[Leica] Re: which M lens to choose or sell?

["Roger Beamon" <roger@beamon.org>]

On 30 Jul 99, Erwin Puts wrote, at least in part:

> The discussion between Nathan and Mark makes interesting reading. 
> There are rational choices about focal length. You could select your
> lenses in such a way that every focal length you want to have is covered
> by M, or by a combination of M and R. Here you choose basically for
> changes in perspective. Many  Leica users ask me by phone or email if I
> can recommend a prime set of M lenses. Well after much reflection I am
> afraid I cannot select a core set of lenses for the M. The point is this:
> every current lens in the M lineup has a very different characteristic or
> individuality. You might argue: I have a new 90 so I do not need a 75.
> True to a certain extent. But the 75 has very different imagery from the
> new 90. These image differences are not so small that only I can see them.
> Everyone can. So selling your 75 or 90 is not only selling a certain
> perspective/focal length, you are selling an optical  personality that
> might serve you well if you are in the game of subtle image speak. I have
> the 75 and bought a new 90 (apo). At first thought I would sell the 75.
> Then I looked again at the pictures and deceided to keep the 75. Its
> fingerprint is unique. It's optical performance at f/2 is indeed below the
> apo-90 at f/2, but the individual balancing of residual aberrations gives
> it  a personality. This lens speaks image language very fluently. So I
> keep it. The same goes for the 2/35 asph and the 1.4/35 asph. In fact you
> should have both. There are more differences than  maximum aperture to
> discuss. Both lenses have their own personality traits and an image with
> the 2/35  asph will have a different feeling than one taken with the
> 1,4/35 asph. This is not fantasy island. Leica lenses deserve a very
> educated look.

Unacustomed as I am to replying by posting the entire post to 
which I am replying, this one had to be so posted.

Erwin speaks to reasons for having, what some might consider, 
duplication in focal lengths within and without systems. This, at 
first blush, seems to support Mark's ideas for not ridding oneself 
of a lens, when getting another. Mark, however, argues that the 
'about to go' lens is not inferior to what is being bought. Erwin 
carries the reasoning to a higher level, ie. the subtleties that exist 
between them as reason for keeping both. Two different paths 
leading to a similar conclusion.

These subtleties, however, are very difficult for most to discern, 
and require more judgment than most have, in spite of Erwin's 
feeling that anyone can spot them. If they could, Leica would sell 
a lot more equipment.

How about this idea, Erwin. Come to southern Arizona. I'd be 
willing to bet that we could lure all the west coast Leica 
enthusiastics and half of the midwest contingent to attend. We'll 
put you up on Mt. Lemmon, where it's cool and through the good 
offices of a good German restaurant there, we can keep you 
satisfied with good schnitzel and beer while you give a seminar on 
the subtleties that you describe. With examples, of course.  :-)

Dream on, Rog...



- --
Roger
mailto:roger@beamon.org

    The will to win is good,
     the will to prepare is vital.
                 -- Joe Paterno, PSU football coach