[Leica] compact and versatile

[drodgers@nextlink.net]

I've been using a Leica M for 10 years. Over that time I've owned more than 20
different lenses. I recently took a two week trip to Southern California, part
work, part vacation. I chose to travel light. I left the SLRs at home and took
an M6, 21/2.8 ASPH, 28/2.8 Elmarit, 50/1.4 Summilux and 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit.  It
turned out to be an excellent combination. I photographed many subjects in many
different situations. I used all lenses, and never felt that I needed something
more. The beauty of it was that I had everything with me at all times, and never
felt burdened. I traveled with three lenses  in a small leather fanny pack
(purchased for $40 last year at a leather outlet) and one lens on the M6. I took
an M4-P but it remained stowed in the luggage.

I shot 18 rolls of film over 10 days. I used the 28/2.8 a little over half the
time. It is a great focal length for travel, suitable for scenics, group shots,
and even portraiture. I almost left it behind, opting for my 35 Summicron
instead. At the last minute I took the 28, thinking the 35 was too close in
focal length to the 50. It turned out to be a wise choice. I've never before
used the 28 a great deal, probably because of the 35 Summicron. I was surprised
at how much I liked it. I really gave it a good workout and I'm extremely
impressed with the results.  I own the third version, which I bought it new
about 5 years ago.

The 28 showed lots of character. It was amazingly sharp corner to corner from f4
to f8. Any lack of crispness in areas in focus was due to camera shake. Even at
2.8 the lens was extremely sharp. At that aperture it is difficult to judge
corner to corner sharpness, since depth of field is narrow and in the real world
I rarely shoot flat subjects. In fact, I'm convinced that corner to corner
sharpness at maximum aperture isn't important. What I really like about the 28
at f2.8 was the way that it rendered out of focus areas.

For example, I took some informal portraits of friends and family while walking
on beaches near La Jolla and later Oceanside. It was just after sunset. The
light was asthetically perfect.  I was using E100SW. Most of the photographs
were taken at 1/15 and f2.8.  Faces had a unique glow. I don't know if it was
due to color or clarity or something else. They looked "natural" for lack of a
better word. Backgrounds -- in particular shorelines -- were out of focus but
still recognizable. I've used lenses where objects move from "in focus" to
"un-recognizable" in quick order. With Leica lenses the transition seems more
gradual. Further, the colors were  remarkably true. The photographs maintained
the soft pastel colors of a shoreline at dusk. I used artificial light in the
form of a small flash on a couple of frames. They were OK but they lacked the
character of natural light. An M6 TTL set with three stops under fill might have
been ideal. I'm a firm believer in natural light. It's next to impossible to
make a good photograph in bad light. The great thing about fast lenses is that
the best light is often on the border of too little light.

I did some experimenting. For example, I shot an entire roll of film of
Christmas lights in Disneyland at night. I wanted to see if I  coma was a
problem in any of the lenses. I shot at various apertures and distances. As
expected the pictures are boring to most. But I was amazed at the complete lack
of coma and flare, even at full aperture. I expected to see a big difference at
various apertures, so I didn't even take notes. Now I can't tell which was
which.

The 21 was irreplacable in certain situations. As was the 50. The 21 was great
for architecture. But for general shooting I rarely got in close enough. There
were situations where I was forced to be close due to lack of space. Those
turned out extremely well.

It's much more difficult to use the 21 than the 28. I used the 50/1.4 at f2 a
great deal, and often enough at f1.4.   Granted the Summilux is not a Noctilux,
but I certainly prefer it to my 50 Summicron. And the Noct never would have fit
in my small fanny pack. In fact, it's a good thing my 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit is the
skinny version (fairly recent with rubber lens shade). I don't think the new 90
Elmarit would have fit, in my pack. The true joy of the four lens system is that
it was extremely compact, yet exceedingly versatile. The Leica M is the ultimate
travel kit. I should add that I also took a T2. I carried it now and again, but
only shot one roll of film with it. However, I think I prefer it (or a Minilux)
as a second body vs carrying two Ms. It's nice to have a little automation when
you need it.

Dave