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!

Lens choices: portability vs speed

Paratom

Well-known member
I am just re-exploring my M9-setup (I do that every 1-2 years after coming back from other "journeys" like the K5 or the Nex).

And while I still own and keep some f1.4 M-lenses I now enjoy a lot the tiny 35 and 50 Summarits. It is not so much about carrying a little more or less weight, however its nice to pack it in an even smaller bag and I kind of like the handling and the "classic" and simple feel of those small lenses.
I am even tempted to replace my 21/2.8 with a 21/3.4.

There is a lot of talk about the 1.4 glass, but f2.5 on ff-sensor isnt exactly slow.

So I wondered if there are crazy guys like me who own several focal length in 2 versions (1 fast and 1 compact), and even more interested which is the best compromise for YOU between speed and portability.

Cheers,Tom
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I am just re-exploring my M9-setup (I do that every 1-2 years after coming back from other "journeys" like the K5 or the Nex).

And while I still own and keep some f1.4 M-lenses I now enjoy a lot the tiny 35 and 50 Summarits. It is not so much about carrying a little more or less weight, however its nice to pack it in an even smaller bag and I kind of like the handling and the "classic" and simple feel of those small lenses.
I am even tempted to replace my 21/2.8 with a 21/3.4.

There is a lot of talk about the 1.4 glass, but f2.5 on ff-sensor isnt exactly slow.

So I wondered if there are crazy guys like me who own several focal length in 2 versions (1 fast and 1 compact), and even more interested which is the best compromise for YOU between speed and portability.

Cheers,Tom
I'd add ability to focus to that list of smaller lens/ slower aperture attributes. As my eyes have taken a swan dive into aging blurriness, f/2 lenses are looking more and more attractive. I'll maintain my 21/1.4 and 35/1.4 for low light work, but I sold my 50/0.95, 74/1.4 and 90/2 ... and am considering a 50/2, and already have a 90/2.8 (which is a sleeper of a lens and quite small). The bonus is less to carry.

-Marc
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
In the winter I am shooting mostly in Florida . Plenty of light even early and late in the day. My primary set up is 21/3.4asph,28/2,50/1.4asph and the 90/2.8 M with 2 M9 s .

I have a very light mesh vest (Ex Officio) that I keep loaded so that I can pick up 2 bodies and go out without much thought . (So I use no bag ).

The 21/3.4asph is now one of my favorite lenses ..its just performs in almost any situation . Its IQ is slightly better than the 21/2.8asph in that its sharper wide open edge to edge and it has less distortion . Size isn t much different except for the hood on the 21.2.8.

Because of the strong light I will shoot much of my street shooting between f4-f8 . At those apertures I am not giving up any material IQ and I have a kit that lets me move .

The 90 2.8M isn t quite a 90/2 asph but its smaller and lighter and at F4-f8 pretty exceptional . If I was expecting to shoot a lot at f2-2.8 and to use the 90 heavily I would take the summicron.

The 28/2 and the 50/1.4asph seem to work in almost any situation and I always take those 2 lenses when I travel.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I agree with Marc s point on the 50 summicron and I need to put that lens to better use . I have found the slightly lower contrast of the 50 summicron(compared to the 50 lux asph to match up nicely with the strong Florida late afternoon light. )
 

ramosa

Member
After four years wth Leica M and ownership of seven lenses (at different times), I think I have figured out what will work best for me--35 f1.4 v1, 50 f2, and 90 f2.8. (This means I need to purchase this 35 and repurchase this 50.) Theses lenses have a fairly similar rendering and speed at 35. Also, they are fairly compact, especially the 50 and even 90. While I could afford more than three lenses and more than one lens at a particular focal length, I don't want to. I want more of a minimal set that I can easily manage and learn to use well.
 

MikalWGrass

New member
You guys are funny. Reading this post made me totally rethink the set up I will take with me this weekend to Sarasota, where my wife will be running the Sarasota 1/2 marathon. I was going to take a Sony a900, an R 50/1.4 and maybe a Sony flash. After reading this post, I junked that idea and decided to take an Epson mounted with a Canon 35/1.9 in M mount. I would take an M6 and the 35/1.9 but film processing and scanning is waaaayyyy tooooo slow for those family members who will be the subject of my pictures. Gotta make the family happy.

I am seriously thinking of getting a Nex 5 or 7 for those occasions in which portability, convenience, and lightness are paramount.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
You guys are funny. Reading this post made me totally rethink the set up I will take with me this weekend to Sarasota, where my wife will be running the Sarasota 1/2 marathon. I was going to take a Sony a900, an R 50/1.4 and maybe a Sony flash. After reading this post, I junked that idea and decided to take an Epson mounted with a Canon 35/1.9 in M mount. I would take an M6 and the 35/1.9 but film processing and scanning is waaaayyyy tooooo slow for those family members who will be the subject of my pictures. Gotta make the family happy.

I am seriously thinking of getting a Nex 5 or 7 for those occasions in which portability, convenience, and lightness are paramount.
;) you dont need a Nex if you have a rd1.
 

mtomalty

New member
Far be it from me to comment on others wishes/needs with respect to lens choice
but,IMHO, unless one is working or photographing,regularly, in low,or challenging, light situations then the bulk attached to most of the 1.4 asphs sort of defeats one of the
primary benefits of the 'M' experience. Again only my opinion.
I'm part of the way back into a two body,5 lens M9 setup (though with some hiccups)
with my original plan being 21 3.4, 28 2.8asph, 50 2.0 ,75 2.0 and 90 2.8 - all fantastically compact and capable
Had problems with colorcast on the 28 so retooled to an excellent 24 2.8 asph
Unfortunately this throws an odd gap into my lineup.
Will add a 35 2.0 asph to bridge the space between 24 and 50.

Even though I'm a fast glass addict in my DSLR system don't feel i will miss the faster
and larger M alternatives.
I shoot a lot in low and night light and have been more underwhelmed at iso performance over 800 than the majority of people but would welcome improved
performance in this regard with a next gen M body which would be a double benefit for
using the slower and smaller M lenses in these situations.
 

Brian S

New member
The Canon 50/1.5 is fast and small, fits on a Leica CL and goes into the pouch case on it. Use it on a Leica IIIf without blocking the viewfinder. There are fast and compact lenses.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
Since both portability and speed have their advantages, I just picked up enough lenses for each scenario... :p

The CV Color Skopar LTM lenses are generally very good, especially for the money - and ridiculously tiny. For speed, I started going more towards Leica - with a 50 Lux and 28 Cron along with a CV 35 Nokton (which I'll probably replace with the 35 Lux FLE at some point). I try to keep the longer end kind of "sane" and prefer the 90 Elmarit-M and 135 Tele-Elmar-M rather than the fast versions (though the 90 Cron is interesting for sure).
 

jonoslack

Active member
Horses for courses . . .
some days I'll take a 24 f1.4 on one body and the 0.95 nocti on another.
some days it'll be the 28 'cron on one and the 75 'cron on another (usually with the WATE in the bag). Other days it might be the 35 summarit and the 90 slim elmarit (what a good lens that is).

but I agree with Tom - the M9 with the little 35 summarit is a thing of joy and wonder as well.

. . . . . . and Marc - the answer to ageing blurriness is not dioptre adjustments, or magnifiers . . It's

CONTACT LENSES

:)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
The way I do it today is that I often carry 1 fast lens (35 or 50) and 2 or 3 slower lenses. When I know I will only shoot in bright light I might bring just the "slower" lenses.
I need to experiment more before I might be willing to sell 1 of my Summiluxes.

Has anybody compared the 50 cron to the Summarit?
I only know from from the 35mm focal length that the SUmmarit might draw a bit "smoother" in regards to bokeh and contrast which made me choose the Summarit.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The way I do it today is that I often carry 1 fast lens (35 or 50) and 2 or 3 slower lenses. When I know I will only shoot in bright light I might bring just the "slower" lenses.
I need to experiment more before I might be willing to sell 1 of my Summiluxes.

Has anybody compared the 50 cron to the Summarit?
I only know from from the 35mm focal length that the SUmmarit might draw a bit "smoother" in regards to bokeh and contrast which made me choose the Summarit.
I'd like to know that also.

I find that I use my 35/1.4 ASPH for the f/1.4 more than I ever did the 50/1.4 ... probably more due to needing the fast aperture indoors in limited space and lower light ... and especially when walking about with just one lens at night.

Anyone use the Zeiss 50/2 Planar ... I'm not adverse to going Zeiss for a 50mm. Focus shift issues? Other?

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Horses for courses . . .
some days I'll take a 24 f1.4 on one body and the 0.95 nocti on another.
some days it'll be the 28 'cron on one and the 75 'cron on another (usually with the WATE in the bag). Other days it might be the 35 summarit and the 90 slim elmarit (what a good lens that is).

but I agree with Tom - the M9 with the little 35 summarit is a thing of joy and wonder as well.

. . . . . . and Marc - the answer to ageing blurriness is not dioptre adjustments, or magnifiers . . It's

CONTACT LENSES

:)
Yes, I heard you the first time Jono ... ;)

The issue for me is due to an eye injury when younger ... I can see almost perfectly in good light with a diopter, but at night my vision loses so much contrast detection as to be very dicey for getting a longer lens in focus at f/0.95 or f/1.4 ... the very time I need those apertures. Irakly has tried to get me to shoot left eyed like he does after a tennis accident left his right eye in a similar condition ... but I just can't seem to make it work for me like he did.

Okay, so I'm handicapped ... stop yelling at me to get up out of the wheelchair and play soccer with you :ROTFL:

-Marc
 

DaveS

Active member
I also keep gravitating to smaller lenses for travel. Just got back from Hawaii and used M9, Summarit 35 and 50, plus ME 90, and 28 2.8ASPH.

Any one of them would fit in a tiny slim waist pouch on the M9, and one other in my pocket. So I would go out each day with two lenses, but almost zero bulk. I have both the 50 cron and 50 Summarit and don’t really see any difference. The summarits are really sharp and clear at any aperture from my experience. I also found the summicron would just not quite fit the waist pouch without stretching it too much for my liking.

I also use a Artisan & Artist wrist strap, so if I want to wear the camera on my wrist it is great, or store it in the pouch it is small but pops out easily.

In the evenings, I would put just the 50 or 35 on and go available light. On the sidewalk, 800 plus F2.5 was fine (They actually test 2.4 when I do comparisons at home vs other lenses) If I want a scenic night shot then I would balance the camera on a bench, or wall, or use my tiny 4 inch mini tripod, use self timer and ISO 200 and get fantastic timed shots at F4 etc.

So even though I have the F1 Noct, and some other fast ones, I keep coming back to the tiny summarits for travel. However I do like focusing the 50 Summicron better than the Summarit because the ring is easier for me on the cron.

Dave
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I'd like to know that also.

I find that I use my 35/1.4 ASPH for the f/1.4 more than I ever did the 50/1.4 ... probably more due to needing the fast aperture indoors in limited space and lower light ... and especially when walking about with just one lens at night.

Anyone use the Zeiss 50/2 Planar ... I'm not adverse to going Zeiss for a 50mm. Focus shift issues? Other?

-Marc
I have a 50 ZM . It signature is high contrast and superb resolution ...I think it has higher contrast than the 50 1.4asph but I never did a side by side .

I found it particularly effective for black and white on overcast days like europe in the winter . I think its a decent match with the 35 1.4 lux asph in that they both render with high edge contrast . In color it has the typical zeiss look of deep blues,blacks .

Under rated lens compared to the more prevalent Leica versions .
 

jonoslack

Active member
Okay, so I'm handicapped ... stop yelling at me to get up out of the wheelchair and play soccer with you :ROTFL:

-Marc
:) Okay - so I'll stop yelling . . . but I'm not dropping the point - night vision and old sight is an interesting and complex subject. I suffer (and benefit) from considerable night myopia.

However, if a dioptre is of benefit to you, I'm not sure why a targeted contact lens might not be as well.

Of course, if you've found an optometrist who is up on this subject, and who has written you off as a wheelchair case, then I'll rest my case.

I was talking to mine the week before last when I had my 3 month checkup, and he was saying that in a very high proportion of people who said it didn't work, it was a function of not getting the right advice (he said that he, like all opticians, much preferred selling spectacles to contact lenses). He has quite a lot of clients who just wear one contact lens - effectively a reading lens.

This is my religion - because it's changed the way I work so radically (to be honest it's rather changed my life) - I found it difficult to get used to, but now, sitting in a dark room with my 17"mbp and being able to read this small print without glasses . . . and also focus my Noctilux without glasses . . I get kind of evangelical about it!
 

quadtones

Member
Slightly OT, I, too, tried the contact lens route, and while I understand Jono's POV, it never really worked for me. More recently, the problem of developing early cataracts [began to lose contrast, and very sensitive to glare] "solved" the problem of focus and frameline visualizaton for me. I was very myopic originally, but after talking with the ophthalmologist, when she replaced the lenses in both my eyes, the correction was slightly different in my left [dominant] eye, allowing me to now get by without reading glasses, and leaving me with good enough binocular distant vision to manage without glasses, especially during the day. She also explained to me that a lot of high myopes don't do well if corrected back to 20/20, as they then [at my age] have to wear glasses for anything within a few feet, after a lifetime of working close. I can also now work at my computer without my glasses, and focus my 75 Summicron consistently. Wouldn't recommend that sort of surgery, obviously, unless one already needed it, but it was a nice bonus.

As for traveling light, M9 + v4 35mm Summicron during the day, v1 35mm Nokton at night.

By the way, while I never knew my color vision had changed, the difference with new, neutral, clear lens replacements is amazing!
 

Double Negative

Not Available
It's funny; I'm used to schlepping around 25lbs. of DSLR kit... So even fast RF lenses don't bother me, as it could (and used to be) a lot worse. Plus I'm a sucker for fast glass.
 
Top