What M-Lenses Are "Must Have"?

[FrankS]

I did. I'm jsut not going to debate/argue with anyone about their personal opinion on this.

 

[ferider]

I find this thread particularly interesting when correlated with this poll:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=938

 

[semilog]

One could argue that if you absolutely MUST use a 21 1.4 or a 50 0.95 these are the only ones. The rest you can work around or compromise with other brands (or choose them on their merits) and still produce the best work the world has ever seen!

OK, sure.

But if you absolutely MUST use a 50/0.7, it's not going to be a Leica.

 

[helen.HH]

3rd version 50 summicron....A Modern Edge, Beautifully Sharp with a slight retro 'FEEL' to it...exceptional to my EYE for B&W & creamy bokeh

21 3.4 SA ( though I have never tried the 21/4 version) ...A Character all its own,Center Sharpness & its Unique way of Drawing in the Light

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I find this thread particularly interesting when correlated with this poll:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=938

These two polls mean three things:

Even if I prefer my small CV lenses, I think with Leica lenses I could get good results too... (But there's no small 15, etc...)

Leica only users think with other brands or lenses they could get good results too...

Gear is fun, and we all like to try several lenses, and we end up developing affection towards a few of them for different personal reasons... Small size is in the top of the list to me, because I consider most lenses have great image quality...

It's a matter of time: we'll see here a list of near all available lenses for M mount cameras, and it's fair: all of them are great.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[coelacanth]

I find this thread particularly interesting when correlated with this poll:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=938

That is interesting. And I chose Elmar-M 50/2.8 because its size fits my work flow and let me capture the shot I want. I like how the lens renders, but I wouldn't choose this lens if it wasn't as compact yet intuitive to use (I know many people don't like the ergonomics, but I'm not one of them) because if I can't carry it as often and in the way I want, I wouldn't be able to take the shot I want.

 

[Richard G]

35 Summicron IV: size and the tab focus. And the great negs.
50 Summicron tabbed: see above.
50 ZM 1.5 C Sonnar: the image character, and the size.
25 ZM 2.8 Biogon: wide, easy, sharp, straight and cheap - compared to a 24mm Leica.

 

[tim_n]

3rd version 50 summicron....A Modern Edge, Beautifully Sharp with a slight retro 'FEEL' to it...exceptional to my EYE for B&W & creamy bokeh

21 3.4 SA ( though I have never tried the 21/4 version) ...A Character all its own,Center Sharpness & its Unique way of Drawing in the Light

Wow, these same two lenses are the magic ones for me, too. The lens that I rely on for my normal vision of any subject is the 35 Summicron IV; it renders beautifully and naturally, to my eyes. It says: I was there and this is what I saw from my perspective. However, the 21 SA and the 50 Summicron are the ones that do something special for me in their rendering of space, texture and color, with special perspectives. I have other lenses, but these 3 really make the Leica system work for me, and delight my eyes. If I lost all my lenses, I'd first replace the 35, then the 21 SA and 50/2.

 

[Debusti Paolo]

35 mm summilux ASPH II
50 mm noctilux
75 mm summilux
this is the must have

 

[Turtle]

35 mm summilux ASPH II
50 mm noctilux
75 mm summilux
this is the must have

I manage just fine without any of these ..... so how can they be 'must have lenses?'

 

[sebastel]

I manage just fine without any of these ..... so how can they be 'must have lenses?'

actually, you do NOT manage fine. (how could you?)
you just did not notice yet.

 

[Roger Hicks]

35 mm summilux ASPH II
50 mm noctilux
75 mm summilux
this is the must have

- all inconveniently large. The 75 Summilux I REALLY have no desire to own (and I've tried it). I might consider replacing my existing 35 Summilux with the new one, but I'm not betting on it. Previous aspherics, no, I just prefer my pre-aspheric, especially on film. And Noctilux? Yes, I'd love one, but it's a very specialized lens and would not (I think) have been a lot more use than my Sonnar for the pics I took a few hours ago at a concert: focusing at all was the trick, and an extra stop would just have meant EVEN LESS depth of field.I am of that old school which says that fast lenses are for low light, not for playing silly buggers with no depth of field in good light. Again, I've tried it (for a year).

Cheers,

R.