Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, the 35 complements the 90 better than the 50, so it's a better choice for a 2nd lens. You can do just about anything with just a 35 and a 90. There's just something special about the leica 50mm lens that's hard to define and hard to give up once you use one. I think you need all three. Timothy R. Kuntz wrote: > Since I have the 90/2.8 and am planning on getting the 35 as a second lens, > would you recommend getting the 50 first? > > From: "Mike Quinn" <mlquinn@san.rr.com> > > No you won't be happy. You're not trading up. You're just starting down a > very slippery path. > > The 35 and 50 are not comparable lenses. They have entirely different > characteristics. You'll miss the 50 mm lens and wish you had it back. Then > you'll buy the 75 or 90 to keep from admitting you made a mistake getting > rid of the 50. Then you'll get either a noctilux or summilux 50 convincing > yourself that what you really need is the extra aperture. Then you'll have a > 50 again, but wish it was smaller and lighter... > > Contentment is not part of this process. But it sure is fun... :) > > Steve Hickel wrote: > >> Thanks, I had a purpose in my question. I am trading up to the 35 f2.0 asph >> from a 50mm 2.8 elmarit. Sounds like I will be happy.