Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If you are not that concerned with speed (i.e., shoot outdoors mostly), the Tri-Elmar (28, 35, and 50) is a great carrying-around lens. If speed is a concern, I would suggest (1) used Leica glass, (2) new Voigtlander glass, and (3) new Leica glass, in that order. The order is dictated only because of price. That said, I think (1) and (2) will have similar optical quality and similar price. The LUG *is* biased toward Leica glass, so I might get flamed a bit for this. Regarding Voigtlander glass, a good threesome for indoor shooting would be: 28/1.9 35/1.7 or (if you can afford it) 35/1.2 50/1.5 Voigtlander doesn't have a fast 90. You'll have to go to Leica for that. Jeffery Smith At 08:08 AM 7/19/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Greetings: >By way of introduction; I am a new subscriber to this Leica user list. I've >lurked long enough to think I've got a handle on the tone and tempo and how >y'all behave. Great list..... I've gained tidbits on subjects varying from >Irish sausage, , the evils of NIkon, the virtues of Islay Malt Whisky (I'm a >Bruichladdich and Ardbeg man myself) and the Degree of watch fetish that is >typical here. Mixed in with this eclectic (but useful) chatter there has >also been enough Leica lore to keep me reading the lenghty digests. > >I am a life-long photographer. My only commercial efforts have been >photographing babies and dogs for awhile back in the early 70's, some >gallery sales in the late 80's, and the occasional print when someone really >whines for one. Otherwise I am in this thing for myself. I've got a day job >which pays for the toys. > >I started back in the 50's , under my grandfathers guidance. He was a stiff >old German with Zeiss Ikon and Leica gear. My first camera was a Leica IIIf >(still got it). He introduced me to the magic of the darkroom. > >A stint in the military got me to Hong Kong in 69' on a R&R where I >purchased my first Nikkormat (still have it too... one of the best cameras >of all time, I dragged that thing off and on helicopters, dropped it in mud, >let it out in monsoon rains,, and it still works!) and where my love affair >with the "Nikon System" took root. Soon followed the F2, F3, F4... a huge >basket of glass, tripods, tubes, and other had-to-have crap. Somewhere in >this mess there was a Bronica too. Off and on over the years I felt the >urge to get back to the simpler (may I wax poetic and say purer) photography >that turned me on in the first place. > >Maybe ten years ago I fell into a bit of cash and bought a M6, and a set of >lenses.... I was primed for the switch... alas.... at about the same time I >discovered Fuju Velvia and macro photography. The Leica sat unused and I >sold it and bought my F4 (for the spot meter mostly). For ten years I have >been a slave of hyper-color, macro, tele, and graduated neutral density >filters.... and has it ever gotten boring! > >So...a second attempt at rebirth... I bought a Contax G2, 28, 35, 50 and 90 >Zeiss lenses thinking this was the way out of the woods (literally). I've >shot on and off with this camera for a year now. The glass is just simply >terrific.. but.... (and this is the BIG but), the damn thing is auto-focus. >Granted the auto focus works very well, and I knew this going in of course, >and I thought I could get used to it. I still instinctively try to twist a >non-existent focus ring when composing. I feel like I am shirking my >photographic responsibility (and before you point out that I already own a >F4... I only own one auto-focus lens, a 35-135 zoom which I almost never >use - and never in autofocus mode). > >I have also recently sworn off color. I bought a mess of Tri-X, Delta 400, >a developing tank, and chemicals and have set up shop in the bathroom. I >also recently got sucked into the photoshop, scanner, and Epson 2200 thing >(this is begining to get expensive!... purity does not come cheap!) > >next step a week ago.... I just bought a Leica CL with 40 and 90 lens; my >rational (which of course was just bullsh*t to justify the spending spree ) >is that I can carry this camera in my brief case and be ready for anything. >The truth is that I always carry the G2 anyway, and what I really want is to >focus... I want to focus MYSELF. I want to participate. > >OK... now for the plea for wisdom. And yes - before you chastise - over the >past two weeks I have read FAQs, web sites and every damn line I could find >regarding lenses, bodies, and other leica-toys. Lots of graphs, tables, text >and varying opinions which have confused the hell (ooops... I mean h*ll... >sorry) out of me. > >I can see where this odd-esy is going. I am already lusting for a proper >Leica body and lenses. My quandry is which body and which lenses. > >I have made a commitment to off the Nikon stuff (except for a battered F3, a >105 macro, a normal 50, and a 24mm wide that I just love). I plan on >packaging this mess off to K&H within the month. The proceeds will go quess >where!? > >My lust occelates between a cherry M4 or a M6 Classic (I loath flash...no >need for any TTL nonsense). I could dig out my old Luna Pro with the M4 or >use the onboard meter in the M6. I've never really handled a M4. Is the >tactile experience markedly different from the M6 (which like I said >earlier, I did own at one time)? I really like nice things,, I like the >gestalt of stuff. I like All Clad pots and pans, I like my BMW, I like >bamboo flyrods, I like tube analog stereo gear... I'm sure this admission is >standard SOP on this group and will be understood. If I'm going to do this >I want the best bang for the buck. I realise that either body is just a >platform for the lenses.... but which model is likely to give greater feed >back and pleasure in it's own right. Is this too obtuse a question,,,? >maybe. > >While the new APO and aspheric lenses sure sound nifty, I dont think I can >afford to go this route. Can anyone recommend a specific set of 28, 35, 50 >and 90mm lenses that are esthetically rewarding in construction, >sufficiently modern in design and glass to produce great images, actually >available, and yet not so expensive to kill my bank account? I guess this >sounds like a naive question,,, sorry. I am looking for opinions of those >list members, who for the sake of argument, if they lost everything in ... >say... a tornado (or divorce, or repro-man interaction), and had to replace >their Leica kit in real-world conditions; what would they buy to get >re-started?. This make sense? Hope so. > >so... thanks for hanging in there with this tome of a post. I'd sure >appreciate your feedback. >cheers >Jack McLain >Tucson, AZ >http://jackmclain-photography.dotcommunity.net > >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html