Tim Gray
Well-known
Ditto. As great as the 50/1.4 ASPH is, and no matter how much it's perfect for some situations, if I had to pick just one, it'd be the 28/2.
literiter
Well-known
I'd like to have tried all the lenses mentioned, but I haven't. I picked the 35mm f2.
Bgddy
Newbie
28-35-50 Tri-Elmar - most used lens. Followed by 90mm 2.0 Asph.
FS Vontz
Aspirer
If I could only have one Leica lens I'd get a 50/1.4 and then get CV or Zeiss in any other focal length I wanted
srichmond
Established
Having used a few, it's gotta be the 35mm. F2, 1.4 - don't mind, but the focal length on a full frame camera works best for me.
louisb
Well-known
Interesting to see the 35/1.4 is ahead of the rest. It is the lens I would choose to part with last of all (if I had to). A great lens on either a FF M-film body or cropped (like a 50/1.4) on a M8. Outrageously sharp even at f1.4
__hh
-
Summilux preasph 50mm f/1.4 II, Leica M3, TriX printed on Ilford MGIV fb.
Erik.
This is very "HCB-ish" - please take that as a compliment.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
One and only one? Has to be the 35 'lux ASPH. Shot with it for a decade and then (gulp) sold it. *whimper; the preciousssss!* Now I can't afford to replace it.
Right now it's just the 50 Summicron-M. Very close to pulling the lever on a Biogon 35/2.
The mighty ASPH (all 3 are on Kodachrome 64): [1] [2] [3].
Right now it's just the 50 Summicron-M. Very close to pulling the lever on a Biogon 35/2.
The mighty ASPH (all 3 are on Kodachrome 64): [1] [2] [3].
Last edited:
TIGRE
Serge Kruchinin
What a Beauty!!!
time
Established
Difficult question. Only one - I would have 50mm f1.4 or 35 f1.4 (or the f2)... I would end up with the 50mm f1.4 asph due to 50mm asph has no distortion and superb for portraite - the best 50mm ever. The 35mm is generally more useful, I think, but it is not as superb as 50mm asph regarding distortion and sharpness. Moreover, 50mm is what your eyes see... boring but true.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Distortion on the 35 ASPH is not bad unless you're using it for architecture, in which case it's silly to use a rangefinder. Sharpness is adequate for nearly all practical photography – unless you're one of those freaks who uses microfilm emulsions and a 15 kg tripod stabilized with sandbags. Seriously: if you need more sharpness than the 35 ASPH can deliver, you really oughta be shooting MF: you want a Mamiya 7 or an S2 or a Phase One.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Of all the lenses I own for 35mm format, the one I shoot with the most- by far- is the DR Summicron. So I guess that would be the last one I'd part with; though there are plenty of others in my stable that would make me whimper to lose.
time
Established
35mms are not bad at all - either 50mm pre-asph. I didn't say that. 50mm asph is technically/optically a little bit better. So IF I must have only one lens as asked here, I might prefer the very best 50mm lux asph.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Fair enough. 35 and 50mm certainly have different capabilities. But the Leica ASPH versions of these lenses are both so good that - given the strengths and weaknesses of the compact rangefinder platform - I simply can't imagine making the choice based on optical properties that are wholly unlikely to ever be field-relevant. The focal length difference is vastly more important. IMnsHO.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
!Steve Karr
Film tank shaker
Nice clean DR cron. What else do you need??
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8, Leica M3, Tmax400 printed on Ilford MGIV fb.
Erik.
Erik.
Last edited:
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8, Leica M3, Tmax400 printed on Ilford MGIV fb.
Erik.
Erik.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Nice shots and printing, Erik...
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Thanks, Juan!
Erik.
Erik.