Both lenses are sold now...Don't think I'll ever need a Noctilux again, but the 28 Summilux is one I'd like to have back.
I'm very happy with the 0,95 and hope to continue to use it with the next several generation M and SL cameras if I can. I've also always been impressed with many real-world 28 Summilux images too. Something very special with the 28 as well.
I actually really enjoyed both the .95 as well as the f1. They're just too big to use how, and as much as I wanted to. On top of that, I really love the 50 Summilux-m.
For the price it can't be beat. I owned the Fuji XF TTArtisan 50 1.2 and loved it. The only drawback if it is one is that it's very heavy for it's size...
Jonathan - This is the tonality that I really like in B&W! BTW, in zone focusing you mean that you took a Zone V reading of the pavement, or a Zone VI reading of your palm, or something more complicated than that?
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org
Matt Kerby wrote:
I actually really enjoyed both the .95 as well as the f1. They're just too big to use how, and as much as I wanted to. On top of that, I really love the 50 Summilux-m.
Too many goodies is a good thing
I don't we are alone in owning/owned a few 50's. The 50 Lux asph is my other M 50 and also another personal favorite, so tiny, the focus tab, the built in hood and the look!
Mitch Alland wrote:
Jonathan - This is the tonality that I really like in B&W! BTW, in zone focusing you mean that you took a Zone V reading of the pavement, or a Zone VI reading of your palm, or something more complicated than that?
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org
Mitch, by zone focusing I meant that, rather than using the rangefinder to achieve accurate focus on a subject, one uses depth of field to achieve a “zone” of acceptable focus. I’m sure you’re familiar with the technique, perhaps under a different name.
For those two pictures I set the distance scale on the Summaron 35/2.8 to 8 feet and stopped down to f/8. Assuming a blur spot diameter of 30 microns (a commonly accepted value for 35mm full frame format), an app on my phone indicates that the depth of field extends from 5.5 feet to 15 feet. But, looking closely at the pictures, I’d like them to be a little sharper so on my next outing I’ll lower the blur spot diameter to 20 microns, which means that I’ll need to stop down to f/11 to get roughly the same depth of field. Purists would be complaining about diffraction with these aperture values but I believe that the loss of sharpness caused by diffraction will be offset by the extra sharpness afforded by the narrower aperture. And not having to manually focus the Leica means that one can “focus” (heheh) solely on framing the picture.
Full disclosure: a couple of months ago I also started doing street photography with a Sony A7R4 and a 35/1.4 GM lens wide open, relying on Sony’s real time tracking AF. This is pretty much the polar opposite of zone focusing and produces a totally different kind of picture. I like both approaches but using the Leica is more challenging and thus more rewarding when one gets a pleasing result.
@genji - Sorry, early morning syndrome: I read "zone focussing" as "zone system" — exposure. I often use zone focusing, particularly with 35mm and wider lenses; sometimes with 50mm lenses as well. Nevertheless, I like the tonality of the images you posted.
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org
Mitch Alland wrote:
@genji@ - Sorry, early morning syndrome: I read "zone focussing" as "zone system" — exposure. I often use zone focusing, particularly with 35mm and wider lenses; sometimes with 50mm lenses as well. Nevertheless, I like the tonality of the images you posted.
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org
Thank you for the kind words about the tonality, a great compliment since I know that it’s an issue of fundamental importance in your own work. As much as I like the results I get from the M246, I think I prefer the flexibility of the M10-P and am more than happy with the monochrome images I can make with it. So, I suspect there is an M10-R or an M11 in my future rather than an M10M.
