Re: [Leica] Lens choice--sole lens for M6

["Mike Durling" <durling@widomaker.com>]

I dunno B.D. I don't think the 35-50 question can be answered by anyone but
the individual photographer.  I get a lot better compositions with the 50
than the 35, but that's just me.  The 35 is a close second.  When I bought
my first Leica 20+ years ago I only got the 35, but didn't really appreciate
the camera until I bought the 50.  I will admit that the beautiful big wide
35mm viewfinder image on an M is awfully seductive.

Julian needs to decide which focal length HE likes, especially since he
knows what he wants to do with the camera.

Mike D

- -----Original Message-----
From: B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 4:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Lens choice--sole lens for M6


>Sorry, Julian...I missed the original post and just jumped into what seemed
>to be the usual "which is best" thread..:-)
>
>Now for an attempt at a real answer to a real question...Both the pre-asph
>Summicron 35 and the Summicron 50 are terrific lenses. And, frankly, were
it
>not for Erwin's lab tests and the availability of the ASPHs, we'd all still
>probably think they were the world's best...So then the question is, which
>focal length will you be happiest with? If it were me, I'd go for the 35,
>which I find to be less limiting than the 50. The 35 allows me to get
>relatively close to a subject and yet still include some of the subject's
>environment. At the same time, if I need to, I can get just about as tight
>with the 35 as I can with the 50. The 50 is a neat lens, but as someone, I
>think Michael Hintlian, observed a while back, when you really nail it with
>a 50, you get a superb photo...but the percentage of getting that kind of
>shots is lower than it would be with a 35.
>
>So go for the 35...And don't forget, it's also a minute lens, which,
>combined with an M, makes a pocketable lens/body combination.
>
>B. D.
>