Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"Aubin" <aubin@aa.net> wrote, in part: snip <<For a long time I used the 28mm/50mm/90mm combo, finally switching the 28 for a new 24mm. The difference in the coverage and the image quality between the 28 and the 24 is astounding, but I have no complaints against the 28, its still a dang fine lens.>> snip <<I found I used my 90 only when making deliberate portrait shots of friends, under very specific circumstances, and the 50 did the job as well, most times. The problem for me was always one of balancing the amount of wide angle coverage I needed, so I opted for the 24, since it was more than enough > I'm considering the 24asph. I was deeply enveloped in 28 until I sold it for a 19 (current). Of course the 50 summicron (m here) is or should be a required lens (i.e. no Leica passports on anything until then) I find (as 'most' do) that the 35mm is the natural extension of M. The 19 elmarit is outstanding, not only optically but optically. The latter pertaining to how refreshing it is to compose via a 19 (wider is nauseating) Currently in R I use 19-35-100 R which is a good group. 35 summicron and 50 summicron no question M. The in-betweens are preferences. Not to even things out: the M is an M nothin' like it and people realize this about a second or two after just picking it up (nu?) This being said the 28M is too close to 35, but not necessarily. The 24asph - on the M6 is how much 'more' than the total view. Not enough to need a finder - but what's the frame line - a bit more and 100 rolls? Shoes are in the shots? I don't shoot much people (and hate to be shot),. Architecture. Structures, in all forms. The tele is another thing. The wides - I pop into infinity. I appreciate any input on 24asph/28.