I have a question for the more experienced Leica shooters here. (I am sure that this has been addressed in the past.) I have a .72 mag viewfinder Leica and 90/2.8 and 50/2 lenses. What are the pros and cons of my getting a 35/2 or a 28/2.8 (or 28/2) for my one and only wideangle lens? (I wear bifocals) Thanks in advance.

-- Jack Belen (jbelen@aol.com), April 19, 2002

Answers

Just because the 0.72 won't let you see the entire 28mm frame in one glance while wearing glasses is no reason to resign yourself to using a 35mm lens if a 28 is what you really want. I've said this before, but even with my 0.6 Hexar where I can see the entire 28mm frame I still prefer the accessory finder because it represents the look of a 28mm (as seen through an SLR) much better than the in-camera view which simply puts a 28mm box around a 50mm perspective. As a one-and- only wideangle lens, and considering you have a 50, the 28mm is a very good choice. I've never really warmed up to 35mm lenses.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 19, 2002.

Differences in the character of these two focal lengths is more than might be suggested by the numbers. 35mm tends to look (to my eyes) as "neutral" as any focal length, and thus might be a good choice if it was your only lens, period. But, as your "one and only wide-angle lens" in addition to a 50 and 90, I'd strongly recommend the 28. I find the 50/28 combo absolute dynamite in fast-moving situations, with each lens on a separate body. I find each of these two lenses to have just enough of their own "character," and yet each is still flexible enough, depending on my choice of aperture, visual vantage point, etc., to fill in for an adjacent focal length. The 90 comes out when things quiet down a little. The progression of angular coverage is also quite proportional between these three lenses, thus easing somewhat the mental/visual "jump" one makes when focal length is the variable and the subject is constant. Having said all of this, I still miss my 35!

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), April 19, 2002.

I wear bifocals too, and I can't see the 28mm frame on my .72 without a lot of ocular gymnastics. I hate that, as it spoils my concentration on the subject. If you are going to stick with the .72, I'd suggest either getting a 35 or, as Jay suggested, getting the 28 with an external finder.

Whether you go the latter route depends on your reaction to external finders. Some like them, some consider them a necessary evil, some make a virtue out of a necessity. I can't abide the little buggers, which contributed to me selling a 24 with a finder in favour of a 28 on a .58 body.

Short answer - get the 35. You're going to own one eventually anyway, so just buy it now.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 19, 2002.

If I've said it once...well : ) the 35 seems indispensibly versatile and fast (if you get the lux). Along with the 75, well, ultimate 2 lens set.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 19, 2002.

No, No, No, not seeing the framelines is NOT a good reason for sticking to 35mm, A 28 has a whole different perspective, remember the 7mm difference is actually 25% longer!, I would advise a 28mm and ext finder if you really need it, I wear glasses and get by just fine with the internal framelines, infact I think of the finder in my .72 as being full frame 28mm, 35mm is in my mind ideal as a first lens but now I can get some more, I'm going to move it for either a 50 + 90 or a 75

why not get both :-)

cheers

john

-- John Tobias (johntobias@hotmail.com), April 19, 2002.

for what it's worth, the 28 asph is marginally sharper (mtf-wise) than the 35 asph. i love the 28. it is such a great perspective.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 19, 2002.

HI, if you are only going to get one wide lens, then the 28mm is the way to go, the 28mm f/2.0 ASPH is a great lens.

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), April 19, 2002.

As others have stated, it depends what you are after. Here is a picture taken with the 28mm Elmarit (Yunnan Province, China):

and one with the 35mm Summicron (Ayuthaya, Thailand):

The 28mm has a more "lensy" type of space which normallly I don't care for, but which works for me in the picture above. The 35mm has a more "realistic" type of space but which is still morfe lensy than the 50mm, which is my favorite right now. As it happens, I couldn't have taken the color picture with the 35mm picture because I "saw" the scene just as I shot; and with the 35mm lens I would have been too close by the time I saw it.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 19, 2002.

I have never seen the 28/2 lens. Is it's larger size a significant concern for traveling?(When compared to the 35/2 or the 28/2.8).

-- Jack Belen (jbelen@aol.com), April 19, 2002.

I have to agree word for word with John Layton, except that my last sentence would read: "Having said all of this, I still cherish my 35 (asph 'Lux)!"

I also agree with roger michel that the 28asph 'Cron is marginally sharper than the 35asph 'Cron... However, as a practical matter you will never see the difference unless you use a tripod and high-power loupe to compare them.

Cheers,

-- J Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 19, 2002.

The 28/2.0 is identical in size to the 28/2.8, and is insignificantly larger than the 35/2.0. It's smaller than the 35/1.4 ASPH, but at this sizes all those lenses deserve to be called "small". As others have noted, the 28/2.0 is a wonderful lens. Sharp, flare-free, low- distortion, and best of all, these qualities are fully available wide open.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 19, 2002.

Jack As a specs wearer myself I'm not going to tell you that you need a new .58 body, but you could get a separate 28mm or 35mm finder, either Leica or Voigtlander. Get the lens, try it, but factor in an extra purchase should you need it. I find that I can just see the full 35mm frame with a .72 body, but 28mm needs a lot of guesswork.

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

IMO, for a one and only WA, the 28 mm is a little better than a 35 mm. I think the 35 mm is best when used in conjunction with a second wider lens such as a (21 or 24 mm) lens. When I want a two lens outfit, I usually choose 90 mm and 28 mm. The 35 by itself just isn't wide enough for me. Hope this is helpful.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 19, 2002.

I don't wear glasses, but I would advise you to get a 28/2 if you HAVE to choose one. The choice between the 28 and 35 is hard, which is why I have both. The character of the 35, at least when it comes to perspective, is more similar to the 50 you have already. As others have mentioned, the 28 has a more wideangle look, and if your'e carrying it with the 50 that will make a nice combo. But for those times when you want to walk the streets with only one lens, it's hard to beat a 35.

I have a 35 'lux, and it is an incredible lens. It's great for street photography and low-light situations. The selective focus at f/1.4 is certainly more pronounced than the 28 at F/2, which can be good or bad depending on what you're trying to do. I rarely carry my 35 and 50 at the same time.

IMHO, the Leica M's were made for photography with semiwide lenses. I'd get both if there's any way you can swing it.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), April 19, 2002.

Jack, John Layton said it exactly right. The 35mm is a fine focal length. It can be used as a normal-wide, in lieu of a 50. BUT that's not what you wanted. You want a one-and-only wide angle. The 28 is wide enough to fill the bill. And the step from 28 to 50 is pretty close to the one from 50 to 90. You'll never have to guess which lens is needed for a shot. With this spread, you'll always know, instinctively.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 19, 2002.

Jack: I have the 28 Elmarit and a 35 f:2.0 Canon SM. I wear glasses and use the .72 with the 28. Gymnastics are required to see all of the framelines, but then who needs them 90% of the time. Most of the time I can visualize what each lens sees, without picking up the camera. I have trained my eyes to "see" what the lens will pick up. I think a lens, and I have the view. Handy. FWIW

-- Mark Johnson (logical1@catholic.org), April 19, 2002.