I am trying very hard to resist the sirens call and not turn my M into a gear head adventure. I started by using a friends M3 and well you know the rest. I have a old chrome 90 2.8 and a later 50 summicron. I am undecided regarding where to go next for my .72 m6 TTL. as a regular reader of this forum, it appears that some people hold to the traditional 35/50/90 combination, while others tend either to shoot the 50 or the 35 as a primary lens with the other getting significantly less usage. if that is the case then maybe the 28 is a better lens. I would appreciate any thoughts on this.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), May 21, 2002

Answers

Hard question...I think if I were you I'd go for the 28. Personally I have the 35/75 combo that I like. But, if you use the 50 regularly as your main lens, the 28 would be a nice wide choice to complement your system.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

I have 50/2 and 35/2.8 for my R. I love the 35 lens and use it a lot. But sometimes I wonder if 28 would have been better. From step point of view 28 matches better to 50 than 35 but than you will always find that the best shot from your standing point would be inbetween (so 35), just as I find that I have to move away often to make the shot (and a 28 would have been better) :-). You never have the right lens for all occasions

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), May 21, 2002.

For the 28, it's hard to see the framelines thru' the viewfinder of a 0.72 M6 if you are wearing glasses. And it's more expensive than a 35. it also depends on what sort of photos you normally take. A 28 framing will bring in more subjects which you may or may not like it. i normally used the 28 for mass capturing and the 35/50 as my standard. Usage depends on your actually needs.

-- alfred (cnka@pacific.net.sg), May 21, 2002.

reason + passion: keep your M outfit limited to 2 lenses. They should be "different" enough as to justify the annoyance of carrying both and swap them in the course of a shooting session. Therefore I do not think the 35+50 idea is the right solution, for me.

I favour the 0.72 compromise, as you do, and see two "perfect sets": 28 'cron + 50 'lux or 35' lux asph and 75 'lux.

The first set offers that compacity that attracts so many users to the M system, and I would say quite enough versatility. The 28 'cron justifies itself entirely in this perspective, by adding some welcome drama and environment to your images.

The second set is more idiosyncratic, 'cause the 75 is such an exotic piece and supposes a somewhat skewed love affair to endure weight and size .

I use a 35 'cron + 75 'lux (soooo beautiful!) as provisional couple. Would be yet happier when I will be capable of trading the 35 'cron for the 35 'lux. I find 35mm more versatile than 28mm because it allows close quarter shooting of people with minimal perspective side effects on face features. The 28mm is harder to use in daly life.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

if you already have the 50, id say that a 28 is a better bet. Have you also considered the 24 elmarit ASPH?

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 21, 2002.

Greg:

I have a 50/2 and a 90/2.8, and I tend to rely on the 50 as my "base" lens. I added a 28/2 last year and have been very pleased with it. The 28 gives me an angle of view that's distinct enough from both the 50 and the 35 that I find it very useful, especially for outdoor landscape shots, etc. I use the .72 viewfinder (no glasses), and I don't have any problem seeing the 28 framelines. Obviously, it depends on how you use the camera, but for me the 28/50/90 kit has been just about an ideal combination. Wouldn't trade any of them and don't feel the urge to add anything else.

-- Jim Reed (jimreedpc@aol.com), May 21, 2002.

Wilbur E. (Bill) Garrett, former editor of National Geographic Magazine once said (& I paraphrase liberally) that all a photojournalist needs is a Leica with a 28mm and 50mm to do the job. I would tend to agree with that. When I travel light I take my Leica M, a 28 and a 50. I also own two 21s, two 35s and a 90mm so I do have the choice, btw. The 28 and the 50 are a wonderful combination. Good luck.

-- John R. Fulton Jr. (JRFjr@compuserve.com), May 21, 2002.

Lens choice is a matter of personal preference and working style. Consider the following questions:

How close do you like to be to your subjects?

How close do your subjects like you to be?

How much background do you want to include?

Do you want to increase or decrease the emphasis on the background?

Too often people think of different focal lengths as having different angles of view; the old "I can get more into my picture" way of thinking. As the angle of view increases, the relationship between subject and background changes dramatically. There is a big difference between a 28 and 35 lens in subject/ background rendering.

I would use your frameline selector to key in the two framelines manually. Now practice framing your favorite subjects and see how things look. Do not alternate between framelines as the fact that the viewfinder magnification does not change can be misleading. Use one set for a while then switch and use the other. After awhile, you should be able to answer your own question.

I always enjoy the look on a professional's face when someone asks them if they should get this or that focal length. It is akin to asking if one should buy a Volvo station wagon or a Mercedes SLK. If you do not know how you want to use it, how can we possibly help you?

-- John Collier (jbcollier@shaw.ca), May 21, 2002.

Everyone will have their own valid opinion on this one and this is mine; sell the 90 and buy a 28mm with another body or sell the 50 and buy a 35 with another body - I hate messing around swopping lenses on an M - it interferes with my picture taking! I think if you got a 35 you would find it too close to a 50 to be of any advantage. I use just a 50/f2 on my M6 with the occasional use of a 28mm on my GR1v. BTW - Check out the new Voigtlander 28mm compact lens that's supposed to be out soon - if you are on a budget and don't want the bulk of the 1.9.

-- Johann Fuller (johannfuller@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

John Collier has made two important points: 1) there is a big difference in the "look" of an image created with a 28 and that made with a 35 and, 2) We cannot answer that question for you unless we know the specific photographic problem you are trying to solve.

As for a two-lens combo, there are times when I think I could do 90% of what I do in photography with the 35/90. Then I play around with the 28 and really like the perspectives, so I think about the 28/90 combo. Then I play around with the 21 and I think about the 21/28 or 21/35 combo.

Then I realize that on my recent trip to Provence, I shot almost everything -- say 95% of it -- with the 28 in front of slide film on one body and the 35 in front of Tri-X on the other body. In fact this trip made me realize that I could be very happy with just the 28/35 two-body combo, a combo I would have said was ridiculous a year ago as the focals were too similar. I now feel I really only need a total of four lenses to do 99.9% of what I want (not even need) to do with the M; the 21/28/35/90. I don't think I used the 50 more that one time on the trip, and then I wished I had had the 35 mounted. But, that is for ME...

As for the long shots at the bullfights that I did with the 135, I could have made the 90 do -- as I did with it on the .58 body -- but I admit that an AF/AE SLR with a 70-200 zoom would have been far more convenient, although a lot heavier.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 21, 2002.

Greg

This is so personal. For years the 28mm, 50mm, 90mm combo (R) was standard for me and I was happy. Then I rediscovered the M-35mm and find it amazingly useful. Now I am wondering about wideangles - should I add a 28mm or a 24mm to the M kit? I do think the 28mm is a wide-angle lens whereas to me the 35mm is a wide standard. The perspective with a 28mm is distinctive and that is part of its appeal. Also you do not need a viewfinder, although in practice if you wear glasses the 28mm frames on a 0.72 are a bit of a pain. You may like to consider whether you like the framelines or prefer the separate viefinder. The 35mm is a useful focal length on the Ms - there is little or no wide angle distortion and you can get pretty close for people shots and the frames are very good on the 0.72. I went for a 35mm in your shoes because it is a "classic" M lens has good framelines and it is indeed cheaper, but I do still wonder...

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

Dear Greg,

Here is the perfect answer. Get a 28 and 35. These are standard lenses with their own special uses. Owning both is hardly a gearhead adventure. There are so many variations of these lenses available that you can get reasonable quality for much less than a king's ransom. You might go for a fast 35 and slower 28. Or a heavier 35 and a very light 28. Or the other way around.

There are worse things to spend money on.

Best,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), May 21, 2002.

A lot depends also on if you plan to get a 21 or 24, in which case the 35 makes more sense. As a one-and-only wideangle the 28 is more useful.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 21, 2002.

GET THEM ALL, and sort it out later. Leica is going to go out of business with all this minimalist pontificating. Then we won't have beautiful new toys like the 28/2 ASPH. Seriously, Greg you can't go wrong. Leica Gear Heady-ness is a wonderful sickness. Get the 35/1.4 and 75/1.4 to start your tumble to financial ruin. Then build on it. The illness will truly manifest itself when you get the hots for a Noctilux and the images it produces. Right now I'm drooling over the prospect of a 24/2.8 ASPH, but am holding off hoping for an f/2 version from Leica. But, if you don't buy a boat load of stuff from them, they'll never develop that lens for me.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 21, 2002.

For just one single focal length lens, to complement your 50mm and 90mm, my own preference would be 28mm for the reasons that others have already exlained. However, in my case I have a Tri-Elmar 28/35/50 f/4, so I can change quickly between the focal lengths as the need dictates. For wide angle shots, I find myself using the 28mmm and 35mm focal lengths in about equal proportions. The only limitation of the 3E, as far as I'm concerned, is in low light but for outdoor use in daytime it serves very well. With your 50mm Summicron, you probably already have the answer for low light anyway, provided that the 45 deg. angle of view suits your needs.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), May 21, 2002.

This has been an interesting thread. My suggestion is the 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135 combo. Though quite costly, something to aspire to! I have been using a 35/50 combo for years and find the two "angles of view" very different and equally exciting. I believe each lens in the M stable, be it it's angle of view or max aperture, is distinctly different from the other and none mutually exclusive. I am looking to add one of the telephotos (75, 90 or 135) to my system now, and can appreciate the dilemma.

-- Arturo Sala (artsala@earthlink.net), May 24, 2002.