Lens advice for mixed M8/35mm outfit or upgrade to M9

[Chuck Jones]

Good choice on the 28mm. I shot my 28 'Cron a lot on my M8 & M9 both. Next you want to try a 21mm. It makes a far better match focal length wise with the 28mm than the 24mm does. The 24mm is just too close in my experience.

 

[RS]

Thanks for asking the question OP
Personally, I just bought a VC 28mm f1.9 for my m8 2 days ago off the world's biggest auction site and am waiting for delivery. I will stay in this focal length for a while to see how I like it.
I have tried the 28mm Elmarit ASPH previously and it is wonderfully small, sharp details and soft colour
I have also tried the zm 35mm f2 bigon, which gives a different draw with lots of pop in the colour.
Really can't go wrong with Leica lens and in the perfect world I would like to try all of them to see which one I like! (I am still waiting to own my first leica lens...they are pricey...this Leica hobby is an expensive hobby...)

 

[asiafish]

Yes, they are pricey

 

[lenticularis]

For you I think you've made the correct decision to keep the M8 since you take 90% B&W.

Apologies in advance for the long post, but here's my own M8...M9 experience.

I recently sold my nearly-mint ( I was the 2nd owner) M8 at a 20% profit, to buy an M9. I absolutely loved the M8 and also loved shooting in IR with the B+W 092 filter noted in another post.

My M9 was bought at a suitably low price, with an 'unrecognised SD card' error following firmware upgrade, so I haven't been able to try it yet, but I suspect that I've been subject to a GAS attack rather than any logical decision about how much 'extra performance' I really need (as an amateur). A non-functional SD card reader is actually a very expensive fault, as it transpires that the card reader is on the mainboard that also contains the sensor and rear LCD screen. Leica have stated that they will repair my M9 under goodwill and this is a fantastic example of their good sales support (I am the 3rd reported owner and the camera was outside warranty).

I own a 5D Mk III and many alt lenses, and this investment prevented me keeping the M8 as well as seeking an M9, as my RF experience since last Dec has been so good with the M8.

I used the following lenses on my M8, in order of purchase: CV 35/1.4 Nokton, Jupiter-8 (Zeiss 50/2 copy), later also buying 2nd hand Summicron 50 and CV 90/3.5 APO lenses.

I also have a fine Contax G 45/2 that I had converted to Leica M (lives up to its stellar reputation) and have also since bought a Canon LTM 50/1.4 and the CV21/4 with a VL 21/25 finder. Note that the 21 doesn't require a finder on the M8, however I also have an M6. The latter two lenses were bought in a brief period of deciding to hold onto the M8 and not 'upgrade' to M9 (before my GAS attack :-0 ).

 

[asiafish]

Sorry to hear about your rocky upgrade path.

I'm actually enjoying the M8.2 so much that my main issue now is deciding whether or not to get rid of the last of my NEX gear (NEX7 and Sonnar 24E) which would cover a Summarit 75 or Elmar 21.

Black and white results are so good that I might even let my M6 go and pick up a second M8.2. I find with LR5 that the M8 is useable even at max ISO for very clean 5X7 prints and decent 8X10s. What I like most is that the "noise" is pleasing, very similar to Tri-X grain.

Of course, I could save my pennies and get a Monochrom when they are obsolete in a year or three. I played with one at the Leica store in Hollywood and the (very boring) files captures in the parking lot have incredible tonality.

 

[NB23]

What I like most is that the "noise" is pleasing, very similar to Tri-X grain.

This being a forum where we try to help each other, I have to chime in and stop you right there.
You are helping nobody by comparing noise to grain, first. And by saying that the noise from a M8 is very similar to grain (why not HP5, why not Tmax100, why exactly Tri-X is beyond me) is total nonsense.
I hardcore use my darkroom on a weekly basis for years now. I was never without a darkroom in the past 20 years.

My objection to your post and service to this community is to put things straight: The M8 files have absolutely nothing to do with quality B+W imagery. Especially very far from Tri-X!

I will also venture to say that the MM is also very far from Tri-X and from any other film.

 

[asiafish]

This being a forum where we try to help each other, I have to chime in and stop you right there.
You are helping nobody by comparing noise to grain, first. And by saying that the noise from a M8 is very similar to grain (why not HP5, why not Tmax100, why exactly Tri-X is beyond me) is total nonsense.
I hardcore use my darkroom on a weekly basis for years now. I was never without a darkroom in the past 20 years.

My objection to your post and service to this community is to put things straight: The M8 files have absolutely nothing to do with quality B+W imagery. Especially very far from Tri-X!

I will also venture to say that the MM is also very far from Tri-X and from any other film.

The prints I've made have a similar look. I have them printed at a lab as I do not have a darkroom and have not for decades, but where my Sony cameras never gave me a film-like look, I feel that the M8 files get me pretty close.

If you don't like the M8 files, then don't use one.

 

[NB23]

The prints I've made have a similar look. I have them printed at a lab as I do not have a darkroom and have not for decades, but where my Sony cameras never gave me a film-like look, I feel that the M8 files get me pretty close.

If you don't like the M8 files, then don't use one.

Exactly. You haven't printed for decades and you don't seem to know (according to what you wrote and the way you sounded) what is film and Tri-x at all. And that's what worried me the most: people are searching on the internet to get the most accurate infos about a given camera and they end up reading things like this, where the M8 is a great substitute for Tri-X. It's a little bit wrong, isn't it?

I like the M8 for what they are. The fun part about the M8 is all about using the camera. The files aren't spectacular by any means. It was outdated before it actually came to market.
And I'm just not into the internet hyped Leica make-believe thing although I'm a huge fan of other things Leica (Focomats, M4s, MPs, M5s, the history, some lenses...) and so on.

 

[asiafish]

I know what film is, and know what Tri-X is. I shot tons of the stuff from the late 70s through the early 90s and have dozens of prints made from it.

I don't think the M8 duplicates Tri-X, but its noise is very grain-like, and in about the same amount as I used to see in Tri-X, hence the comparison. Other digital cameras I've owned (Sony A850, NEX7) had noise that was not at all grain-like. While the M8 still isn't film and never will be, it looks more "like" film, and I've had good luck making some ISO 640 portraits look not unlike portraits I shot 25 or 30-years-ago with Tri-X when both printed (darkroom back in the day, local shop today).

Nothing special about it looking more like Tri-X than other film, Tri-X just happens to be what I used to shoot.

As for the M8 being outdated, of course it is. It still produces great files that convert very well to black and white in Lightroom 5, which is more than my much more modern Sony NEX7 can claim.

 

[HenryFool]

I know exactly what you mean and I agree, I shot a lot of film before becoming a late adopter to digital and the M8 can indeed produce files have a 'film like' quality the likes of which I haven't seen from other digital cameras, not every M8 image - but some do, not more like film than film itself, not better than film but the some of the files have an aesthetic that is pleasing in similar way.

Back to the topic - I'd go for a Summarit 75 over an Elmar 21.

 

[asiafish]

I've heard a lot of good things about the Summarit 75, so I will probably get one. I'm taking a Leica Akademie class in November and requested a loaner 75 Summarit for the class.

 

[JohnBrew]

Asiafish, I hope you like the 75 Summarit. I'm quite taken with mine. Lightweight and very sharp.

 

[asiafish]

Asiafish, I hope you like the 75 Summarit. I'm quite taken with mine. Lightweight and very sharp.

Thats what I want, small, light and sharp. For the M8 this and the 28 Elmarit would make a great two-lens travel kit.

 

[Jeff S]

The fun part about the M8 is all about using the camera. The files aren't spectacular by any means. It was outdated before it actually came to market....
And I'm just not into the internet hyped Leica make-believe thing...

The internet myth is that one needs an M9 or Monochrom or new M for good b/w files. Nonsense. I'll take the M8 for its terrific b/w, which in my testing proved better for my print making needs and preferences than the M9. The files can be wonderful.

I've built and used 4 darkrooms spanning 30+ years, and don't compare my film versus digital prints. But I've exhibited lovely prints using my film Ms, my M8.2s, and lots of other cameras, including various formats and manufacturers. And I guarantee you that, apart from a lucky guess here or there, you'd have no idea what camera or lens was used. There are countless other variables involved. I have real life findings to demonstrate it.

Enough with your own internet myth.

Jeff

 

[NB23]

The internet myth is that one needs an M9 or Monochrom or new M for good b/w files. Nonsense. I'll take the M8 for its terrific b/w, which in my testing proved better for my print making needs and preferences than the M9. The files can be wonderful.

I've built and used 4 darkrooms spanning 30+ years, and don't compare my film versus digital prints. But I've exhibited lovely prints using my film Ms, my M8.2s, and lots of other cameras, including various formats and manufacturers. And I guarantee you that, apart from a lucky guess here or there, you'd have no idea what camera or lens was used. There are countless other variables involved. I have real life findings to demonstrate it.

Enough with your own internet myth.

Jeff

I totally agree with you: any digital camera does B&W. I have some outstanding ones from my iphone. Now will you hear me say "the iphone (or M8 or monochrom) is very close to tri-x?

Never. I would kill my whole reputation in one single second with such a lie.

 

[Jeff S]

I totally agree with you: any digital camera does B&W.

Not really my point, but never mind.

Jeff

 

[NB23]

Not really my point, but never mind.

Jeff

But I've exhibited lovely prints using my film Ms, my M8.2s, and lots of other cameras, including various formats and manufacturers. And I guarantee you that, apart from a lucky guess here or there, you'd have no idea what camera or lens was used. There are countless other variables involved. I have real life findings to demonstrate it.

Sure sounded like it.

 

[Jeff S]

Well, if we're quoting out of context....

I'll take the M8 for its terrific b/w, which in my testing proved better for my print making needs and preferences than the M9.

But you wouldn't know the difference; I would, given the workflow. And you also wouldn't be able to distinguish the Tri-X derived prints from others, other than a lucky guess, given all the myriad variables involved from camera to final displayed print. It's not about print comparison; each print stands on its own.

Your reputation? Silly notion.

Jeff

 

[NB23]

Ok so your point is that I wouldn't be able to differentiate an iphone shot from a M9 shot from a tri-x shot from a samsung shot.

 

[Jeff S]

Once again, your words, not mine.

You wouldn't be able to distinguish the prints I make, with the equipment and materials I choose, and the workflow and techniques I use. And, for me, the M8.2 gets me there more easily.

I can't speak for your or anyone else's results. That's why generalizations, particularly those based on internet myths (like your own) don't matter to me. I only care about my own experience and results, which derive from many more variables, and a lot more work than choosing a camera, or film.

Jeff