Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/12/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I will only add that none of my lenses have need any calibration or other black magic to work well on my M8, and that the new "budget" line of Leica lenses, the Summarits. My most-used lens is the 2.5/35mm; I have previously owned both the Summicron and the Summilux, and preferred to keep this one because of its small size and superb quality. It gives up half a stop relative to the Summicron, and there is a tiny bit of barrel distortion, so if you photograph lots of buildings, it is not for you. I also have the 75mm Summarit, and I will not hesitate to say that it is the sharpest Leica M lens I have ever owned (and I have owned some pretty good ones). Cheers, Nathan Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu http://www.greatpix.eu http://www.nathanfoto.com PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/ YNWA On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Peter Klein wrote: > Hi, John: I bought an M8 about 6 months after it first came out, once all > the quirks were known. No regrets whatsoever. I've been very happy. No > "digital almosts." This is the real thing. > > Everything said on this thread is true. You will want the IR filters, but > people ditching the M8 for an M9 are selling those used, so it's not so > bad. Once you have the filters, all's well. > > The key to being happy with the M8 is this: Whatever your favorite focal > length(s) is/are, you're going to want a lens that's just as good and > maybe just as fast, but the next notch shorter. I shot mostly with a 50 on > film, so I shoot mostly with a 35 on the M8. This is why, anticipating a > digital M, that bought a 35 Summilux ASPH back in the film days when they > were relatively affordable. I figured it would make a great normal lens on > a cropped sensor digital M. Yes, it did. > > I've been very happy shooting the M8 with a 35 Summilux Asph or a 35 > classic Summicron. In fact, the 47mm effective magnification is in some > ways more useful than the "real" 50--a bit less tight, and more forgiving > with DOF. An added bonus was that I found I rather liked the 67mm > effective length of a 50, so my "fifties" aren't idle. > > I picked up a couple of Voigtlander 28mm lenses used. I use these enough > that I'm glad I have them, but not enough to have justified a Leica lens > to replace the 35mm role. If you're more of a wide angle guy for whom a > 28mm is "normal," then the M9 may make more sense. > > Have a look at my Oktoberfest pictures for some M8 low light shots: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563 at N04/6199520197/in/photostream > (and the next 15 or so) > Or my set from Israel for all manner of conditions: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563 at N04/sets/72157625331595331/ > > --Peter > > > > > I have all, well most, of the lenses already but good point > > none-the-less. > > > > John > > > > On 2011-12-17, at 4:47 PM, Frank Filippone wrote: > > > > > Agreed, maybe..... > > > > > > I have an M8. I like shooting WA lenses. So I needed to supplement my > > > arsenal with something wide... first a 15 Heliar, then a WATE. > > > > > > Was the M8 cheaper than an M9? Not so sure it was significantly > > > different > > > in cost once the lenses are included........... > > > > > > Frank Filippone > > > Red735i at earthlink.net > > > > > > Sorry, I am not going to spring for an M9: too many $$$. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Leica Users Group. > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >