35mm has long been my favorite focal length followed by 90mm, and while I generally stay between 35mm and 90mm, I rarely shoot wider or longer.
I am new to rangefinders and recently dumped my DSLR kit and am in the process of dumping my Sony NEX kit for Leica M. I currently have both M8.2 and M6 bodies and a 35mm Summarit, 50mm Summicron and 90mm Tele-Elmarit. For film or full frame I consider this the perfect outfit as all three lenses are very small, but sharp and fast enough.
Problem is the M8.2 isn't full frame. I bought it because I didn't want to drop the $4000 or so for a used M9 before I knew if rangefinders really were for me, and now that I know I like the feel (and the results), I have a bit of a conundrum.
I am extremely happy with the image quality from the M8.2 and have little or no use for higher ISO than 640. I shoot 90% black and white and will occasionally print 11X14, but usually its 5X7 and 8X10, so the 10MP files are already overkill and I would have little or no benefit from 18. The only problem is that I can't go wide enough, and am missing my sweet-spot 90mm focal length.
It would be about the same price to sell the M8.2 and buy an M9 as it would to buy a 24mm Elmar Asph or 28mm Elmarit Asph, and in the case of the 28 I'd probably have almost enough leftover to get a 75mm Summarit.
Does anyone here have experience with the 24 Elmar and 28 Elmarit on the M8? The added benefit would be that I would now have more wide options on film and of course lenses are always a better investment than bodies. The downside is that I could not carry a small 3 lens kit for both formats unless I pick a primary format. I'm inclined to the 28mm simply because the 24mm frame lines are too large in the M8.2 viewfinder.
24mm comes out equivalent to 32mm and 28mm equivalent to 37mm. Any current or former M8 shooters have an opinion on which feels closer to a 35mm lens on full frame?
Thanks in advance. This Leica bug sure is expensive, so I want to do this right.