April 19, 2002.

Oh yeah. Carrying one body per lens is not unprecedented. Gene Smith used to write that he would carry 5 bodies, all of different types, so he never had to change lenses in the field.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), April 19, 2002.

75mm lux is heavy but I just can't live without... The quality of this lens is simply beyond class and to me, the best Leica lens. At the moment my tri-combo is 35mm Summicron ASPH, 75mm Summilux and 135mm Tele-Elmar. Saving up for the 24mm ASPH.

My ideal travelling kit is two 0.85 M6TTL body. One with the 1.25X magnifier (for 75mm and 135mm) and one without (go with 35mm and 24mm).

-- Joe Lee (joelee@1388.com), April 20, 2002.

It depends also on the body you use. Some lenses go better with some bodies. I worked for years with an M3 with 50, and 90, and later added a 35. Now with an M6 (0.58) I use a 28, which is wonderful. I wouldn't leave out the 90 mm, because it gives you a really different view than the others.

-- Lex Bosman (lexb@wanadoo.nl), April 23, 2002.

"Gene Smith used to write that he would carry 5 bodies, all of different types, so he never had to change lenses in the field."

There's even a picture of him draped in cameras during the Pittsburgh essay, although I can't find a copy right now to link to.

However he was using Canon screw-mount RFs at the time - which were a) a lot lighter per camera, and b) much more of a PITA to change lenses with, so he was trading off a whole lot on inconvenience against a weight load not that much larger.

5 Canon screw-mount RFs with lenses weigh about the same as 2 Leica R8s with lenses.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 23, 2002.

Based on my short experience of Leica M, I would go along with Jay and others in suggesting:

* Tri-Elmar 28-35-50mm f/4 for general outdoor use

* either 35mm or 50mm Summilux, depending on your preference for indoors/low light use

* 90mm Elmarit for portraits and other use requiring a long lens.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 28, 2002.