[Leica] 75-90mm lenses - Opinions

[walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)]

Marc:

Ever hear the expression, "under equipped photographer prepared for 
anything, over equipped photographer prepared for nothing"?  Probably 
not, since I made it up 28 years ago but it still holds true.

Walt

Marc James Small wrote:

>There has been a fair amount of pontificating on this subject but it is
>important to bear in mind that our photography is our own vision, and that
>one size just does not fit all.  My basic Leica M kit consists of:
>
>M6 Wetzlar body or late M3 DS
>4.5/21 CZ Biogon converted to Leica M
>1/4/35 Summilux ASPH
>1.4/50 Summilux (pre-ASPH)
>2/50 DR Summicron
>1.4/75 Summilux-M
>2/90 Summilux ASPH
>3.4/135 Telyt APO ASPH
>
>This is what I normally haul about with me when I am out shooting and
>shucking.  When I have a need for a longer reach, as I often do, I'll bring
>along a Visoflex III in an ammo can together with a 4/200 and 4.8/280
>Telyt.  When I am getting serious, I'll haul out the 4/300 Kilfitt
>Pan-Tele-Kilar, a real sweetheart of a lens, or my 5/40cm Telyt, second
>type.  I even use my Leicas on occasion with my telescopes, especially a
>3.5 Quartz Questar, which, with a Barlow, allows me to reach 2500mm at f/26
>or somesuch.  
>
>I have a slew of other lenses I've acquired over the years, most in LTM.  I
>have one of the World's Largest Collections of 105mm Trinol lenses (two
>examples) thanks to our own Jem Kime.  I have a 105mm PAM Britar.  I have a
>slew of Carl Zeiss Jena lenses in LTM, including that elusive 1.5/7.5cm
>Biotar T.  And Russian lenses from the 5.6/20 Russar MR-2 to the 4/135
>Jupiter-11.  All work well on my LTM cameras, of course, and work well also
>on my M's with the appropriate adapters.  (I am also awash in auxiliar
>viewfinders, though I commonly use an immediately Postwar Carl Zeiss Jena
>436/70 which came with my very first Leica, a IIIc, all those many years 
>ago.)
>
>I am not really enamored of wide-angle lenses and have never understood
>their fascination with so many of you folks, though I really admire the
>results you get.  I prefer the gentile approach of sitting back aways and
>shooting my pictures far from the fray.  It helps to have some cheese and
>crackers and maybe a gentle white wine on hand to make the total experience
>a most enjoyable one.  During the Caracas Riots in 1959, several
>photo-journalists were on hand with Rolleiflex 2.8F's with the pistol grip
>and the prism assembly:  they managed to use the cameras as clubs to get
>themselves out of danger while occasionally pausing to shoot some film.  A
>bit risky for my taste, but, then, I am no John Steed.
>
>For street shooting, it will always be a 50mm lens as that is just how I
>see the picture.  That 21mm Biogon was great when I was in Alaska, as was
>the 35mm Summilux, but I took more pictures with the 75mm and 90mm lenses
>than with the wide-angles.  And, when I was in Ireland five years back, the
>only spot I visited where the 21mm Biogon worked well was that vista north
>of the Bridge at Mull.  THAT was made for a wide-angle lens.
>
>Myt principal point in posting this is to suggest that while most of us
>seem to regard the 50mm lens as a mild long-focus lens <he grins>, there is
>an alternate approach which holds longer focal lengths in great respect.
>The Leica M's RF is certainly adequate to handle a 135mm lens even at f/3.4
>and I have gotten away with using my Ukrainian 2x Tele-Converter with a
>2/8.5cm CZJ Sonnar T -- effectively, an f/4 17cm lens -- with a Leica,
>though GREAT caution is mandated.  
>
>I have owned every version of the Leitz/Leica 9cm or 90mm lens line over
>the years and the ones I have kept are the 2/90 Summicron-M ASPH and a
>4/9cm collapsible Elmar.  I tote that 1.4/75 Summilux-M around with me
>frequently and it is a useful lens, especially when shooting Jazz
>performers in dusky venues in the shank of the night.  Those of you with a
>liking for lenses wider than 50mm probably should go for the 1.4/75 as it
>does balance well on the M body and it does everything it is supposed to
>do, and does it with panache, grace, and grand elegance.  Shop around:  I
>bought mine for $500 or so through patience.  (If I wait long enough and
>keep chanting the mantra, "I do not need this lens", one will, sooner or
>later, appear out of nowhere at a reasonable price.  I have not had such
>luck to date with a Noctilux but, what the hey, tomorrow is another day!
>It only took me a decade or so to score the 75mm Summilux.)  
>
>My favirute niderate long-focus lens is that 2/8.5cm CZJ Sonnar T.  Mine
>was a long-time lens of Peter Dechert, and I was glad to get it from him.
>It has seen extensive use and it is a grand lens with a really solid
>footprint on the film.  And it worked well for years as a medium-format
>enlarging lens until I picked up an APO-Rodagon when the bottom fell out of
>the enlarger market.
>
>Your style is your own.   Figure out what you are doing, and then do it.
>The camera is only a tool for expression, and the focal length is, in the
>end, just another item in our toolkit.  As Ted keeps reminding us, the TYPE
>of lens or TYPE of camera matters less than the quality of our craft and
>that a good photographer can take good pictures with mediocre gear.  Me?  I
>can muck up anything and I often take lousy pictures with great gear.
>
>Soory to have pontificated at such a length!  <he grins again>
>
>Marc
>
>msmall@aya.yale.edu 
>Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>  
>