I currently have the following lenses: 35mm 'lux ASPH, 50mm 'lux (latest) and 75mm Voigtlander. Like many Leica M users, I find myself drawn to the Tri-Elmar for 2 reasons: (1) the convenience of 3 focal lengths in one (apparently with no sacrifice of image quality, according to most test reports) and (2) I'll eventually want a 28mm lens. My question does not relate to the performance of the tri-elmar, but rather to the question of low-light shooting. Since low-light shooting is obviously more difficult with the tri-elmar (since max aperture is f4), I'm debating (if I go for the tri-elmar) whether to sell the 50mm 'lux or the 35mm 'lux to finance the purchase (I know, I know, "never sell anything Leica," but my fiance doesn't buy that school of thought). So I guess my question is IF you had to have only one of these 2 lenses (35mm or 50mm 'lux) for low-light shooting, which would you keep? (Or, if you have both lenses, which do you use more often for low-light situations).

My personal experience int he short time I've been shooting Leica M (although I also had an R8 for a while) is that I tend to use the 35mm more for low-light than the 50mm, so I guess to some extent I've answered my own question, but I'm interested in the views of more experience users. Thanks.

-- william carter (wmc@po.cwru.edu), April 01, 2002

Answers

William:

It looks like you have already answered your question. Sell the 50 Lux and buy the Tri-Elmar. Use the 3E as your everyday lens, and switch to 35 Lux only when light levels get too low.

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

Dump your fiance. Just imagine what she'll be like as a wife. There goes the Leica.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Looks like the answer is to get another fiancée.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 01, 2002.

William, I would suggest you try out a 3E before buying it. I have one, and it is great for prowling around in good light. But inside you had better have 800-1000 speed film or better for non-flash work. Also, it really, and I mean really, protrudes into the viewfinder frame. Especially at the 28 setting, you don't have any idea what is in the lower right corner at all. And I've been shooing Ms heavily for 20 years, so I am used to the "usual" blocking of that corner by most lenses. That feature alone may bug you, though. My own sense is that the 3E is best is you a)only plan to shoot in daylight or b) if you have alternative fast lenses in all the focal lengths to switch too when you are shooting indoors or in low light. My 2c. anyway.

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.

If I had to lose one of those lenses it would be the 50mm Lux. My reasoning is that I find the 35mm a more versatile lens, particularly indoors, where presumably many of your low light opportunities may occur....

Best, Duncan

-- Duncan (pilot@aviationmission.com), April 01, 2002.

Seriously, it's the type of question that I can only answer yourself. For example, I used to use the 35mm for 80% of my shooting but now am using the 50 much more because I now don't want a "lensy" type of space; I want a more natural space in my pictures. Also, now I am exploring shootingt at wide apertures to have highly out-of-focus areas in fron and behind the (narrow) plane of focus. The Tri-Elmar wouldn't be good for that. In fact, I'm using a Noctilux and Summilux-75 for this type of photography. So, I could have live just with a Tri-Elmar before but not now.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 01, 2002.

CORRECTION: first sentence should read:

Seriously, it's the type of question that you can only answer yourself.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 01, 2002.

William,

I sold my 50 'lux and never really missed it. If I'm going low light they're usually indoors ambient and I like my 35, although only a 1:2.0 (I'll use 400ASA), in order to take people at the table or for atmospheric shots.

Hide the 50 somewhere and but the TE. If you don't like it, sell the TE and dig out the 'lux; unless she's recorded the serial no. 8*)

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), April 01, 2002.

I think you should keep the 50 summilux and buy yourself a CV 28 1.7. You will regret it and miss the 50 summilux big time if you sell it I can almost guarantee. If the 28 CV works for you save your money for the TE down the road. Good luck.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.

I am not a fan of the 50/1.4. I do own the 35/1.4ASPH and the v.1 Tri-Elmar and those are ideal for me. However I still have a few 50/2's lying around should I decide to go out with just one body and one lens...for me, that's a 50. If your 50 Lux is in mint condition, for a *little* more than what you can sell it for, you could buy a v.1 Tri-Elmar (around $1000) and a 11817 50/2 (around $450).

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

Hi William, I think a lot has to do with the type of photography you do. The T-E is superb for travel because of flexibility and simplicity of the kit. f4 speed can be made up by faster film speeds without much perceptable quality in most instances. The downside is the case where shallow depth of field is desired. I agree with the premise not to sell one Leica bauble for another, but then some guys are awash in equipment they'll never use. You're not there yet. Good shooting

-- George L. Doolittle (geodoolitt@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

I guess I'm in the minority on this one-- I'd keep the 50-- Ive found most of my low light shots are interiors, and usually of one person-- the 50 allows me a little more distance to get a head and shoulders including some of the enviroment. But that just happens to be what I shoot. I think you've got the answer-- keep what you use, get rid of what you dont. Best,

-- Marke Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

If you won´t miss 1.4,2 and 2.8 ´lux performace go ahead with the TE, we have read positive coments of 35/1.4 and TE combo, I can´t make an objective opinion now, I´m just discovering 50/1.4 marvels. on the other side, I´m sure TE is a great useful lens

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

William I have the Tri Elmar, but no Lux'es, just 'Crons at the moment. I wouldn't give up a Lux if I had one. The Tri Elmar is a superb lens, my favourite, BUT, like in motor racing 'there ain't no substitute for cubic inches', then there 'ain't no substitute for f stops'. You need both. I need both (at least to f2). Its not either/or, its as well as. Save up.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), April 01, 2002.

I would get the 28mm you want. Depending on your variables of what you do I don't see you are adding to your capabilities. If you go out west to Mountains or like scenery 28mm is a must. If you are shooting in a crowd of people you might like variable vocal length. I use focal length to control perspective. I’m no expert but I always have it in the back of my mind that if the f-stop is small enough you don’t need a lens, so when the engineers elect not to have it open more there is a reason. Remember KISS. Different wavelengths bend through glass differently, so when they say you loose contrast that tells me I know that RGB are coming to focus at different spots. As soon as I hear less contrast I loose all interest.

A very cheep way to see the difference is shoot a roll in the store with both lenses. Develop the film and have it scanned onto a CD. Load the images in Photoshop > adjust image >Levels and look at the histograms of the images. You can also use the color sampler to look around and get image info. Photoshop can be your densitometer and give you a lot of rational feedback.

-- John Goan (jgoan@qwest.net), April 01, 2002.

i predict that you will regret getting rid of the 50 summilux.

-- cdr gary misch (weakley.hollow@gte.net), April 01, 2002.

Hi William,

I hope you enjoy using the 3E as much as I do but, as you say, it's not much good in low light. For low light use, I have a 50mm/1.4 Summilux-M 2nd version, with detachable hood, minimum focus 1 metre.

I didn't choose the 50 'lux, it chose me! When I took delivery of the 3E, the dealer told me that he had a used 50 Summilux coming in from a friend and asked if I'd like to see it. I agreed to do so, since I knew I'd need something fast for low light use. It turned out to be in excellent condition and I was happy to buy it for a little under $650.

The 50 'lux is the only fast lens I have. I use it mostly for indoor portrait work and it seems to suit my needs better than a 35mm. I'd like it even better if it could focus down to 70cm, like yours.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.

I have little use for either a Tri-Elmar OR a 50 - bear that in mind as you read this. (But if I DID get a 50 it would be the 'lux)

Even worse than selling something you may regret later is NOT buying what you really want in the first place. If you want a 28 just get the 28 (they cost less or the same as the Tri-E). Skip the hassle of buying then selling the Tri.

As to choosing one 'lux over the other: like I said, my bias is towards a 35 anyway. But setting that aside, the 35 'way outperforms the 50. Plus: once seller's regret sets in, it will be far cheaper to replace the 50 than the 35. 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 02, 2002.

You would have to ask yourself two questions: 1-which lens do you use more, 35 or 50? and 2-which one do you use more for low light? You may have answered your own question by saying in the end of your post that you tend to use the 35 more, at least for low light.

On the other hand, you want a 28, so why not just buy one? As money is an issue, do consider the VC lens as suggested already before. On the third (?) hand, you have 75 which is 1 1/2 stops faster than the 3E and may suffice if you need something faster in the long end. So the 50 may not be that necessary.

You asked for opinion. I think selling the 50 and getting the 3E might suit you very well. That is, if you don't want the separate 28.

Ilkka

-- Ilkka Kuusisto (ikuu65@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

f/4. Repeat...f/4. Once more...f/4. It's slooooooow. Ms are fast, low light machines that are drawn to darkness. Even on bright vacation days you step into that Cathedral, and you'll wish you had a 28/2ASPH. Keep them all, and get that ring back and pawn it for the 28. (just kidding). Seriously, I made the same mistake you are about to make ( not marrying the girl, selling a lens to get a Tri-Elmar ).

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 02, 2002.

Be forewarned, I'm really full of it this morning, I think it has to do with tax season...

Can you hear the wretching sound I am making (wwrreettcchh!!!) Lemme see, the wonder full Leica speed of a 'lux with beautuful bokeh, compact size, great versatility, everything Leica is about, OR, the conveniece of s zoom lens with an pitiful f4 maximum aperture . Hey this is a no-brainer, take a look at some at the awesome versatility of the latest Sigma zooms. You can get like 24mm to 300mm not at f5.6, just shoot some MAX800 and you're there baby. Go fo it.

Oh and, one important rule never to forget. Never, ever sell a perfectly good Leica lens, you will only wind up replacing it later in life.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 02, 2002.