KatieInTexas wrote:
Okay, tell me what you think guys. I've gone through my over-stocked inventory of lenses and think that it's time for a sell-off so that I can fund the 50 lux asph.
If I sell:
CV 28 1.9
CV 35 1.2
CV 50 1.5
CV 75 1.8
AND an entire stocked bin of MF film along with *maybe* my Bronica ETRS with 3 PE lenses (50, 75 and 105)
I should come close to being okay with getting the 50 lux asph.
I would be keeping my CV 21 1.8 and my 25mm (to use on the R4A) and already have 35mm covered by Fuji (x100). From what I've read and seen, the 50 lux is an almost necessity and I wouldn't miss the 50 or the 75 CV lenses. I'm iffy on the 35, as I really like that lens, but suppose I could purchase another 35 down the road if I wanted to. This lets me continue to shoot film in 35mm format (for which I have the R4A, two minoltas, an underwater Nikonos and tons of odd point and shoots). I haven't shot MF film in quite some time, and never really preferred it much over 35mm anyway...
Honestly, you're not shooting professionally right? What I'd suggest you do is as follows:
Get rid of everything but the M9 and 35 1.2 (you'll be hard pressed to beat it with anything as interesting) buy yourself a 50 Lux-asph (make sure it's calibrated, you won't wanna shoot with anything else after the purchase). For the odd time you're looking to shoot film you could keep your Bronica setup, or you could just get a film M body. It's honestly more economical to have one system that shares lenses. That way in the future when you have the desire you can pickup a 28 and a 90.. My choices for that would be 28 Elmarit-asph (save money, don't buy the Summicron) and if you want wider then 21/2.8 ZM. And the 90 Summarit (it gets a bad rep, as people think the tele-90 is a better value, but the summarit line won't develop haze or fog as easily (those old tele-90s can be problematic), and its cheaper/possible to fix the summarit, and the rendering is more in tune with modern aesthetics).
But yeah the 50 Lux-asph and the M9 are an amazing do it all combo!
Honestly though, it's really up to you in the end. I'm the type of person who could get by with an M + 50Lux-asph, but since I have the money sitting around I have a lot of lenses (better then keeping the cash under my mattress).. And really, it just complicates things more then anything. BUT that's because of the type of things I shoot and the way I shoot. There are tons of people on the forums here that shoot all FLs really well, and I can honestly say that these guys make good use of their gear, I'm not one of them.
And since we're on the topic of lenses... Does anyone else on here find the 35 Summilux-FLE to be a tad boring? I mean, it's a good lens, I just find it a bit more boring then the 35 Summilux-ASPH pre-fle I use to own.
Trying to figure out why... I can't seem to put my finger on it. Thoughts? Any one disagree?
adamdewilde wrote:
And since we're on the topic of lenses... Does anyone else on here find the 35 Summilux-FLE to be a tad boring? I mean, it's a good lens, I just find it a bit more boring then the 35 Summilux-ASPH pre-fle I use to own.
Trying to figure out why... I can't seem to put my finger on it. Thoughts? Any one disagree?
I have not owned either, but I when I looked at buying one, I came to the same conclusion - I prefer the rendering of the pre-FLE.
I'm having second thoughts about my M240. I'm wondering about getting an M9-P instead. I've struggled to find a PP flow that mimics the M8/M9. I don't care which is 'better', I just prefer the magic of the M8/M9 that the M240 seems to lack.
I guess it's like choosing your favourite style of film.
Katie, my experience with Leica is limited to the 5 lenses I own, further more I am fairly new to Leica. The lenses you want to sell are unknown to me and I have no direct comparison, this makes me not the best person to give advise. But I do know that I like the M9 and the 50 Lux ASPH. very much, in my opinion, they work perfectly together. The lens is a joy to use and just continues to amaze me. If you still like film (as I do my self), I would recommend as well a Leica M film body like the M3, M6 or the MP. This way you have the advantage of one system and not much dead money laying around.
While I never tried it myself, just looking at images with the lux 50 asph, I think it is the best reason to shoot with a Leica, so I would do it if you are not happy with your 50-nokton (for now, I am very very pleased with the new version - and I am intrigued of the look of this lens on the Sony A7/r, the curvature of field is very much different, more "classic"). Is yours the old or the new version by the way?
And what about your CV 35 1.2, is it the II version? I may pick one up myself...
AshNZ wrote:
I'm having second thoughts about my M240. I'm wondering about getting an M9-P instead. I've struggled to find a PP flow that mimics the M8/M9. I don't care which is 'better', I just prefer the magic of the M8/M9 that the M240 seems to lack.
I guess it's like choosing your favourite style of film.
Anyone else in the same boat?
Ash
I'm 100% with you Ash, but I keep reminding myself that there is only one way to move in digital, and that is forward. The M9 will be obsolete in a few years and no one knows how long will Leica be able to service it, especially the Kodak sensor. So I am forcing myself to like the M 240 and just accept it as being different.
I did quite a bit of research before committing to the pre FLE, I don't think the FLE is boring but it is definitely more modern. There's more pop especially at closer focusing distances and less glow. The pre asph has a ton of glow but I find it too soft and I already have lots of classic lenses. The pre FLE was a good compromise for my style of shooting, it still has the Mandler look and performs admirably stopped down.
AshNZ wrote:
I have not owned either, but I when I looked at buying one, I came to the same conclusion - I prefer the rendering of the pre-FLE.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I'm 100% with you Ash, but I keep reminding myself that there is only one way to move in digital, and that is forward. The M9 will be obsolete in a few years and no one knows how long will Leica be able to service it, especially the Kodak sensor. So I am forcing myself to like the M 240 and just accept it as being different.
Sad words after spending so much money on a camera body! Even more since they get replaced by the most of us as soon a new generation comes out.
Regarding the M9 generation, in terms of repairs I agree with you. But if they fit your needs as a amateur today and your shooting style/interests aren't changing, they will continue to produce great images with that desirable character. If you are after ISO power, highest possible dynamic range or a pro which works with demanding galleries, you should go forward as you said. But take me for example, I love to have a "back to the roots" body! About 90% of my pictures are made with base ISO and the rest between 650 and 800. Because of that I can't see that the M9 will be obsolete, at least for my own personal profile.
I also believe in what Peter said, you should shoot with whatever camera makes you the happiest. Even the new M will be unserviceable one day and surely enough the M9s lifespan will end sooner but time is not something we can buy. If I knew my favourite brand of film was going to be discontinued in a few years I would spend as much time shooting with it before the supply ends rather than switching brands
edwardkaraa wrote:
I'm 100% with you Ash, but I keep reminding myself that there is only one way to move in digital, and that is forward. The M9 will be obsolete in a few years and no one knows how long will Leica be able to service it, especially the Kodak sensor. So I am forcing myself to like the M 240 and just accept it as being different.
Surely someone has made a profile for Lightroom that mimics the Kodak CCD?
AshNZ wrote:
Surely someone has made a profile for Lightroom that mimics the Kodak CCD?
There are certain situations where the files can look very similar but there are also some critical situations where the rendering will look completely different and not replicable in post. This is not just in terms of colours but also luminosity. Its hard to explain but whenever I shoot with a CCD and the new CMOS its generally very easy to spot which one is which. I'm happy with both hence why I settled with the M as a main camera.
rirakuma wrote:
There are certain situations where the files can look very similar but there are also some critical situations where the rendering will look completely different and not replicable in post. This is not just in terms of colours but also luminosity. Its hard to explain but whenever I shoot with a CCD and the new CMOS its generally very easy to spot which one is which. I'm happy with both hence why I settled with the M as a main camera.
I hear you, I've been trying with no success in post.
Here is an unscientific review - both my photos. I prefer one MUCH more than the other.
The second pic looks a tad HDR, did you lift a lot of shadows in it? I personally like the first one better. Here's a comparison from me, these were taken in different days but very similar weather and lighting conditions. You can probably guess which one is which, the rendering isn't exactly a deal breaker for me.
AshNZ wrote:
I hear you, I've been trying with no success in post.
Here is an unscientific review - both my photos. I prefer one MUCH more than the other.
AshNZ wrote:
I'm having second thoughts about my M240. I'm wondering about getting an M9-P instead. I've struggled to find a PP flow that mimics the M8/M9. I don't care which is 'better', I just prefer the magic of the M8/M9 that the M240 seems to lack.
I guess it's like choosing your favourite style of film.
Anyone else in the same boat?
Ash
I can understand. Just sold my M9P for an MM.
Before buying the MM I got some time with the M240. At first I was very impressed. Pictures looked great on the big screen, shutters sound was nice, rangefinder felt good, menu was fast and the live view was very useful.
It would have been a better deal financially as well since its cheaper and could sell my A7. But thats about it. Its just a very handy camera in an M jacket where I like the M9p and MM for being not so handy camera's It that makes sense.
I think the A7 is a better deal for just a handy camera.
So after having saved for a while I think I'm going to buy a M8, M9, M9P or ME back to complete my MM. But first I'm going to wait for the prices to drop further.
There is one thing trough. The iso performance. Now with the A7 and especially the MM I see what I missed with the M9. The MM is on auto iso and I really don't have to care where with the M9 I always was on the edge of to slow shutterspeeds.
adamdewilde wrote:
Honestly, you're not shooting professionally right? What I'd suggest you do is as follows:
Get rid of everything but the M9 and 35 1.2 (you'll be hard pressed to beat it with anything as interesting) buy yourself a 50 Lux-asph (make sure it's calibrated, you won't wanna shoot with anything else after the purchase). For the odd time you're looking to shoot film you could keep your Bronica setup, or you could just get a film M body. It's honestly more economical to have one system that shares lenses. That way in the future when you have the desire you can pickup a 28 and a 90.. My choices for that would be 28 Elmarit-asph (save money, don't buy the Summicron) and if you want wider then 21/2.8 ZM. And the 90 Summarit (it gets a bad rep, as people think the tele-90 is a better value, but the summarit line won't develop haze or fog as easily (those old tele-90s can be problematic), and its cheaper/possible to fix the summarit, and the rendering is more in tune with modern aesthetics).
But yeah the 50 Lux-asph and the M9 are an amazing do it all combo!
Honestly though, it's really up to you in the end. I'm the type of person who could get by with an M + 50Lux-asph, but since I have the money sitting around I have a lot of lenses (better then keeping the cash under my mattress).. And really, it just complicates things more then anything. BUT that's because of the type of things I shoot and the way I shoot. There are tons of people on the forums here that shoot all FLs really well, and I can honestly say that these guys make good use of their gear, I'm not one of them. ...Show more →
I am actually thinking of keeping the CV 35 1.2 ... I REALLY like that lens! I also need to keep the 21 1.8 for the work I do (real estate photos) around here. It's not much, but I need a wide angle all the time. The Bessa is my friend - it's the newest version of the Voigtlander M mount bodies; and I have no desire to trade it for a film Leica body. I love the wide frame lines, and will keep the teeny tiny 25mm on it most of the time anyway. I could always use the 21, 35 or 50 on it as well. As for making use of all the focal lengths - yeah, I'm like you and am not good at that. I will admit it - I HATE changing lenses on the go. I am really paranoid about getting something on the sensor or messing up the rear element of a lens; so I never change lenses unless I HAVE to; or am in a controlled environment. I, too, have the money sitting around; but like to change things up. I know I don't need all these damn lenses... but this is my fun; and I just got shot down for buying a convertible this week from the hubster. Blah.
So - back to the Summilux ASPH ... BLACK OR SILVER? I have the M-E, by the way...
So you vote silver, huh? I've seen where some think it might be built better than the black, but it also weighs more. Does it balance well? Also, are there "versions" of the asph lens? Like how do I know what year it was made?
