Leica and other brands - combos

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I'm currently thinking of taking on a Nikon F3 and a 50/1.4 and 135 or 180 to complement the M's with 24 and 35 lenses. The 50 would be far more flexible and useful than the M equivalent, and I feel the need for a longer lens in specific situations.

I'd be interested to know what other M users combine their M's with, and why.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 27, 2002

Answers

Rob, Full complement of Ms & 2 IIICs in combo with a Hassie 503cx & 50/80/150 Zeiss lens.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), May 27, 2002.

I've pretty much stopped using my EOS equipment, but I can see wanting to overlap the high end of the M range with some fast lenses. Starting at 100mm/2.0 maybe a 200/2.8 as well.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 27, 2002.

Rob. I compliment my Leica Ms with two Nikon F3HPs both with motor drive and a set of primes from 19mm to 105. Why? Affordable, rugged, can be repaired anywhere (although in 30 years of F usage nothing has ever broken), the 8 Double AAs in the MD12 will last forever, wide selection of used accessories, the Nikor lenses, ergonomics of the body. I could go, but the F3 just seems to make sense and all my magazine photography is done with the Nikon rather than my Leicas.

-- Steve LeHuray (steve@icommag.com), May 27, 2002.

Rob:

To complement my M cameras and lenses, a Canon EOS-1N RS ($1200 at B&H in NYC) with a Canon EF 50mm/f1.4 USM and a Canon EF 135mm/f2L USM lenses. The color rendition and contrast of both lenses is very similar to Leica optics. Both lenses have been very highly rated in tests in various photography magazines. I can also use Leica R lenses on the Canon camera body with a Novoflex adapter

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), May 27, 2002.


Also forgot to mention, the 55Micro-Nikkor on the EOS (with adapter) for the inevitable macro shots.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 27, 2002.


Leica M3 with 50mm Summicron and 40mm M-Rokkor, plus Canon EOS with 20-35L and 80-200L. I would like to get wider Leica lenses to replace the 20-35L, but the 80-200L is my one indispensable lens.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 27, 2002.

Rob; what are you going to photograph?

Your 50mm comment puzzles me!..........The mine for 29 year Nikkor SC 50mm F1.4 of mine is good; but my 50mm year old Midget Collapsable Summicron on the M gives me better constant focus in low low light; where focusing on the screen is dicey..

The 135mm Nikkors are all fairley good..I bought a used F3.5 for 40 bucks 20 years ago..The 180mm F2.8 Nikkor ED is a very great lens; I got mine for sports..The ED formula reduces the chromatic aberation of the lens; it is very very good wide open..A better tele combo is the 105mm F2.5 and the 180mm F2.8...The 105mm lens design was changed around 1970; from a Sonnar type design to a Gauss type design....The "new" type 105mm is better when used closer than 10 feet...Many of these manual focus lenses are cheap on Ebay; because the crowd is dumping manual focus Nikkor's...

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 27, 2002.

Rob,

I complement my Ms (28,35,50 and 90 mm lenses) with Nikon SLRs (F5 and F100). I use the F5 with long telephoto (80-400 VR -- itis a lot of fun to handhold at 400mm) and use the F100 with the 28-70 f2.8 AFS zoom, the 50 f1.4 (a fine performer IMHO) and a couple other lenses. I may add the 85 f1.4. I like having the option of an SLR and there are times I really like AF (please don't kick me off the list for saying this!).

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), May 27, 2002.


I often add my M6TTL and the 24mm Elmarit, 35mm 'Cron and 50mm DR when I go out with the 4x5. The DR comes close enough to macro to provide supplemental shots for a series of 4x5 images, and the 24mm and 35mm provide a similar function at different perspectives for interiors and such where the view camera and tripod might not be welcome. In other situations, I'll bring along the Nikon F5 for tele and real macro use.

Sometimes, I just take the M and "forget" to bring the 4x5. ;-)



-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), May 27, 2002.

Rob, In addition to my Leica M gear, I use Nikon FM2Ns, MD12 motor drives, and a range of fast prime lenses from 24 to 180. I also use 35mm and 28mm P.C. lenses. Because much of the photography I do is in theaters (music/dance/theater), I sometimes need longer focal lengths and quieter equipment than my Lieca Ms can provide. At those times I use my Nikons in sound blimps. A word of warning regarding the P.C. lenses...use them only if you are open to the possibility that you will never want to use any other type of lens ever again. When you have the time and occasion to use them, they are wonderful.

-- Jim Lennon (jim@jmlennon.com), May 27, 2002.


Rob

Unless you have an F3 already, have a look at the FM3a (auto/manual with a FULL back up of mech speeds) a lot lighter than the F3 and pretty rugged. I use a F4 (good metering and flash options), F2 and FM2 with 20-105 mm primes. Take a look at the 105mm 2.5 and the 180mm two stunning lenses. Get a back-pack if you are going to lug this arround all day. Don't know much about the EOS other than the AF works and plenty of people use em. SLR stuff takes up a LOT of room (which is why I've got an M6 again) but is more flexible. you pays your money, you takes your choice..... Can you post some more Israel pics?

B

Photojournalism at http://www.briandavidstevens.com

-- brian (briandavidstevens@talk21.com), May 27, 2002.


pre Leica Awesome gear!!!!!!

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 27, 2002.

Besides my M2s with 35/50/90 I sometimes use my Contax RTS with 24/35/50/85 Zeiss lenses and (unfortunaltly) a good (but not Zeiss) 80-200 zoom (flame me for that zoom, but the 180/2.8 and the 300/4 Zeiss lenses are out of my budget - yet). If I feel like MF, I also have a LTM 6*6 SLR, but noone takes me serious with this chinese box, though results are astounding ;-)

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), May 27, 2002.

I ended up with a Leicaflex SL, mostly because it was actually LESS expensive than Nikon once I factored in a 400mm. You might just shop prices before deciding. A good SL is as almost as reliable as the old F's, and roughly the dimensions of the F3.

I've been on and off with the F3's - very compact for a metered F body (much smaller than the Photomic F/F2 or the bloated F4/5). The electronic shutter, on rare occasions, has just - not fired until I hit the button a second time. The pop-off prism is a real plus sometimes for a different angle of view, but mostly with wide-angles.

The Nikon ED and Leica pre-APO 180's are extremely close in image quality - the Leica has slightly sweeter backgrounds but the Nikon is a tad sharper near the center. The Nikon 135 f/2 is big, heavy, and a little soft at f/2, but (IMHO) better than even the lauded 105 in the middle apertures. The 135 2.8, in my experience, is just always a little less than sharp - color fringing, mostly. Either 180 will be cleaner. But it is very light.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 27, 2002.


I don't ever combine formats or systems, because with backups it represents way too much to carry. If I need a 35mm SLR for long lens work I carry shorter lenses that fit the system (currently using EOS, ready to sell all my Leica R equipment soon). If I'm going after landscapes I carry Hasselblad (and maybe a Minilux for casual snapshots). When I'm travelling to urban destinations I carry the Leica M system. The 135mm is plenty long enough to get me by, and in a I've got a Komura 2x that I've used in a pinch with the 135 and 90.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 27, 2002.


Rob,

Interesting question & responses. Besides my M's, I use a pair of Nikon FE 2's with 20, 24, 28, 35f/2, 35PC, 50f/1.4, 55 Micro, & 300mm Nikkors; and a Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 zoom, and 500mm mirror lens. I have an MD-12 on one camera. I also have an 8008 with 24, 50, and 35- 105. Also an R4 with 50, 90 Summicron, and and 135 Elmarit. Hasselblad Superwide-C, 500CM, with 60, 100, and 150 lenses.

I bought the R4 out of curiousity about the lenses, and have not been disappointed. That said, I've seen nothing to complain about in the Nikon lenses, either. I feel the FE2 is a better, easier to use camera than the R4. I don't care for the shutter spedd display in the R4. I think I'd like an R5 and up better. I'm still interested in exploring the Leica R system, but at present the manual Nikons are my trusty old standbys for a basic, go-everywhere-do-everything SLR. I can add a lens when I want, without breaking the bank.

The 8008 sees little use anymore. I only keep it in case I need a good auto-everything flash camera. With my SB-24, I can't possibly screw up a flash shot. It knows which lens is on the camera, the aperture, etc. But the point-and-shoot thing does not permit considered work when it comes to DOF; and autofocus can be more of a hindrance than a help at times.

The Hassies are for "serious" B&W. But the best results I ever got with B&W was with the Pentax 67 I used to have. That extra centimeter makes a helluva difference, when printing to an 8 x 10 proportion. It effectively doubles the film area over 6x6. If I were to start over, I'd go with the Mamiya 7II in MF. If I did dump the Hassie, I'd keep the SWC.

I feel the SLR really comes into its own with lenses of 135mm and longer. I'd rather shoot a 50 on the Leica M. In the 85-90mm range, it's about even. An SLR can also be better for extreme wideangles, say 24mm and wider, simply because it's a lot easier to see what the heck you are doing.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 27, 2002.


Rob,

I have a now 20 plus year old Nikon F3, and it has never failed. If you use the MD-4 motor drive, the power comes from the "AA" batteries in the drive. I used this camera in Alaska, Northern Japan, Germany, Korea and in the Rocky Mountains all at freezing temperatures. I always gave out before the camera.

The best thing about getting one would be the ability to use very nice glass that can be had for next to nothing (relative to the Leica world). Since a lot of people have gone to auto-focus and digital, the used shelve are full of perfect glass, waiting for someone to recognize that it can still be used.

Based only on your initial query, I am posting a few shots with the 50mm f/1.4 (manual focus 1970s vintage), a 135mm f/2.0 (also 1970's vintage) and just for a comparison, the 55mm Micro-Nikkor, which is a fine lens if you don't need the speed.

My personal travel gear is a 35mm f/1.4, a 105mm f/2.5 as a core... and then depending on where I'm going a 24mm or 300mm. This whole set of four manual focus metal and glass lenses cost as much as your single 24mm for the M6.

50mm Nikkor shots at f/1.4, 135mm Nikkor at f/2.0, 55mm Micro-Nikkor at f/2.8

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 27, 2002.


Rob,

Lots of answers here.....Perhaps ten years ago I covered Indy 500 qualifying (pit work) with a Nikon F4 and 180 Nikkor as well as a M4-2 and 21 SA. I used a 90 TE for a couple of shots and a 50DR not at all. Another photographer stopped next to me and looking at my Leica said, "you don't see many of those around these days"! I guess he was used to seeing the plethora of Canons and Nikons. Anyway, the two worked spledidly together (and I've never had a problem with F2's or F3's "backward" focus when used in conjunction with Leicas!

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), May 27, 2002.


EOS D-30 with 70 - 200 (actually 100 - 300 with the focal length multiplier). All my Leica work is scanned, so it helps workflow to have a digital back on my Canon lenses.

-- Michael Rivers (mrivers@mac.com), May 27, 2002.

guys -- keep your voices down!! glenn mite hear.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 27, 2002.

I travel in four different configurations:

a) M2 / Summicron-DR or IIIc / Elmar 50/3.5 or 50/2 Summitar Sekonic 308 II

b) Compact bag holding: - M2 with 35/2 or 50/2. Both are Summicrons. - M6TTL .85 with a 90/2 Summicron 50mm Summar 50mm Summitar Sometimes a 135/4 Tele-Elmar in a detachable external pocket. Sekonic 508C and 308II

c) Hasselblad 500/cm with 80 and 150. M2 with a 50 Summicron-DR or IIIc with 50 (Elmar 3.5 or Summitar) Sekonic 508C and 308II

d) All of the above at once. (ugh!)

I have thought of a R6.2 with the 35-70/2.8, but first I would need to win the lotto. The lens alone would cost nearly as much as my entire outfit.

Cheers,

feli

-- feli (feli2@earthlink.net), May 27, 2002.


I have such a wide variety of assignments that no one set /combo is correct for all. Studio work is one thing. Advertising location jobs another. But the most used combination I've come to rely on for weddings is an M6/M7 low light kit with 28/2 Asph., 35/1.4 Asph, .50 Noctilux, and 75/1.4 for all the B&W candids... coupled with a Nikon D1x and fast Nikkors for color candids ( the few formals I do are now with a Contax 645 and a Kodak Digital Proback which produces a 96 meg file) With the sale of my Canon EOS gear to a forum member, I will no longer have any 35mm film cameras except my Leica Ms, SLII and an X-Pan.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 27, 2002.

Second system: Nikon N80; Nikkor AF-D 20mm/f2.8, 35mm/f2.0, 85mm/f1.8; SB-50DX; Tiffen Warm UV, Tiffen Enhancing, Moose Pol; all carried in a LowePro PhotoRunner w/plenty of film and a Victorinox Swiss Army knife. Extremely High quality, compact, lightweight, cheap. Also, because of the size (extremely compact), just as good a street system as a Leica M. Rob, go for it. You're just too good a photographer for me to ever try to second guess you. Loved the cow photo!

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.

Rob, this is the first thread I ever seen you create. Well done.

I am currently using a Nikon FM3a (black) with an AIS 24mm f/2, AIS 35mm f/1.4, AI 50mm f/2 and AF DC 105mm f/2D lens- all to back up my old M6 and gear I no longer own. I'll eventually keep this Nikon gear when i re-purchase an M6 with Summilux 35 Apsh again. though it may be some time before I can afford to do this.

In the mean time the Nikon will be a great compromise. For you Rob, I'd receommend the AIS 105mm f/2 and the AF 180mm f/2.8 lenses (relatively small for a 180mm). I'd skip the 135mm- the f/2.8 is small and nice, but not quite the 105, and the 135/2 is huge, even substantially bigger+heavier than my AF DC 105mm f/2, which I also recommend if you don't mind the size. An FM3a over the F3 would also be a great alternative if price isn't much of an issue. The F3 is a solid workhorse, but the FM3a is totally mechanical and with aperture priority- what the M7 should've been like!

As much as I miss my M6, I certainly feel right at home with my old Nikon gear again. The quality is about 80-95% of the quality of the Leica at about 1/5th of the price. Good luck on your decision.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.


Taken with my old Nikon AIS 85mm f/1.4 at f/2

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.


Sorry, this is what you want to see- WIDE OPEN

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.


Rob:

Sounds like a very flexible combo overall. FWIW, I recently off'd all of my Nikon gear in favor of Canon... There were several reasons for my decision to do this, but one was to have "directional consistency" between systems. I found it irritating to deal with focus and lens mounting on the Nikon operating in reverse relative to the Leica. This may not be a problem for you, but was a continual irritant for me when I grabbed my Nikon -- and I have used Nikons for 20 years. The transition between my Leica and my EOS now feels almost seamless by comparison.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 28, 2002.


Rob,

For years, I used an Olympus OM kit but I became very dissatisfied with the lenses as a result of using Leica (first R, then M). The effect it had on me was that I felt I wasn't doing justice to photo opportunities if I chose Oly instead of Leica, so I stopped using the Oly. Maybe I was being silly, I don't know. However, since I eventually realized that I didn't really need an SLR anyway (don't use long or macro lenses), I sold all my Oly gear about a month ago. There were other factors that helped me make this decision, such as the fact that OM cameras must use silver oxide batteries and those are unobtainable in Indonesia. I feel no regrets about selling it.

If I ever get back into SLRs, I think I'd rather go with Leica R than any other brand. My reasons for preferring Leica R are that I feel I know it well, there are excellent used lenses availble at reasonable prices and I found the cameras (R7 ancd R8) so easy to use, despite not having auto-focus. (My R8 was a lemon though!)

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


I travel with a m6 + 35mm and 90mm and a Brooks veriwide. Color in the Leica and B+W in the Brooks for big prints. Maybe the Noct and the Brooks alone next time or a Roille twin. An Alpa with Biogon would be nice with the Leica too if I owned one. Mucho dinero though!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 28, 2002.

Thanks everyone. Kelly, the 50 on an slr is more versatile than on an rf because of the close focussing distance - sure, there's the DR, but I'm sceptical about that in actual use, plus my wife has the whole thing (F3, MD4, 50/1.4) right here she's giving me (selling at a low price), so I find that even more attractive! I also find the ability to take off the prism for portraits, for instance, very useful, I've been playing with it and it seems to reduce the tension to a large degree when photographing camera shy subjects.

The long lens issue is a difficult one, I think I'll only be able to sort it out in practice. Maybe a 105 and a 2X ring would be a good start. Or probably Kristian's 105+180 suggestion would be the best, but I still don't how much I would use it.

At the moment it's still all theory, I need to find a project to put it into practice on. Thanks again.

One big problem - my Hadley just isn't big enough for all this gear.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 28, 2002.


Rob, just an update on my 105 DC. I just got back some results and it appears that it has less contrast than the 90APO and AF Nikkor 85/1.4, which has the highest. Sharpness was also a little down on both lenses. Bokeh was excellent but no improvement over the 90APO and Nikkor (no surprise either). I am now thinking of going back to my old AIS 105/2.5 for slightly better contrast, sharpness and lighter weight- smaller size too.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 28, 2002.

My IIIg with 15, 21, 28, 50, & 85/90 cover the short end. My Spotmatics pick up with 100mm macro, 135 f/2, 200 f/2.8 and a couple of tele zooms. I also have an 85mm Fujica Soft Focus and 85mm f/1.9 that work well with the SLR. Spotmatics: cheap, reliable, very good optics.

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@mindspring.com), May 28, 2002.

Rob; Thanks for the reply about the usage of the 50mm closeup...The 50mm F1.4 Nikkor SC of mine (vintage 1973) gets progressively worse in sharpness when focusing close and wideopen..I copied a ancient family genelogy book with it; using the camera on a copy stand; and lens stopped down to F8.....The old 50mm F2 is alot sharper than my F1.4 ; when used with extension tubes....When used 1:1 the f2 lens is way better; the f1.4 is abit of a dog....The later F1.4 (approx circa 1978?) has a closer focusing distance; and a rubberized focus ring...I am not sure if the formula was changed........For the book I copied; the 50mm f1.4 had noticeable barrel distortion; for later work I used enlarging lenses....These show little distortion; and are way better corrected at close distances......Dont worry about the distortion stuff when shooting flowers and bugs!

There are alot of 105mm Nikkors on Ebay Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zork3c@netscape.net), May 28, 2002.

One of the advantages of using an F3, or an Fm3a...or any old manual Nikon...is the great assortment of lenses available at often bargin prices.

On Ebay, I picked up a 20/3.5 (52mm filter) lens which is great, and a seldom-seen, somewhat unknown 28-50/3.5 (constant aperture)zoom that is outstanding...it even has a useable macro range at 50mm, best of all it's small, light and uses a 52mmm filter. It's the Nikon version of Leica's 3E.

I carry 2, sometimes 3 systems all the time. The trick is to dedicate one or two lenses to each system. That seems to be your thought process on this. All I can say is that it works for me with no problems.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 28, 2002.


Why not get a Canon EOS 3 or 1V and the 70-200L 2.8 zoom (heresy, I know), plus one short prime like the 50 1.4 USM? You can also get Image Stabilization lenses.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 28, 2002.

To follow up on jim's recent post I also usually carry two or three systems at once, with a lens or two the reason behind the system. for my children's sports ta minolta maxxum 9 with a 80-200 f2.8. the 100 f2 is a good portrait lens. for long glass, my leica sl or R6.2 with the 400 f6.8. I also use the 90 2.8. my olympus system is used for macro work and long exposure work.

FWIW most of doug herr's work is with the 400 f6.8, and it is truly magical in his hands. he along with mike dixon are the two photographers on this forum who I allow myself a little envy.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), May 28, 2002.


I picked up Canon A2 with EF 200/2.8L USM lens to complement my Leica M with 90/50/35/21 lenses. Why, because the 90 'cron-M lens is not long and fast enough. The Canon 200/2.8 and 50 'cron-M seem to cover most, if not all, of my picture taking needs.

-- kenny chiu (gokudo31@hotmail.com), May 28, 2002.

How many of you guys have played an LP lately?

How many of you are shooting Betamax?

Analog. Digital.

Think about it.

-- bob (dasbob@hotmail.com), July 05, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ