Re: [Leica] 90 vs. 35

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Carlos - You are getting good advice here - You really can't top the 35
Summicron non-ASPH if you're looking for the ideal price/performance
ratio/compromise. And it's such a good lens that unless you spend too much
time reading all the posts on this list, you'll never know that you
compromised! :-)

B. D.

At 11:06 AM 4/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Carlos,
>    I think this is exactly what we are here for.  There are no stupid
questions.
>
>Since $$ is an issue, I recommend a used 35mm Summicron, non-ASPH version.
 Read Erwin Puts' review and you will see this is a good buy.  I guarantee
you will be happy.
>
>For portraits, since $$ is an issue, I have two suggestions.  First, look
for a 135mm Hektor, which can be found for $150, or so.  The "bokeh" is
terrific and for portraits any softness over a super sharp late model 90 is
ok, especially if your subject is female.  There is an online review of
this lens at the LHSA page.
>
>Bob
>
>===============
>    I know that this question may sound stupid for most of you, but I think
>that it is the best place to ask.
>    I own an M2 with a summicron 50mm. Now, I'm planning to buy my second
>lens and I cannot decide whether an Elmar 90mm f4 or a 35mm. In fact, I
>don't have money enough to aford an Elmarit 90mm so please don't suggest my
>buying an expensive 35mm. To make matters worse I don't know much about
>leica M 35mm lenses.
>    On one side, I would like the 90mm to take portraits, on the other I
>think that 35mm is what M2 was made for and I consider that lens usefull for
>snapshots. I usually have to take photos with the camera placed on my waist
>and I think a 35mm would be ideal.
>    Well, I accept whatever suggest you want!
>    Leically
>
>carlos
>