Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: I need M lens suggestions....28...or 90?
From: Joe Berenbaum <>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:23:29 GMT

At 08:08 06/11/97 -0600, you wrote:
>i'd get a better 50, one that can go a bit closer because i shoot a lot of
>faces.  either a summi 50 dr or a collaps elmar or summi, if you can find a
>sooky-m adapter.
>if that doesn't interest i wud definately go with a 90, again because of
>however, if you shoot 'scapes, land or city, a 28 is obviously invauable,
>but your 35 could get you through most of that.
>i don't have my reference stuff near at hand regarding angles of
>acceptance, but 28 to 35 is 7, whereas 50 to 90 is 40, thereby giving you a
>very different lens.
>also i believe the 90 will get you more uses more often (even a bit of
>sports for instance, like i did last weekend) than the 28, which i see as a
>specialty lens, whereas the 90 should be in everyone's bag.  the 28 and the
>135 are on the outside of daily use, 35, 50, 90, very useful...
>let us know...
>steven blutter

It is interesting to read that, because I had that same set of lenses
recommended to me when I first got an M body, and found that although I use
the 50mm lenses a lot, the 90 only gets used occasionally and the 35 also
only occasionally. The one lens that I needed but didn't get for a while was
a 28. I know that its only a little wider than a 35, yet the pictures, to
me, look quite different, and I greatly prefer that angle of view for a
moderate wideangle. The landscapes I do with a 28 don't work with a 35- it
just isn't quite wide enough to do what I want to. I'm now doing 90% of my M
photography with just a 28 and a 50.

Joe Berenbaum