35mm Lens options for Leica-M

[brian steinberger]

Shooting it is nice. I'm still getting used to the arrows for metering in the VF. I'm used to aperture priority mode in my other RF's. But the build quality is amazing, and the shutter is nice and smooth. I still have yet to develop any film yet.

[davela]

I'll go so far as saying there are not any bad Leica OR Zeiss lenses made for the M - in fact no "bad" Voigtlander lenses either! The main difference is that the late model Leica and Zeiss lenses will maintain a ridiculously high degree of sharpness wide open, whereas the earlier ones will not be quite as sharp wide open (but certainly darn good compared to the general field of 35mm lenses). And yes the aspherically surfaced Leica's deliver that wee bit of extra performance for the most demanding among us (and wealthiest!).

[Mark Crabtree]

Shooting it is nice. I'm still getting used to the arrows for metering in the VF. I'm used to aperture priority mode in my other RF's. But the build quality is amazing, and the shutter is nice and smooth. I still have yet to develop any film yet.

Coming from Auto, it won't take long for you to get the hang of manual exposure. For most situations you only need to meter once. Auto and the manual meter indicators move around a lot in response to slight changes in the reflectivity of the subject. If the light hasn't changed, or your subject hasn't moved into radically different light, then you don't need to change the exposure. Matching the arrows for each shot will not improve the exposure.


My apologies if you already know that and it seems too basic, but it is not always obvious when moving from auto exposure. I am speaking about negatives. The issue is similar, but the decision making is somewhat different for slides (need to make sure the highs don't blow out).

[Michael Erb]

I'm in the same predicament as the original owner of this thread. To buy the 2.8 or 2.0 Zeiss biogon. I'm wondering Brian how you feel about the size of the faster lens now that you have been using it a while? I want the F/2 but I'm worried about the size of it. I will be using the lens on a Voigtlander R2A.

[Missi]

great combo! i dont have a 35 mm, but a 28 mm, all great lenses.

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I prefer a Leitz lens which is a result of hand calculation optimization not computer. An Genius sits on a table and works 10 hours a day for 2 or more years and when working with mathematics , he develops new mathematical view angles , formulas.
An computer can generate a lens but it cant generate itselves rules. Why Leica expensive , because they developed all better chemistry, mathematics , physics by themselves , they did not buy a 40 dollar research article , carry in to software and than generate the lenses as much as good as article.

Dont forget , older 60 years old Leitz lenses have two times more resolution at the corner than latest Summicron. Bokeh is not important , texture , degrades and colors are important. You cant get same color with canada leicas. I really hate everything about latest Leica images.

Dont waste your hard earned money to tourist traps , buy a IIF with Summar , no other lens can beat it.

Umut

[janrzm]

I have the 35 Cron Asph which I fully intended to sell when I bought the new 35 Lux, but I just have not been able to do it yet......I have no experience of the other Leica 35mm lenses so can only say that the Asph is an amazing lens but costly. I have several VC lenses which I hold in high regard, you should seriously consider the VC Nokton 35 f/1.2, faster and a lot less strain on the pocket. I know you said 35mm but the 40mm VC Nokton f/1.4 is a lens I can never quite put out of my mind.....

[peter_n]

I have the 35 Cron Asph which I fully intended to sell when I bought the new 35 Lux, but I just have not been able to do it yet...

Well the OP has already purchased his Biogon so that is done. However your post did remind me that I used to have the 35 Summilux ASPH and then got a 35 Summicron ASPH. Nine months later I sold the Summilux and bought a v.1 Summicron (8 element) which I like just as much as the ASPH but for different reasons. We are all different.

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I prefer a Leitz lens which is a result of hand calculation optimization not computer. An Genius sits on a table and works 10 hours a day for 2 or more years and when working with mathematics , he develops new mathematical view angles , formulas.
An computer can generate a lens but it cant generate itselves rules. Why Leica expensive , because they developed all better chemistry, mathematics , physics by themselves , they did not buy a 40 dollar research article , carry in to software and than generate the lenses as much as good as article.

Dont forget , older 60 years old Leitz lenses have two times more resolution at the corner than latest Summicron. Bokeh is not important , texture , degrades and colors are important. You cant get same color with canada leicas. I really hate everything about latest Leica images.

Dont waste your hard earned money to tourist traps , buy a IIF with Summar , no other lens can beat it.

Umut

While some lens designers may well have been geniuses, the ones working for companies had many slav... er, assistants (mostly women) working all day doing the routine calculations for them. Not really different from a computer, just much slower.

60 years ago, Zeiss lenses were almost always better than Leica's (possible exception being the Elmar).
Given the same design, the made in Canada lenses were just as good as the made in Germany ones.
That a Summar is unbeatable is a statement which lies far, far (far!) in the realm of taste.

Whew...

[cmo]

I have the Zeiss 2/35 since a few weeks. Great lens, tacksharp, very good mechanics, and it's better at backlight shots than any other lens I ever used - it seems to be unable to produce flare or ghosts, and I am a backlight addict. The only downside is that it's a bit bigger than a Leica 2/35.