[Leica] 35/90 vs. 50

[Mike Johnston <70007.3477@compuserve.com>]

>>>Question-- if I can only afford two (used) lenses... what should they be?<<<

Georgette,

A 35mm and a 90mm, no question. A big Leica dealer I was chatting with the
other day told me that most of his customers have only two lenses, and they are
those two, although some professionals tend to go for the 35/1.4 ASPH. and the
75/1.4. 

However, you can save some money if you wish by purchasing the lenses
carefully. The new 35mm ASPH lenses are very nice but, as our lens guru Erwin
Puts points out, the just-discontinued 35mm Summicron is still a very fine
lens, and that's what I'd recommend to you. It makes a matchless pairing with
the camera--you can learn to set the focusing tab by feel very comfortably, and
the compactness is a delight. After I de-accessioned that camera and lens
combination a number of years ago, my hands "remembered"--and missed--the feel
of that combination for a long time; I even dreamed about how it felt to
operate it, although let's not dwell too long on what that says about me. <s>
You can buy very nice used 35/2's for under $1K, sometimes well under.

As far as the 90 is concerned, the new f/2.8 Elmarit is a very fine lens, which
one of my photographer contributors and fellow lens-nuts tells me is "without
flaws." But you can buy an older Tele-Elmarit for less, and, if you can stand
the loss of speed, a 90mm f/4 Elmar-C or Minolta M-Rokkor (same lens, both
built for the CL and CLE compact cameras of a decade and a half ago) are very
sharp lenses and shouldn't run you more than $375-475. If you're REALLY pressed
for funds, consider a Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 lens as your wide lens. It
brings up the 50mm framelines in the M6, which takes some getting used to, but
it is a very fine little lens--one of my personal favorites, as clear as cold
water and optically very fine. And a minty sample will cost you no more than
$275.

The one place I recommend you not skimp is in the camera--the M6 with its meter
is the one to have. Accept no substitutes. Good luck!


And hey, to Duane Birkey--to each his own! I _loathe_ zooms, and consider them
virtual insurance against developing a photographic eye. As for whether it's
"nuts" to photograph with a 50mm lens exclusively, I recall sitting in Magnum's
New York offices in front of a shelf of Cartier-Bresson's contact-sheet books.
They filled up many running feet of shelf space, and virtually all of it was
shot with a collapsible 50mm Summicron--I mean you could practically count the
exceptions on your fingers. For all I know, you may do well enough with
multiple focal lengths, and I'm sure there exist many photographers who are
enabled by the freedom of using unlimited focal lengths. Me, I like to learn to
see like the lens sees, then pluck pictures out of whatever visual panoply I'm
presented with. As to whether I can actually _carry out_ this exercise and
restrict myself to a 50mm exclusively remains to be seen; I'm very fond of
35mms and I do like portrait lenses as well. Traditionally, I've used the same
pair of lenses I'm recommending to Georgette. But that it can be done--and that
it's indisputably _not_ "nuts"--is something I'm sure of. We all see
differently, and, really, to each his own.

And you might not like my pictures, either! Good thing you don't have to. Happy
shooting and good negs,

- --Mike