The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

28 summicron, 50 summilux, or 35 FLE decisions, decisions...

animefx

New member
I have been using the 35 summarit on my M8 and love the focal length. I will be getting my Leica M within the first 2 months of it's release most likely because I'm on the pre-order list.

I had used my 35 summarit breifly on an M9 (before I had to send it back) and liked the focal length on it too, although at times it was difficult to use for every situation for street photography.

For a long time my dream lens was the 50 summilux ASPH, but lately I've been questioning that. I actually like the colors and rendering the best on the 28 Summicron ASPH from *any* lens I've seen. However, I'm afraid the 28mm focal length will be the the least used focal length out of the 3 choices: 28, 35, and 50.

50mm would probably be my most used focal length, it seems like the 50 Summilux ASPH mostly excels in portraiture (which I do love) since it has superior bokeh and is fairly clinical. However, I'm not convinced that it's actually "sharper" than my 35 Summarit though, I'm not sure about the "character" of the lens either. It probably has more "character" than the 35 FLE, but the 35 FLE is probably the sharpest lens I've ever seen on the M outside of the 50 Summicron APO.

I might be able to keep the 35 Summarit if I buy the 28 Summicron or 50 Summilux ASPH, but I couldn't afford or justify the keep it with the 35 FLE.

I could get the 28 Summicron and use it as a 35mm lens on my M8 until the Leica M comes out, but I shoot the least when it's cold outside, so I can't justify it for that reason alone.

So a few questions to those of you who have used these lenses or have owned them...

- How do you feel about the 50 Summilux ASPH used as "general purpose" lens on a full frame camera? Do you feel like that biting sharpness is there for landscape and other non portrait photography?

- Would it be worth it to own a 28 Summicron ASPH and also keep my 35 Summarit? I could crop the 28mm to 35mm without much loss in pixels. But of course, I could also crop 35mm to 50mm with a little bit more pixel loss.
 

ramosa

Member
It sounds like you aren't a big fan of a 28mm lens on FF. (Same with me, though some others love it.) For that reason alone, I would disregard the idea of getting the Cron 28 asph for your future M. (It's a great lens, but only if you like the 28mm focal length.)

You have a good 35mm lens already, so I would ponder a 50mm. (Some may say 35 and 50 are too close, but lots of others love them both. In fact, some greats [Bresson, Dave Harvey, etc.] use both 35mm and 50mm lenses.) If I were in your shoes, I would, thus, be pondering a 50mm lens (or maybe something even longer [e.g., 75 or 90]). In terms of 50s, I would ponder the Lux 50 asph or Cron 50 pre-asph (last version). Most folks will recommended that you get the Lux, which is technically one of Leica's best lenses. But I actually sold my Lux 50 asph to get the Cron 50 pre-asph--because, at least on digital, I find the newer asph lenses to be too clinical. That is, however, a very personal thing. Some like a perfect rendering with digital, while some (like me) do not. If I could have just two lenses on a FF M, I would definitely have a 35 and ... 50 or 90. In fact, probably the 90 because that would give me two quite different focal lengths--the 35 for normal street and the 90 for street portraits. Again, that's quite personal ...

I suspect that you'd prefer having a 35 and 50 (from what you said in your post). Thus, if you can keep your Summarit 35, I'd look into adding a 50. However, if you can only afford one lens (which is NOT a bad thing, by the way), then you'd need to ponder whether you want a 35 OR 50. There are myriad threads on that decision--and, again, it is very personal. The best street photographers use 35 or 50 or, sometimes, 28. So there's not a uniform correct way to shoot on the streets.

Alas, let us know what you decide. My situation contrasts from yours, in that I have my lenses in good order (for me), but need to ponder a FF digital body ... M9, M9P, ME, MM, M ... (so many options now or soon).
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I own those lenses you mention and frankly I think you need to first figur out which focal length you want and then decide which lenses to choose.
If you like the 35 Summarit the 50 Summarit could also be an option to the 50 Summilux.
The 50 lux draws sharp but not clinical.
The Summarit lenses have a little bit less contrast (still very good) and have a nice bokeh.
I didnt understand if you keep the M8 and look for lenses for both cameras?
Other than that 28-50 is a very nice combo IMO. 35mm is great if you sometimes want to carry just one lens. 35-75 or 35-90 is a great combo as well.

If I were you I would keep that 35 Summarit, use it a while on the new M and then see what you miss.
 

MCTuomey

New member
I like the 28 Cron ASPH so well it's become my wide, alongside a 50 and a 90. Prior to using the 28 Cron ASPH I was a 35/50/90 fellow. Sometimes a lens creates its own place, and one learns to use it.
 

animefx

New member
I own those lenses you mention and frankly I think you need to first figur out which focal length you want and then decide which lenses to choose.
If you like the 35 Summarit the 50 Summarit could also be an option to the 50 Summilux.
The 50 lux draws sharp but not clinical.
The Summarit lenses have a little bit less contrast (still very good) and have a nice bokeh.
I didnt understand if you keep the M8 and look for lenses for both cameras?
Other than that 28-50 is a very nice combo IMO. 35mm is great if you sometimes want to carry just one lens. 35-75 or 35-90 is a great combo as well.

If I were you I would keep that 35 Summarit, use it a while on the new M and then see what you miss.
It will be hard to part with my M8, but its actually going to help fund my Leica M. I'll be selling it the day I get my Leica M unless for some odd reason I don't end up liking the Leica M.

Even though I'm basically using a 1 lens solution now, it's not optimal due to the M8's lackluster low light capabilities and the summarit being f/2.5. I love the summarit so much, but that doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't like any of the above even more so.

I guess I need to figure out if I go with a 1 lens solution it should probably be a the 35 FLE, but if I keep the 35 Summarit I guess a 50mm lens would be the best addition to my kit. Still the way the 28 Summicron renders color and bokeh is soooooo appealing to me :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hmmm
Well, unless you're missing much wider, I'd agree with Tom - forget the 28 'cron for now.

. . . . and then a question:

. . do you want to focus close up (less than 1 metre).

If not, I'd seriously suggest keeping your 35 summarit, and buying the 50 summarit and either the 75 or the 90. This will still be cheaper than buying a 50 'lux, and it'll give you much more flexibility. personally I'd go for the 50 and the 90. The better high ISO in the Leica M (maybe two stops over the M8) will mean that the f2.5 really isn't much of a handicap.


That's what I'd do in your situation - all the summarits are lovely lenses, and the compromises which make them cheaper are the slower aperture and the longer close focus distance - there really isn't much of a compromise in terms of image quality. They also have a similar signature, which should help you to establish a feeling across all the lenses.

The nice thing about Leica lenses, is that if you buy them sensibly they're unlikely to lose value, so you can change your mind cheaply later on.

A Leica M with 25/50/90 focal lengths is a wonderful setup.

all the best
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Jono, both the Summarits (35 and 50) focus close to 0.8m. SO its 0.8m vs 0.7m of the Summiluxes.
Its the Noctilux with focuses not closer than 1m.
 

borge

New member
Put your money into the one focal length that is your favorite and focus on getting even better at framing with that focal length, rather than having too many options available.

According to my own statistics with previous gear that I owned with primes that covered the 28-35-50-90 focal lengths I used the 50mm about 80% of the time, and 90% of my favorite captures was taken with the 50mm equalent lens.

That made my choices really simple when I decided to purchase Leica gear: 50mm summilux was a must-have due to my usage of that focal length and because of its ability to separate subjects from the background in a very nice way. It was also incredibly more flare resistant than the latest summicron, and I liked its characteristics.

But most importantly: it is my definite preferred focal length. I used the 28/35 in maybe 15% of my use, and the 90 in maybe 5% (could be less as well). So these focal lengths are merely non-important accessories for me personally.

So evaluate your own preference and put your money into what you will end up using the most. It could even be a good thing not having too many options (focal lengths) available.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, both the Summarits (35 and 50) focus close to 0.8m. SO its 0.8m vs 0.7m of the Summiluxes.
Its the Noctilux with focuses not closer than 1m.
Hi Tom
Thanks for the clarification - makes my argument even more cogent I'd say!
 

jonoslack

Active member
Put your money into the one focal length that is your favorite and focus on getting even better at framing with that focal length, rather than having too many options available.

According to my own statistics with previous gear that I owned with primes that covered the 28-35-50-90 focal lengths I used the 50mm about 80% of the time, and 90% of my favorite captures was taken with the 50mm equalent lens.

That made my choices really simple when I decided to purchase Leica gear: 50mm summilux was a must-have due to my usage of that focal length and because of its ability to separate subjects from the background in a very nice way. It was also incredibly more flare resistant than the latest summicron, and I liked its characteristics.

But most importantly: it is my definite preferred focal length. I used the 28/35 in maybe 15% of my use, and the 90 in maybe 5% (could be less as well). So these focal lengths are merely non-important accessories for me personally.
Something to consider indeed . . .but if all you've ever had is a 50mm equivalent (35 on the M8) then it's tough to know which focal length would be your favourite. 35/50/90 summarits would give you a chance to find out

Me? I also use a 50 most of the time - except indoors when the 75 is more popular - but I've some grand shots taken with the WATE as well.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
It infrequently a straight path to your preferred Leica M lens kit . You need to have time to work with the different focal lengths . Over time you may find yourself going wider .

If you are going to the new M ..then I would want the 35/1.4asph FLE as the one best all around lens .
 

Hosermage

Active member
I'd say get the lens you lust after... get it and use it until you're sick of it. If it doesn't click with you, sell it and treat the money loss as rental fees, which is cheaper the longer you use it :) Trying different lenses is part of the fun, until you finally find one you're not willing to part with, and at that time, you'll need to come up with more money to try a second lens while keeping the first one... and so on.

Personally, I tried to start out cheap and work my way up, but in retrospective, I should have just gone for the one I really wanted: 50'Lux ASPH. However, having tried some of the cheaper 50's allows me to appreciate the 50'Lux even more and now I'm confident that it was worth the additional cost over the other lenses, at least for me.
 

borge

New member
Something to consider indeed . . .but if all you've ever had is a 50mm equivalent (35 on the M8) then it's tough to know which focal length would be your favourite. 35/50/90 summarits would give you a chance to find out
True. I would probably choose something else to experiment with though. OM-D or X-E1 with the equalent primes for example. Even the Summarits are very expensive to experiment with (I think so). Maybe a set of used non-asph lenses in the summarit or summicron line is the best and most economical way to experiment with different focal lengths, I'd say.

OP: if you have the possibility of renting the lenses for a few weeks each I'd advise you to do that so you can evaluate the different focal lengths in your regular day-to-day shooting. Good luck with your choice.
 

segedi

Member
Consider the Zeiss ZM Planar 50mm. It's very sharp, nice bokeh. It's f/2 so if you need the speed, something else would be better. But it's one fine lens. I also own the Summilux 50mm ASPH, but can't part with the humble Zeiss.

If you want something sharper in 35mm you may want to try the Zeiss ZM Biogon 35mm. It's almost a stop faster than your Summarit. And sharper, especially in the corners. I am going to sell my Summarit as I picked up the Zeiss recently. Not to knock the Summarit, I just prefer the speed and sharpness of the Zeiss.
 

borge

New member
I'd say get the lens you lust after... get it and use it until you're sick of it. If it doesn't click with you, sell it and treat the money loss as rental fees, which is cheaper the longer you use it :) Trying different lenses is part of the fun, until you finally find one you're not willing to part with, and at that time, you'll need to come up with more money to try a second lens while keeping the first one... and so on.

Personally, I tried to start out cheap and work my way up, but in retrospective, I should have just gone for the one I really wanted: 50'Lux ASPH. However, having tried some of the cheaper 50's allows me to appreciate the 50'Lux even more and now I'm confident that it was worth the additional cost over the other lenses, at least for me.
Very good point. The saying "The poor man pays twice" is sadly very true! Going for what you initially want will usually save you expenses in the long run, as you'll most probably end up with what you initially wanted anyway - albeit at a bigger total cost.
 

animefx

New member
I'd say get the lens you lust after... get it and use it until you're sick of it. If it doesn't click with you, sell it and treat the money loss as rental fees, which is cheaper the longer you use it :) Trying different lenses is part of the fun, until you finally find one you're not willing to part with, and at that time, you'll need to come up with more money to try a second lens while keeping the first one... and so on.

Personally, I tried to start out cheap and work my way up, but in retrospective, I should have just gone for the one I really wanted: 50'Lux ASPH. However, having tried some of the cheaper 50's allows me to appreciate the 50'Lux even more and now I'm confident that it was worth the additional cost over the other lenses, at least for me.
Thanks for the replies everyone! After reading all suggestions I think this is what I'll do. I just have to figure out which lens I lust for most and if I don't like the focal length I'm sure I could sell it for at least 80% of what I purchased the lens for.

Over the years I've been going to wider focal lengths for the most part, which I feel has been good for my photography overall. In the past, I would want to shoot 135mm all of the time, but now I'm pretty happy with 50mm and 35mm lengths due to the versatility. If I lived in a larger city I would probably be tempted more by 28mm, but I'm not sure I can justify it now. I think the solution is to increase my lens arsenal slowly over time.

I'll let you guys know what I end up with... It will probably be soon.
 

animefx

New member
Consider the Zeiss ZM Planar 50mm. It's very sharp, nice bokeh. It's f/2 so if you need the speed, something else would be better. But it's one fine lens. I also own the Summilux 50mm ASPH, but can't part with the humble Zeiss.

If you want something sharper in 35mm you may want to try the Zeiss ZM Biogon 35mm. It's almost a stop faster than your Summarit. And sharper, especially in the corners. I am going to sell my Summarit as I picked up the Zeiss recently. Not to knock the Summarit, I just prefer the speed and sharpness of the Zeiss.
Hmmm... Sounds interesting, I need to research the Zeiss 50 ZM Planar some. Is this the same lens that a blogger compared favorably with the new 50 Summicron APO?

There is something about Leica I prefer over all other manufacturers lenses, but Zeiss seems to be nearly as good.

Anyone know the minimum focus distance for the Zeiss 50 ZM Planar? I heard that Zeiss has lenses that can actually focus closer, so that way the Leica M with Live View / EVF could take advantage of the closer focusing distance?
 
Seems like you must get a 50, other lenses will not be intuitive to you. Don't forget the 50 lux is much heavier, it will feel very different. I'd go with jono's recommendation or perhaps a 50 cron, still one of the finest lenses ever made and a real nice size and still costs less, it's probably closer to what you currently love about Leica. I use a 50 lux pre-asph and a 28 cron. The 28 is nice, but it's not in your vocabulary yet. I think it took me a year to understand the 50 lux, I tried a 35 cron before settling on the 28.

The extra size ans weight of a lux might turn you off whereas the results might inspire you more.
 

ramosa

Member
as has been suggested, i think it's helpful that you decide first how many lenses you plan to have and second what focal lengths they'll be at. that's not always easy when moving from cropped to FF, but it really streamlines the decision-making process.

with one lens on FF: 35 or 50 is most common.

with two lens on FF: you mention 35 and 50 (while others would prefer 28 and 50 or 35 and 90 [i'm in the latter grouping]).

after you have decided that, then i'd ponder specific lenses. that basic approach frees you up to ponder keeping your summarit 35 and deciding what 50 you want. (there are so many excellent 35s and 50s that it's hard to go wrong. it really comes down to personal taste, including as it pertains to rendering, size, speed, cost, 6-bit coding, etc.)
 

segedi

Member
My favorite focal length in full frame is 35mm.
I'd say I'm at
65% 35mm
25% 50mm
8% 21mm
2% 90mm

But I like shooting street and landscape. And like a wider angle in those. Some shoot street and/or landscape with a 90mm, and quite successfully.

While you could be quite happy with a Zeiss ZM 50mm, the others are correct in stating that you might second guess that and think about the Leica Summilux or Summicron. They are different. They feel, balance, focus differently. But if you have the funds and could pick just one, the Summilux is your best bet. Faster than the others, cheaper than the new Summicron and is a really fine performer.

Caveat:
Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 = $3995
Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4 = $4995 and hard to get
Total cost of Leica = $8990

Zeiss ZM Planar 50mm f/2 = $860
Zeiss ZM Biogon 35mm f/2 = $1090
Hood that fits both Zm lenses = $84
Total cost of Zeiss = $2034

Savings Zeiss vs Leica $6956 + proceeds from selling the 35mm Summarit =~ $8356
Cost of Leica M Monochrom = $7950

:)

Some links for your perusal:
The great 35mm rangefinder lens shootout:
The Great 35mm Rangefinder Lens Shootout – PART 2 – Close Up and Wide Open – by Brad Husick | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Crazy about the Planar:
Crazy about the Planar 50mm - pics thread - Page 5 - Rangefinderforum.com
 
Top