I've recently made the decision to purchase my first Leica M camera. I'm going for a used M6 classic, chrome. The body was hardly ever used it looks like.

Anyway, I want to buy a new lens for it -- and probably my only lens for awhile (pretty pricey). I normally shoot with a Nikon F100 and the lenses I use are 28, 50, 85 f/1.4 lenses and a 135 f/2. I figure my M6 ought to be just as fast.

So, the question is: which is the sharper lens -- 50 f/2 or 50 f/1.4? And is either one of them sharper than the 35 f/2?

I shoot a lot of low-light and ambient light photography. Plenty of dance and theater. I'm willing to get the faster lens as long as I don't sacrifice sharpness and contrast. I know with a rangefinder, I can handhold slower shutter speeds than with my F100 (I've borrowed a friends M3 for several days and I've rented an M6 TTL for a weekend).

Any advice? Thanks in advance.

-- v. virtucio (danzfotog@yahoo.com), August 20, 2001

Answers

The 50mm Summicron is a classic and has been a benchmark for all 50s for many years. The 50 'lux is good too and, if you need the stop, well worth it, but perhaps less good from f2-f4 than the 'cron. The new 50mm R 'lux is better, so there is "room for improvement" for the M version. I bet it is still pretty good though and very useable.

I have not compared the two 50s with the 35mm so others will no doubt chip in here. I might expect the Summilux ASPH to trail the 50mm 'cron by some measure, but on the other hand I might be wrong here.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 20, 2001.

My advice would be to get the 35/1.4ASPH if you contemplate doing most of your shooting wide open. It's got the most DOF at the wide apertures (remember, you're going to have to rely on experience and imagination to keep track of it with the M6)and it's the best- corrected of the fast M lenses. Next up I'd suggest the 90AA, once you get used to the M6. In a theater setting what you can't get with the 35 you'll need the 90 for.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 20, 2001.

I shoot a lot of low-light and ambient light photography

My tip would be to think of getting the HM (0.85) version of the M6 if you want to work with lenses wide open - the DOF at f1.4 can at times be a little narrow for a standard (0.72) finder to handle.

As to sharpness, try not to worry about it so much! Hand-held at slow s/speeds, there's practically no difference between the Summicron or Summilux! One area where there could be a problem with your kind of shooting though is with lens flare, and here the Summicron copes (marginally) better.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), August 20, 2001.

>I shoot a lot of low-light and ambient light photography. Plenty of dance and theater.<

IMO, the current version 50 'Cron is only slightly sharper than the current version 50 'Lux at f2.8 and f4. They are essentially the same at f2, and of course the 'Lux is better at f1.4. Given your above statement, I'd go for the 'Lux over the 'Cron for the extra stop. Again IMO, the 35asph 'Lux or 'Cron is actually a sharper lens than either 50, but again, given your statement above, I'd opt for the extra stop of the 'Lux. I'd second Jay's vote for the 90SAA as your second lens with your theater shooting in mind - It will be perfect. 35A 'Lux/90SAA sounds like a great lens pair for theater.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 20, 2001.

Just another opinion:

I have the f/1.4 versions of the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm Nikkors, and enjoy the benefit of the brighter finder even while shooting stopped down.

On my Leicas, the fastest lenses I have are only f/2.0, the 35mm and 50mm Summicrons. I have never had a flash on my M6, and probably never will. The wide open image quality of the Summicrons are very good, and while there could be an argument for the advantage of one extra stop, I'll use faster film instead. I often toy with the idea of a Noctilux, not so much for low light, but the effect of f/1.0... just to create unique images. These days, a film speed difference of one stop is not a big deal as far as image quality. Take your choice... very sharp / slightly grainy or pretty sharp / smooth grain.

If you are like many of the Leica people here, I would bet that no matter what you decide, within a year, you will have both the 35mm and 50mm lens for the M6. I might never carry both at once, but I would never give up one over the other. These two focal lengths make the M6 classic sing!

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 20, 2001.

My tip would be to think of getting the HM (0.85) version of the M6 if you want to work with lenses wide open - the DOF at f1.4 can at times be a little narrow for a standard (0.72) finder to handle

I've always been confused by this. the .85 M6 is a relatively late model M, so obviously people were shooting with these lenses on the .72 M6 and previous versions.

So were out-of-focus images wide open a fact of life in pre-.85 days? This is coming from a relatively new .72 M6 user.

-- JM Woo (wooismyid@yahoo.com), August 20, 2001.

I've always been confused by this. the .85 M6 is a relatively late model M, so obviously people were shooting with these lenses on the .72 M6 and previous versions

At distances over 5m, of course it isn't much of a problem. But at 3m wide open with a 75mm Summilux, a 0.72 finder is pushing it!

In the days before the HM model, wide-open-in-close guys used to use the M3, or a small bunch of maniacs even coughed up the kilo-dollars for a M6J!

It is because of this demand that Leica released the M6 HM model.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), August 20, 2001.

Okay. I thought I did a heckuva lot of research before making the decision to buy a Leica M6. I even figured for what I did, the .72 model would be just fine because it covered the range of lenses I mostly work in. Very rarely to I need wider than 28mm or longer than 135mm.

Now, there seems to be some discussion regarding focusing with the lens wide-open on a .72 body. Am I understanding it correctly that when a lens is wide-open (in my case f/2 or f/1.4) not all of the image will fit in my .72 viewfinder.

Like my original post indicates, I'm happy with a 50 f/1.4 or f/2 wide-open on a used M6 classic. I hope shooting wide open doesn't mean I have to buy a .85 body. I already bought the used .72.

-- v. virtucio (danzfotog@yahoo.com), August 20, 2001.

V,

The basic theory is that since the rangefinder uses triangulation to determine distance, the longer the rangefinder base, the more accurate the rangefinder. Each finder magnification changes the apparent rangefinder base since it is determined by a formula that takes the actual physical length and the magnification into account.

If you are a glutton for too much information, check out the following site for a lesson on rangefinder accuracy when comparing the many factors... base length, lens focal length, lens speed. The basic premise is that wider angle and slower lenses can make due with relatively short base lengths due to greater depth of field. Conversely, longer, faster lenses need a longer base length due to less DOF.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/rfaccuracy.html

Personally, I have been using the .72 M6 classic and the .75 M2 for years, and never had any problem focusing any of my lenses up to the worst case 90mm f/2.0 wide open.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 20, 2001.

>Am I understanding it correctly that when a lens is wide-open (in my case f/2 or f/1.4) not all of the image will fit in my .72 viewfinder.<

V: I don't think you're understanding it correctly, but there are multiple issues involved here. First off, Andrew was suggesting a .85x body, because it offers a longer effective RF baselength, and ostensably you gain focussing accuracy as the baselength increases. This becomes more important at closer distances. However, I regularly use my 50 'Lux, 35 'Lux and 90SAA wide open on my .72x body without problems. I used to own a Noct, and used it wide open without serious deficiency. In fact, I would probably never opt for the .85x body because of its hard-to-see 35 framelines, but I have heard that the 75 'Lux is the one exception where the .85x body helps with close- range focusing when wide open. A separate issue is how accurate the framelines are in outlining the actual image area of the lens in use relative to the distance focused at, and how this varies with finder magnification. Simply stated, the framelines are only accurate at one distance - about 3 meters if I remeber correctly - and are slightly off at other distances.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 20, 2001.

Why does a mindless pursuit of sharpness and contrast always equate with "better"? For me, the 50mm f/2 Summitar is the 'best' of the Leica 50's because it has the ideal balance of resolution and softness.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), August 20, 2001.

Peter:

With all due respect, the author of this question did not ask our opinion of which lens is better, he specifically asked which is sharper. So, I for one, have given my answer to that end. If you would like to initiate discussions on which lens is better, may I suggest you simply post a query so stating? You might even garner a few other votes for the very pleasant images the Summitar produces!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 20, 2001.

I have no doubt that the higher magnifcation finder produce more accurate focusing measurements. However, I think the differences are rather small in a practicle sense. I have shot a 50/2 Summicron at f2 and in the 1-2 meter range with an 0.58 finder M6 for hundreds of images now. I have never looked at one and thought "Gee, I missed the focus point".

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), August 20, 2001.

V: The model you bought is fine for your needs. The 0.72 finder is the right one to span the group of focal lengths you mentioned. It has the built-in finder frames for 28mm-135mm inclusive. You can duplicate the apertures you've been using ay several focal lengths, perhaps substituting 75mm for 85 if you really need f/1.4 there. There's no 135mm f/2, but you can get a 135 f/2.8 which even has an optical unit that will give your 0.72 finder as much accuracy as a 0.85, when using this lens. The good news is, it's an excellent lens which sells used at a very reasonable price. It's the 135 Elmarit. The fastest 28 is an f/2, but it's supposed to be such a hot performer, it's worth giving up a stop, since it's dead sharp at f/2. Good luck!

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 20, 2001.

I think that the 35 ASPH cron is sharper than the 50 cron, but it's close. The .72 finder offers a good field of view with either of these two lenses. If I were 'in your shoes' I would choose the .72 finder and the 35/2 ASPH. The 35/1.4 ASPH is reputed to be as sharp as the 35/2 ASPH but is one heck of a lot dearer.

-- Sam Smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), August 21, 2001.

Lenses:

If you prefer shooting w ith a

50 a

n

d

t hat one s top between f/2 and f/1.4 i s essential t o you r p hot ogr aphy, go with the 'Lux f/1.4. I've n ever found that one stop all tha t critical, and I like the imaging qualiti es of th e 'Cr o n f/ 2 len s a lot more, a nd yo

u sa v e a bunch of money with it.

Simila rly f o

r the 35 mm l en ses. I have the 'Cron 35/2 and love the im a ges it m a

k es . If

you have a need fo r the faster lens, sure ... go for i t .

Choos in

g betwee n 35 and 5 0 as you r pr i ma ry lens is s omething y ou'll have to decide. Ei ther i s a goo d

choice. I chos e the 35 a

n d bought a 5 0 later. Gla d I did ... I st ill s hoot 70% of th e time with the 35.

I don't under stand all the h

orse pucky ab out "ne e ding" the . 85x ma g find er that's be

en in this thre ad. I 've used f/1. 4 lenses wide

open at clos e focus ra nges w ith my .72 x b odi es and ne

ver on c e had a misf ocused i ma g e. Pic k the body

for t h e magnif ication t hat s uits your eyes a n d the lens e s yo u' ll m ore likly use best. I

fin d t he 35m m fr a meli nes on a .85x bod y ar e "mostly useles s " (like the 28mm fr amel ines on the .72x body) and prefer the .72x body because o f tha t. I would choose t he .7 2x body over eit he r .58 and .85 bodies fo r 35-90mm lenses anytimme .

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 21, 2001.

Lenses:

If you prefer shooting w ith a 50 and that one stop between f/2 and f/1.4 i s essential t o your photography, go with the 'Lux f/1.4. I've n ever found that one stop all that critical, and I like the imaging qualities of the 'Cron f/2 lens a lot more, and you save a bunch of money with it.

Similarly for the 35 mm lenses. I have the 'Cron 35/2 and love the images it makes . If you have a need for the faster lens, sure ... go for i t .

Choosing between 35 and 50 as your primary lens is something you'll have to decide. Either is a good choice. I chose the 35 and bought a 50 later. Glad I did ... I still shoot 70% of the time with the 35.

Bodies:

I don't under stand all the horsepucky about "needing" the .85x mag finder that's been in this thread. I've used f/1. 4 lenses wide open at close focus ranges with my .72x bodies and never once had a misfocused image. Pick the body for the magnification that suits your eyes and the lenses you'll more likely use best. I find the 35mm framelines on a .85x bod are "mostly useless " (like the 28mm framelines on the .72x body) and prefer the .72x body because of that. I would choose the .7 2x body over either .58 and .85 bodies for 35-90mm lenses anytime.

-- Godfreyy (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 21, 2001.

How many angels can dance....?

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), August 22, 2001.