JonPB wrote:
I find myself in a quandary, and its name is "50mm."
This might not be the right place, but, so far, you folks are the closest I've found to "my people" in a photographic sense. So. Thanks for bearing with me. :-)
The tl;dr is that I'd appreciate anyone's and everyone's thoughts and recommendations for a 50mm M-mount lens. Please send me a PM if you don't want to post for everyone to read, even if that's just a link to your social media page because you've got lots of 50mm images there. Or post anything you think is appropriate, even if that's an encouragement to take the question somewhere else.
I realize the 50mm debate has been hashed out way too many times before, so pointers to good discussions are entirely welcome. I geek out over data as much as lenses, so geeking out over data about lenses is doubly delicious. But I've searched and read and reviewed the internet's wisdom and pixel-peeped to excess, and I'm still not convinced that any particular direction is the right way to go. The discussions I've found have been dominated by folks saying, "here's what works best for me," not "here's why it works best for me" or "here's why I think it would work best for you." I'm hoping to learn about how lenses draw, and apply that to my desires, rather than just conduct a popularity test.
Background: I've never much gotten on with 50mm. I've never found the range between 36mm and 84mm to be inspiring. But, over the past few months, I have gotten into printing, which I now love -- Epson 3880 with Piezography carbon, but still exploring papers -- and I really like the letter-size format because it encourages hand-holding and sharing ... and it is cheap enough to print one off just to see what happens. Printing is now the end result of my photography. The thing is that I feel like wider lenses, my current domain of preference, prefer rather larger prints. Smallish prints squish up the central subjects too much when printed at ten inches wide; a wide lens, it seems, implies a large print. This is especially so with 21mm and somewhat so with 35mm, while 90mm is too flat, so I'm thinking that 50mm would be about right. And I'm willing to commit to learning a new lens to make the prints sing the way I want them to.
I've even looked at medium format cameras to get it right. American (?) paper sizing works well for 3:4 format, and a 645D isn't entirely out of reach ... but neither is shooting one the same as shooting a Leica. And it wouldn't get me around the magnification problem. So, 50mm on the rangefinder format I've come to enjoy seems like the best bet.
But the 50mm M-mount world is a (glorious, beautiful) mess. To be brief: if I want any of them, I want all of them. From Canon's LTM offerings to the Leica's APO and Noctilux charm, they entice me. Financially, I doubt I'll be able to justify the high end, like the APO, but I'm open to arguments in favor of Leica's greatest, just as I'm open to adapting a $20 plastic fantastic if the results are there. I'm currently taking a self-supported sabbatical, so a good lens would help me make the most of my time-off goals, but an expensive lens would shorten the duration of my time off. Priorities, priorities. :-)
My four top prospects are the 50/2.8 Elmar-M, 50/1.4 Summilux versions one and two, and 50/2.x Summarit. The modern Summarits are exceptionally crisp and clean, but don't kindle passion. The modern Elmar-M seems like it might have a richness to it like my Elmarit 21 Asph, which would be utterly delightful, but I'm not quite convinced that I see what I see rather than I see what I want to see. The v.2 Summilux has tons of field curvature, which I think might invoke what I like from my Summilux 35 FLE, but I haven't seen it vary from f-stop to f-stop. The v.1 Summilux is, apparently, also bewitched by field curvature, but with more of an emphasis on resolution and chromatic correction, which didn't serve it back in the day but which might be preferable to my tastes on high density digital sensors. A fifth option is the Summilux 50 Asph, which I understand has a lot of the traits of my beloved 35 FLE, but my sense is the results are softened and ... excellent but bland, if that makes sense, and I'd prefer rough but interesting, if that makes sense. Anyhow, if you shoot any of these lenses on a Leica digital body and would be willing to share a few DNGs with me, please get in touch.
Then there's an entire fleet of Voigtlanders that appear to have distinct and appealing characteristics, not to mention early Leica, Nikon, and Canon LTM lenses. I've basically written off modern ZM lenses because they operate with 1/3 stop apertures, but that's more because there are too many good lenses to choose from than because 1/3-stop would really bug me.
As for my style: I shoot static subjects almost exclusively, primarily from 2m from infinity, and with a mix from wide-open to f/11.
So. I'm pretty well determined to make a choice in the near future. I'd appreciate anyone's comments and/or suggestions, even if that's "if 50mm doesn't do it for you, stick with what you know you like."
Many thanks!
---------------------------------------------
That's glass-half-empty thinking, Edward. I suggest seeing an M8 with a failed LCD as an M8-D. ;-)
Seriously, though, I've been constantly impressed how durable most electronics are. I think they seem fragile because, when they go, it is in a surprising puff of smoke. But, we remember those moments far better than we remember all those discarded devices in our drawers that would still turn on and work as well as ever if they had good batteries ... and Leica is still making batteries for the M8/M9, so even if old ones don't charge, it is an (absurd) $160 away to a fresh start.
Personally, I wouldn't shy away from an M8 for its age, assuming the seller was willing to accept a return for a malfunctioning device and I was willing to put the camera through its paces within that return period.
---------------------------------------------
I'd be very curious to hear your subjective and observational remarks of a SL/SL50, MD/APO50, A7/Z50 three-way comparison. Personally, I find that being engaged with the device -- optical finder & manual operation -- leads to me being more emotionally engaged in the act of photography, which leads to better final images ... and is more fun, to boot. Of course, I'm not a working photographer, so that basis is completely separate, but since you're passionate about the art, craft, and tools of it -- in addition to being a pro -- I'd enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter. Even if you don't throw the M into the mix, I'd appreciate it if you post your thoughts to your blog and mention that here when you do.
If it matters, the real killer for me in any lens is longitudinal chromatic aberration. If a clear wine glass in bright, white light shows up in an out-of-focus, greyish background with bright green edges, personally, that ruins the entire image for me. Most people don't care. But I sold an entire system to get away from it. So that's the first thing I look for in lens/system reviews. :-)
Oh, and your wife's commentary is delightful and directive. Even if it is just an addendum that says, in effect, "I've never touched it, but it seemed to make Adam miserable," or "...it made my husband grin, swear, and then smile again," that could be useful, not just for those deciding which way to go but also for those trying to convince their own significant others that buying such a thing would not be entirely insane. After all, if I'm on the fence and the lady isn't sure about it, then I might as well not worry and just move on to the next thing. So. Your lady's insight would also be of interest.
---------------------------------------------
Distortion. That's ultimately why I went for the Summilux over the Summicron. The Summicron is eminently flat until the corners, where there's a bit of pincushion; the Summilux has a gentle bit of barrel until the edges, where it evens out a bit, looking like pincushion. I strongly prefer barrel distortion in wide angle lenses because, while lines are bent, areas -- like faces -- look more natural. Others, particularly those that shoot with a lot of buildings as subject or background, might strongly prefer the Summicron.
Here is a comparison of bokeh for the "modern" Leica 35's. Just look at the f/5.6 samples at 3m to see distortion (but the bokeh test might also be interesting).
Thanks, all. The photos here are always inspiring.
Cheers,
Jon...Show more →edwardkaraa wroteIndeed there are many cheap M8 around, even in mint condition here in Bangkok, but I don't think it's worth it to get one even with the great b/w conversions. The electronics must be at the end of their life, starting with the LCD.adamdewilde wroteHaven't had much time for "fun" photography. ... The reason I've even been shooting with the SL at all lately (in my spare time) is that I'm testing the 50SL again (production copy/my own copy) and I'm curious if there is anything any of you want to see specifically?AbramG wroteIf one is only shooting film and debating between a 35 Summicron ASPH and the 35 Summilux ASPH (the Pre-FLE version), what would make you swing one way over the other. I'm weighing the pros and cons and I keep arriving at a stalemate more or less.Earlier quoteEveryone posted: <great photos>
There is only one lens for you: 50mm Pre Asph Summilux E46.
Of course we always have some pretty days and soft snow at times. But the great winter of 16/17 has been one storm after the next with no more than 5 days break from early December until now. No one has seen anything like it. These shots are just today! Pinch me
The swastika is part of a pictographic writing system. It's been used in many cultures/religions dating back to early civilisations. Buddhism for example since this picture was taken in Thailand. However, in this particular situation the shirt is a nod to Hitler propaganda due to the fact that it's seated in a while circle over red.
I suspect he wears it in the Buddhist sense (or he thinks it looks cool). Not realising the colour implications. But who knows people these days are all sorts of crazy.