My favourite lens is the Helios Biotar 44-2 58mm f2.0 lens. It’s slight compression makes me concentrate on content, composition and lighting. It has virtually no distortion, is soft and dreamy at full aperture, and when stopped down is nice and sharp with good contrast. The colour is beautiful, and the single coating makes it exceptional for infrared work. I like it so much I have three copies.
When I want to be inspired with my photography, I will click into any of Thorsten's video. His passion in Leica & photography is addictive. He's what I aim to be: to just focus on my artwork & do what I love most.
The older film cameras passed down to me by my Uncle always had 28mm lenses available for them (as well as 35mm and 50mm) and I chose to always carry the 28 since they tend to be smaller in footprint. Fast forward 20+ years and a Leica Q2 is glued to my hand. I also have other digital cameras I use with interchangeable lenses but rarely go beyond 35mm. When i read scenes, i read them with 28-35mm frame lines.
As my eyes got worse, I moved from M with 50mm Summilux to Leica Q -116. Could not be happier. I've been to many countries with the Q, and it never disappoints. When I hand my camera to a stranger to take a Family Photo, the M (due to focus) failed most of the time. With the Leica Q, I have the best Family Photos taking by the strangers :) Great Stuff! Thanks,
This one is fun. And timely. New to Leica, I thought I “was a 50mm” given that is pretty much the only full frame focal length I every used in a continuous basis. So, I bought a used Sumilux 50mm f/1.4 and carried it every day for a month or so. Later I saw a used Sumicron 35mm f/2, bought that lens, and it has never been taken off the camera since it arrived. I turned out to enjoy the images it makes a lot more, and as you say, it captured more of what I was “seeing” walking around. Thank you!
My bread and butter lens has always been the 70-200 F2.8, a very versatile lens, but it compresses everything, so your explanation of views for the 28, 35 and 50 is spot on. For my next photographic assignment I will only use the 35 and 50 and learn see the picture the way the great painters did. Thank you for a very enlightening explanation.
I had never thought in terms of focal length in paintings either until some years ago, in the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, I noticed a painting of a small room, which seemed cramped, and thought that the painter could have chosen to paint the scene with a wider lens. So, I thought, where the painter chooses to “stand” in relation to the subject matter is very much like choosing what focal length to choose for a photograph.
I started with a combination of a 35mm and a 90mm 40 years ago, and I stuck tot it ever since. It's defenitely true that without really knowing you train youself to see the word around you through these two lenses as it were. Thanks Thorsten.
I learned photography on a 50MM lens and shot for approximately 13 years with nothing else. Despite all the lenses I have owned, I always return to it at some point. Since purchasing my M240, I have used the 50MM Summicron almost exclusively.
Thorsten, superb explanation. I always known that I wasn't a wide angle guy, but didn't really get closer to understand my preferred lens size. Just going back with the pictures on my Q2 I'm definitely a 50 mm guy. So your explanation made the choice for my first Leica M lens so much easier. Thanks man! And by the way you are SO right about that the Q system just is the beginning!
My first cam as a teenager was a Nikon FE with a 50mm, 1,4. I could not afford more lenses and 50mm kind of stuck with me for life. Except for the great Leica Q, which became the "take it anywhere" cam. I think the Q makes you a better photographer, because you will shoot twice as much as before. Simply because you will wear it all the time.
After 35 years of photos, henceforth I mainly shoot with a M262+Lux 50. And when I travel, I use my Elmarit 28. No other lens. It's simple, efficient, relaxing. That keeps me happy.
Nice photo at 2:18, it is Ada Ciganlija lake in Belgrade, I took exactly the same photo two years ago at the same place and time of the day, I have it on my flickr.
I started out with a 50 f/1.8 on my F2A (or 80mm on my 500 C/M) over four decades ago, 40mm is the most frequently used focal length the last time I checked and the Z 50 f/1.2 S is the lens that stays mostly on my camera right now. Although I haven't shot with a 50mm prime in between these two 50mm prime lenses, but rather the 24-70 f/2.8. Because I use my Leica Q as the walkabout camera, the 28mm that matches my smartphone is now the 'always with me' focal length. For creamy portraits, it has been the 85 f/1.2 or 105 f/2.5 + Softar in the past.
LOL, i bout a Q2 two years ago after seeing you in one of your old videos saying "the only bad thing about Q2 you will want to but M cameras" and that's exactly what happened to me. I bout M10-R with 35mm 1.4f and 75mm 2f, and honestly as much as i appreciated Q2 the sensor doesn't come close to M10-R. Thank you for your videos ;)
For portraits, I use the 50mm most of the time and for Street photography 35mm. You are absolutely right, by mention of dreaming getting other Leica cameras! That´s what happend to me; started with the SL2-S and now, the M10 is going to be the next one...just opened the box of pandora of Leica...;-)
Through the 80s and 90s while traveling the world in the USAF I only used a SLR with a 50mm lens and never had an issue... Now in the digital age I find myself carrying 3-4 primes with my Leica body, but 90% of the time I use a 35mm lens. I'm starting to use a 50mm lens more and more... Great video. Thank you
Great video Thorsten. 50mm all day long. Still using my digilux 3 with 25mm pancake = 50mm . Tried other focal lengths, but always come back to 50mm. Just seems right. 👍
Excellent presentation Thorsten and appreciated the blending of lens focal length with that of the painters as an illustration. The 35 mm sings to me, with a shade of 28mm to balance it when required. And I do believe it's because I live in Arizona where the view is more of a wide-open landscape, even in an urban environment where I live. So, having grown up in the American southwest, my eyes are accustomed to wide angles as I see it.
Interesting to hear about the focal length of painters! Also I appreciate talking more gnerwlly about photography and not only Leica cameras specifically.
You're Summilux, I'm Summicron, you're 50mm, I'm 35mm. Lately I've been using the 24mm as well which is so interesting in big cities because it adds perspective and context. Now I used to be a 50mm photographer and the f0.95 is the most fascinating lens I ever used but you can't travel the world with such gears and feel safe unless you're a billionaire 😉 The 35mm forces me to enter the frame or get closer if you will and the lenses are light and compact. For portraits I switched over from 85mm to 75mm which I never thought I would but it adds, again, context and perspective. Anyway great choice and great video, as always, so thanks for sharing!
Thanks for your original perspective on lens perspective and the lessons from great painters - the original recorders of light. And for the advice about using ones own photographic archive to identify how each of us most naturaly sees the world. And for the reminder of the economic cost of maximum aperture! Pay more to see less (in focus) ;)
I think a lot of photographers could benefit by being more selective and previsualizing their compositions (rather than spray and pray). The 50mm excells in this regard. Us old timers remember when most new cameras were sold with a 50mm. My Olympus OM-1 came with a 50 f/1.8 in 1978 and the Nikon FM was originally supplied with a 50 f/2. Another strong argument for the 50 is the ubiquitous iPhone. So many images are snapped wide with mobile phones. Of course now the iPhone has three lenses, computational image processing and fake bokeh...
I used to shoot two bodies, one with a 17-35 zoom and one with a 70-200 zoom. I looked at the Lightroom data and found that almost all were at the start or finish of each (eg 17,35,70 and 200) and comparatively few in between. The most used range was 70. I decided to go 50mm f1.4.
I have 35 and 50mm summilux and a 28mm summicron. My plan was to just settle on one lens and sell the other two but I can’t bring myself to part with them. With the SL I’m mostly getting the focus I want with one lens staying on the camera for a month or more at a time.
When I purchased my first 35mm SLR, I purchased it with a 50mm lens. However, the SLR broke too many times and the 50mm was too telephoto for my taste. I eventually replaced the SLR with a more reliable Nikon F SLR and I replaced the 50mm lens with a 35mm lens. Loved the 35mm so much that when I purchased a Leica M6 rangefinder, the first lens I purchased for it was a 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss Distagon. Now, I also use my 35mm on a Leica M10.
Great video, Thorsten! Yes, do a 50mm episode! :) I had a few questions: 1. Did you take the photo at 5:41 using the .95? 2. Since you still have the 50mm Noctilux, have you sold the 75mm? 3. You mentioned balance. Yes, the 50mm Noctilux is a dream, and the 1.4 is much smaller. Have you had the opportunity to test the ASPH 1.2 Noctilux? I’d be curious to know what you think of that lens, in terms of character and its size on an M. Would you get one?
That photo at 5:41 is 50mm Summilux f/1.4 with the background pushed far away because it's done on the square fairly far away from any buildings. I let go of the 75mm, it was too heave and unpractical. Might get it back because it is nice to have on the shelf (I know who got it now). I used the 50/1.2 quite a bit, the original one, and while it was fun to use, it wasn't that fun to have. I feel I would be wasting my time using it.
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard I would have sworn it was the Noctilux :). Impressive from the Summilux! What you said about the 1.2 is intriguing. I suppose in many ways it is appealing as an option, and it might serve different purposes in two very different line-ups of lenses. Maybe not a main 50mm lens but a good 50mm second lens. Would it be an only 50 or one more 50 lens in anyone’s collection… Again, what are you looking for. It is most definitely not the kind of work-horse as the 0.95. But its smaller size makes it a better weight-balanced Noctilux. I’m so divided myself because to me both the 50 Summilux, the 50 1.2 and 50 0.95 are very appealing, for different reasons. I’d love to have a 50mm lens again in my life since I’ve been using 28mm and 35mm for some time. A 50 like one of the three would give more intimacy into my images.
I am mostly a 50mm shooter: I've sometimes been out with a 28 - 70 zoom so I can be flexible but found on multiple occasions I've stood, framed the image to what I want and taken the shot, then look and see that I've zoomed to 50mm anyway. So going off ever bothering with zoom lens
Genius video … thank you. I used to shoot, develop and print B&W many years ago but now I’m using the iPhone for stills mostly and GoPro for sailing videos. Recently, I’ve thought that I’d like to capture higher quality images with a dedicated camera. The Leica monochrome was very appealing but the cost is too great so eventually I discovered the Fujifilm X100V and become very interested in acquiring this camera. Went to my local camera shop and they made a compelling case about how I should buy the Nikon Z50 with the two kit (telephoto) lens. A very capable little camera system but I keep coming back to the fixed focal length Fuji. Maybe one day I will be able to justify the Leica but in the mean time, I think that the X100V will be a great start for me. Thanks again for an excellent video!
Can you please do a video on how to nail focus with f1.4 (wide open) lenses? the whole magic of Leica is for wide open but it's a straggle still. I use visioflex but still. shooting kids almost impossible with M cameras.
Very interesting, thank you ! What would be then the approach to choose an unique lens for a non full frame camera like the Leica TL-2 or the Leica CL, since the image is then cropped ?
I can attest to the fact that after I got my original Leica Q I soon after wanted to get another Leica. I got the SL2 and have gotten some Leica L mount lenses second hand. I was fortunate as I found a old Canon 50mm 0.95 in some of my mothers things and sent it to get it fitted with a Leica M mount. Do you think that Leica will come out with a SL2 monochrome?
You are infected ;-) I could suspect Leica to come with SL and S Monochrom, but I would hope that they only would go monochrome sensors if and when they had something unique to bring. Like the M9 Monochrom is very unique, and the Phase One monochrome back is also.
I suggested this many years ago. Leica does listen (why do you think there is no video in the M10?) but they won't tell you what they're thinking. I am surprised that there is no SL2 Monochrom, I have to admit.
I’m enjoying the explanation, I’m thinking that I need a good fast 50 for my SL 601, I think I’m probably going to go for the Voigtlander 50 f1.2 due to budgetary constraints, unless there’s a better option?
The Voigtlander 50 is about 1,000 USD. My first choice - if anything was possible - would be the 50/1.4 Summilux-M (4,000 or something). Another one for the SL could be a second-hand 35/1.4 Summilux which acts as a 50/1.4 and is actually really good. New it's also up there, but maybe second-hand you could get your hands on one.
You say that you always shoot 'wide open.' When you use the Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 'wide open,' do you always use the Leica SL2 body? If you shoot with an M10, do you shoot 'wide open' but always with the EVF attachment? Shooting an M10 with a Noctilux lens 'wide open' without the Visoflex attachment is very frustrating for me, i.e. sometimes sharp focus, many times not.
I started using the SL2 recently, in the last six months. M10-P I still consider my main camera, and mostly without Electronic ViewFinder. The Noctilux, the 90/2, the 75/1.25, the 90/1.5 and so on are not difficult to focus on the M10 with he rangefinder. The camera has to be in sync, and you can check if it is by focusing on something at a far distance. Wen you focus at infinity (i.e. as far away as the focusing ring can be turned to focus), the hilltop, buildings, etc in the far distance has to match. If the focus mechanism doesn't match, the camera has back focus or front focus, and that will affect all focus distances. \ So, if the focusing mechanism is ok, then focusing is possible. And then it is is a matter of simply focusing and take the photo. The moment you start fine-tuning the focus (by turning back and forth on the focusing ring), or you doubt your focus ... then it will be off in many photos. The way to do it is to be sloppy: You turn the focusing ring, and the moment you see it matches, you take the photos. Try it, I have "cured" many in my workshops in a few hours with this. Your eyesight can be less than perfect, it doesn't matter, because if you can just vaguely see that the focus snaps in, you can focus. What you can do wrong with focusing is to focus on something that can't be focused on. You must have contrast, or lines, or both, an edge to align the focus on. I often move the camera towards an edge (a nose in sunshine whereas the background is dark; that is a high contrast line right there). Of for portraits, I often use the camera vertical, so I use the horizontal edge under the persons eyeball to adjust the focus (much easier than using the pupils of the eye). And so on. It's simple, and nobody can get focus right if there is no lines or contrast to "put on top of each other" in the rangefinder. Hope that helps :-)
Interesting.. I surveyed a sample of pictures I took over the last 2 years with a zoom and I'm either 24mm, 35-40mm or 60, but most are 35 (actually 17mm in micro 4/3 format).
Wow this is awesome! I always wonder why people say your eyes see 50mm but my eyes always see like super wide angle, now I understand, the 50mm is the area where you able to focus in that wide angle of your field of view of your eyes! Plus a lot other great details and skills of yours! Thanks a lot! By the way, where can I get that yellow strap, my favorite color is yellow, I hope they make silver Q2 soon but wish they will keep the yellow numbers marking on the lens like the black color model, less readable but still I like yellow, that yellow strap will help to make it appear to me and spark tp use the camera more often too!
The yellow strap is here: www.overgaard.dk/Thorsten-von-Overgaard-Gallery-Store-Camera-Strap-Calfskin-Leather-Orange-Edging-Always-Wear-a-Camera-for-LeicaQ2-LeicaM-Fujifilm.html
When I'm going to photograph with my M10 with only one lens, it is a 35mm. With a 50mm lens, I have to take also a 28mm with me. If I had only a 50mm I would miss a lot of motives.
Great video, It's been a while since you posted. I so agree with what you say about zooms. I love them for their utility but they make you lazy. I will be getting a 28mm f2 Voigtländer for my m8 and adapted z5 (continue to dream of the M10) for now. Learn the lens you use and see the world through it......
Inflation means there is so much money around they hold less value. So in a way, yes. But in photography you decide how many you take, and how much value you put in each frame.
Compression wise (not Angle of View), I See in 58mm terms, irrespective of the sensor-size, be it Micro-4/3rds or Fullframe or Medium-Format, but there is no 58mm lens for my Leica M10-P white LE .... so I have to use my 50/1.4 Summilux (that came as a kit/set). The 58mm (or 65mm) is an irreplaceable Focal Length, one for a lifetime. There's no substitute for it, 35-40mm lenses is not the answer, technically, as, 35-40mm is Compositional No-Man's Land, neither here, nor there, where finding the correct Frame is difficult, what to include/exclude is a dilemma. Number Two Lens (if at all I would have another) is the 28mm -- Summicron/Summilux-M or Q2 Mono or APO-Summicron-SL. The 28 can't be my one & only Do-All Lens, but can readily & easily become my 2nd lens. I may later think of 85/90/105/135/200 as the 3rd lens. For a 200mm f/2 lens I would get a Canon/Nikon body. Thanks Thorsten Sir, for your inspiring & influential input and insight.
@@vinylisland6386 thanks for reminding, i had forgotten it totally, .... yes it’s 3rd party, not native, but definitely an option, & a very good at that.
Leica er sikkert udmærket, men jeg kan love at jeg aldrig vil anskaffe et! Jeg kommer næppe heller nogensinde til at eje et objektiv med større blænde end 1.8. Jeg er ikke professionel fotograf, jeg er ikke hobbyfotograf, jeg er vel dårlig nok amatør. Jeg hører til det store flertal af Fest- Ferie- og Familiefotografer. Men jeg kan alligevel godt lide at vide lidt om, hvad jeg har fingrene i, og jeg kan godt lide kvalitetsudstyr - inden for rimelighedens grænser. Jeg valgte for længe siden (1996) tilfældigvis et Canon spejlrefleks, og jeg har aldrig set nogen grund til at skifte mærke. På et tidspunkt gik jeg jo over til digital, og på grund af prisen blev det APS-C, og det har jeg aldrig fortrudt. Billedkvaliteten er mere end tilfredsstillende, så jeg kunne ikke drømme om at købe full frame. Objektiver har jeg efterhånden mange af, og jeg er glad for at de dækker brændvidder fra 10-600 mm (svarende til 16-960 mm full frame). Det dyreste objektiv i samlingen er et Sigma 135 mm F1.8, men det er nu ikke det jeg bruger mest. Jeg foretrækker så langt en zoom frem for en fast brændvidde, og det jeg har taget flest billeder med, er uden tvivl mit 18-55 mm F3.5-5.6 (og i filmæraen var det mit tilsvarende 28-80 mm F3.5-5.6). Til indendørs foto uden blitz vælger jeg dog næsten altid mit Sigma 18-35 F1.8 på grund af den fantastiske billedkvalitet, men jeg vrider stadig ind imellem i zoomringen i et forgæves forsøg på at komme længere ud end de 35 mm. Heldigvis har jeg så også et Sigma 50-100 mm F1.8. Jeg rejser ikke meget, men hvis jeg gjorde, og hvis jeg kun måtte medbringe ét objektiv, ville det nok blive mit 18-135, trods den lidt ringere billedkvalitet og den lille max-blænde. Jeg ville dog være stærkt fristet til at snyde og vælge 18-55 + 55-250, da sidstnævnte har glimrende billedkvalitet. Selvfølgelig kan jeg godt lide at kunne sløre baggrunden, men evnen til at zoome er meget mere værd for mig, så jeg både kan tage gruppebilleder og snigportrætter; de mest spændende ansigtsudtryk får man ikke, når folk ved de bliver fotograferet, så en tele er et must! Hvis jeg skulle på Safari at fotografere løver og giraffer, ville det i stedet blive mit 150-600 mm. (Jeg ville dog nok forsøge ar liste mit 18-55 ned i lommen også). Så hvilket objektiv “er” jeg? Jeg føler bestemt ikke, jeg “er” nogen bestemt brændvidde, men skulle jeg vælge én (hvilket jeg er glad for, at jeg ikke skal), ville det nok blive 35 mm, men jeg ved at jeg ville føle det som en spændetrøje. En zoom er frihed!
My favourite lens is the Helios Biotar 44-2 58mm f2.0 lens. It’s slight compression makes me concentrate on content, composition and lighting. It has virtually no distortion, is soft and dreamy at full aperture, and when stopped down is nice and sharp with good contrast. The colour is beautiful, and the single coating makes it exceptional for infrared work. I like it so much I have three copies.
When I want to be inspired with my photography, I will click into any of Thorsten's video. His passion in Leica & photography is addictive. He's what I aim to be: to just focus on my artwork & do what I love most.
Thank you 🙂
Looking at painting is a great way to learn about spatial composition, form, light and color. Those old dudes knew what they were doing.
The older film cameras passed down to me by my Uncle always had 28mm lenses available for them (as well as 35mm and 50mm) and I chose to always carry the 28 since they tend to be smaller in footprint. Fast forward 20+ years and a Leica Q2 is glued to my hand. I also have other digital cameras I use with interchangeable lenses but rarely go beyond 35mm. When i read scenes, i read them with 28-35mm frame lines.
As my eyes got worse, I moved from M with 50mm Summilux to Leica Q -116. Could not be happier. I've been to many countries with the Q, and it never disappoints. When I hand my camera to a stranger to take a Family Photo, the M (due to focus) failed most of the time. With the Leica Q, I have the best Family Photos taking by the strangers :) Great Stuff! Thanks,
This one is fun. And timely. New to Leica, I thought I “was a 50mm” given that is pretty much the only full frame focal length I every used in a continuous basis. So, I bought a used Sumilux 50mm f/1.4 and carried it every day for a month or so. Later I saw a used Sumicron 35mm f/2, bought that lens, and it has never been taken off the camera since it arrived. I turned out to enjoy the images it makes a lot more, and as you say, it captured more of what I was “seeing” walking around. Thank you!
Wonderful talk by a great teacher/photographer
Thank you from all of us!!
I have learned so much by watching your videos, and this one put a lot of concepts together and is one of the best ones. Thank you for sharing.
Thank you. I think this one and "What is Sharpness?" ruclips.net/video/yk4woeP08LI/видео.html are some of the most popular
My bread and butter lens has always been the 70-200 F2.8, a very versatile lens, but it compresses everything, so your explanation of views for the 28, 35 and 50 is spot on. For my next photographic assignment I will only use the 35 and 50 and learn see the picture the way the great painters did. Thank you for a very enlightening explanation.
Interesting comparison with painters, not seen focal lengths described this way before 👍🏻
I had never thought in terms of focal length in paintings either until some years ago, in the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, I noticed a painting of a small room, which seemed cramped, and thought that the painter could have chosen to paint the scene with a wider lens. So, I thought, where the painter chooses to “stand” in relation to the subject matter is very much like choosing what focal length to choose for a photograph.
Great video very creative way of explaining a path to choose a standard lens
I started with a combination of a 35mm and a 90mm 40 years ago, and I stuck tot it ever since. It's defenitely true that without really knowing you train youself to see the word around you through these two lenses as it were. Thanks Thorsten.
I learned photography on a 50MM lens and shot for approximately 13 years with nothing else. Despite all the lenses I have owned, I always return to it at some point. Since purchasing my M240, I have used the 50MM Summicron almost exclusively.
Excellent video. My advice, if you are new to the M-system, start with a 28mm. Get used to the manual focus, and after that go to the 50 mm.
really helpful, I am using my Leica Q and I am happy with the frame I see !
Thorsten, superb explanation. I always known that I wasn't a wide angle guy, but didn't really get closer to understand my preferred lens size. Just going back with the pictures on my Q2 I'm definitely a 50 mm guy. So your explanation made the choice for my first Leica M lens so much easier. Thanks man! And by the way you are SO right about that the Q system just is the beginning!
"The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera." This video made me think of this quote.
My first cam as a teenager was a Nikon FE with a 50mm, 1,4. I could not afford more lenses and 50mm kind of stuck with me for life. Except for the great Leica Q, which became the "take it anywhere" cam. I think the Q makes you a better photographer, because you will shoot twice as much as before. Simply because you will wear it all the time.
After 35 years of photos, henceforth I mainly shoot with a M262+Lux 50. And when I travel, I use my Elmarit 28. No other lens. It's simple, efficient, relaxing.
That keeps me happy.
Nice photo at 2:18, it is Ada Ciganlija lake in Belgrade, I took exactly the same photo two years ago at the same place and time of the day, I have it on my flickr.
I saw it, I would think it was the same if I didn't know better. Beautiful place, city and people.
Great insight on your thoughts. Thank you.👍
Thank you for this. Enjoyed greatly.
I started out with a 50 f/1.8 on my F2A (or 80mm on my 500 C/M) over four decades ago, 40mm is the most frequently used focal length the last time I checked and the Z 50 f/1.2 S is the lens that stays mostly on my camera right now. Although I haven't shot with a 50mm prime in between these two 50mm prime lenses, but rather the 24-70 f/2.8. Because I use my Leica Q as the walkabout camera, the 28mm that matches my smartphone is now the 'always with me' focal length. For creamy portraits, it has been the 85 f/1.2 or 105 f/2.5 + Softar in the past.
Leica Q-P with the sublime 28mm. Daily driver gets it done day in day out. Awesome video, loved every minute.
Very interesting! Looking at my photo's I seem to mix 28, 35 and 50, but the ones I like best are the 50's. Thanks!
Great video Thorsten
Thanks Thorsten, for this great video and explanation of the use of the different focal lengths !
I’m using my 1:2/50 most of the time 😀👍🏻
Funnily enough, I am coming back to the Summicrons. Superb optics. Shallow dof is just one of many expressive possibilities.
As always, nice video. I tend to shoot mostly 35, but still use 50.
LOL, i bout a Q2 two years ago after seeing you in one of your old videos saying "the only bad thing about Q2 you will want to but M cameras" and that's exactly what happened to me. I bout M10-R with 35mm 1.4f and 75mm 2f, and honestly as much as i appreciated Q2 the sensor doesn't come close to M10-R. Thank you for your videos ;)
For portraits, I use the 50mm most of the time and for Street photography 35mm. You are absolutely right, by mention of dreaming getting other Leica cameras! That´s what happend to me; started with the SL2-S and now, the M10 is going to be the next one...just opened the box of pandora of Leica...;-)
Through the 80s and 90s while traveling the world in the USAF I only used a SLR with a 50mm lens and never had an issue... Now in the digital age I find myself carrying 3-4 primes with my Leica body, but 90% of the time I use a 35mm lens. I'm starting to use a 50mm lens more and more... Great video. Thank you
I started with a 40mm when I was a teenager, so that always feels normal to me. 35mm is okay, just needs a slight crop in PP.
Excellent 👍🏻
Patiently waiting for Noctilux Masterclass :)
Better hope it is worth the wait :-)
Your videos are very inspiring. 🙏👏
Great video Thorsten. 50mm all day long. Still using my digilux 3 with 25mm pancake = 50mm . Tried other focal lengths, but always come back to 50mm. Just seems right. 👍
Excellent presentation Thorsten and appreciated the blending of lens focal length with that of the painters as an illustration. The 35 mm sings to me, with a shade of 28mm to balance it when required. And I do believe it's because I live in Arizona where the view is more of a wide-open landscape, even in an urban environment where I live. So, having grown up in the American southwest, my eyes are accustomed to wide angles as I see it.
Such helpful videos, thank you sir. 🙏
Thanks for sharing your knowledge!! :)
Interesting to hear about the focal length of painters! Also I appreciate talking more gnerwlly about photography and not only Leica cameras specifically.
You're Summilux, I'm Summicron, you're 50mm, I'm 35mm. Lately I've been using the 24mm as well which is so interesting in big cities because it adds perspective and context.
Now I used to be a 50mm photographer and the f0.95 is the most fascinating lens I ever used but you can't travel the world with such gears and feel safe unless you're a billionaire 😉
The 35mm forces me to enter the frame or get closer if you will and the lenses are light and compact. For portraits I switched over from 85mm to 75mm which I never thought I would but it adds, again, context and perspective.
Anyway great choice and great video, as always, so thanks for sharing!
Thanks for your original perspective on lens perspective and the lessons from great painters - the original recorders of light. And for the advice about using ones own photographic archive to identify how each of us most naturaly sees the world. And for the reminder of the economic cost of maximum aperture! Pay more to see less (in focus) ;)
I think a lot of photographers could benefit by being more selective and previsualizing their compositions (rather than spray and pray). The 50mm excells in this regard. Us old timers remember when most new cameras were sold with a 50mm. My Olympus OM-1 came with a 50 f/1.8 in 1978 and the Nikon FM was originally supplied with a 50 f/2. Another strong argument for the 50 is the ubiquitous iPhone. So many images are snapped wide with mobile phones. Of course now the iPhone has three lenses, computational image processing and fake bokeh...
I used to shoot two bodies, one with a 17-35 zoom and one with a 70-200 zoom. I looked at the Lightroom data and found that almost all were at the start or finish of each (eg 17,35,70 and 200) and comparatively few in between. The most used range was 70. I decided to go 50mm f1.4.
Wonderful. Love this. It reminds me of conversations I used to have with an old boss of mine.
I have 35 and 50mm summilux and a 28mm summicron. My plan was to just settle on one lens and sell the other two but I can’t bring myself to part with them. With the SL I’m mostly getting the focus I want with one lens staying on the camera for a month or more at a time.
Oh and thanks for adding a picture of Elvis at the White House, I loved it 👍
When I purchased my first 35mm SLR, I purchased it with a 50mm lens. However, the SLR broke too many times and the 50mm was too telephoto for my taste.
I eventually replaced the SLR with a more reliable Nikon F SLR and I replaced the 50mm lens with a 35mm lens.
Loved the 35mm so much that when I purchased a Leica M6 rangefinder, the first lens I purchased for it was a 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss Distagon.
Now, I also use my 35mm on a Leica M10.
Great video, Thorsten! Yes, do a 50mm episode! :) I had a few questions: 1. Did you take the photo at 5:41 using the .95? 2. Since you still have the 50mm Noctilux, have you sold the 75mm? 3. You mentioned balance. Yes, the 50mm Noctilux is a dream, and the 1.4 is much smaller. Have you had the opportunity to test the ASPH 1.2 Noctilux? I’d be curious to know what you think of that lens, in terms of character and its size on an M. Would you get one?
That photo at 5:41 is 50mm Summilux f/1.4 with the background pushed far away because it's done on the square fairly far away from any buildings. I let go of the 75mm, it was too heave and unpractical. Might get it back because it is nice to have on the shelf (I know who got it now).
I used the 50/1.2 quite a bit, the original one, and while it was fun to use, it wasn't that fun to have. I feel I would be wasting my time using it.
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard I would have sworn it was the Noctilux :). Impressive from the Summilux! What you said about the 1.2 is intriguing. I suppose in many ways it is appealing as an option, and it might serve different purposes in two very different line-ups of lenses. Maybe not a main 50mm lens but a good 50mm second lens. Would it be an only 50 or one more 50 lens in anyone’s collection… Again, what are you looking for. It is most definitely not the kind of work-horse as the 0.95. But its smaller size makes it a better weight-balanced Noctilux. I’m so divided myself because to me both the 50 Summilux, the 50 1.2 and 50 0.95 are very appealing, for different reasons. I’d love to have a 50mm lens again in my life since I’ve been using 28mm and 35mm for some time. A 50 like one of the three would give more intimacy into my images.
I am mostly a 50mm shooter: I've sometimes been out with a 28 - 70 zoom so I can be flexible but found on multiple occasions I've stood, framed the image to what I want and taken the shot, then look and see that I've zoomed to 50mm anyway. So going off ever bothering with zoom lens
Genius video … thank you. I used to shoot, develop and print B&W many years ago but now I’m using the iPhone for stills mostly and GoPro for sailing videos. Recently, I’ve thought that I’d like to capture higher quality images with a dedicated camera. The Leica monochrome was very appealing but the cost is too great so eventually I discovered the Fujifilm X100V and become very interested in acquiring this camera. Went to my local camera shop and they made a compelling case about how I should buy the Nikon Z50 with the two kit (telephoto) lens. A very capable little camera system but I keep coming back to the fixed focal length Fuji. Maybe one day I will be able to justify the Leica but in the mean time, I think that the X100V will be a great start for me. Thanks again for an excellent video!
Can you please do a video on how to nail focus with f1.4 (wide open) lenses? the whole magic of Leica is for wide open but it's a straggle still. I use visioflex but still. shooting kids almost impossible with M cameras.
Very interesting, thank you ! What would be then the approach to choose an unique lens for a non full frame camera like the Leica TL-2 or the Leica CL, since the image is then cropped ?
Think of AOV, not focal length. That should make things clearer. ;-)
Great video.
Thank you :-)
I can attest to the fact that after I got my original Leica Q I soon after wanted to get another Leica. I got the SL2 and have gotten some Leica L mount lenses second hand. I was fortunate as I found a old Canon 50mm 0.95 in some of my mothers things and sent it to get it fitted with a Leica M mount. Do you think that Leica will come out with a SL2 monochrome?
You are infected ;-) I could suspect Leica to come with SL and S Monochrom, but I would hope that they only would go monochrome sensors if and when they had something unique to bring. Like the M9 Monochrom is very unique, and the Phase One monochrome back is also.
I think there is a market for it. It would make sense.
I suggested this many years ago. Leica does listen (why do you think there is no video in the M10?) but they won't tell you what they're thinking. I am surprised that there is no SL2 Monochrom, I have to admit.
I’m enjoying the explanation, I’m thinking that I need a good fast 50 for my SL 601, I think I’m probably going to go for the Voigtlander 50 f1.2 due to budgetary constraints, unless there’s a better option?
The Voigtlander 50 is about 1,000 USD. My first choice - if anything was possible - would be the 50/1.4 Summilux-M (4,000 or something). Another one for the SL could be a second-hand 35/1.4 Summilux which acts as a 50/1.4 and is actually really good. New it's also up there, but maybe second-hand you could get your hands on one.
Try the zeiss 50mm 1.5, really interesting look
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard How does a 35/1.4 ‘act as a 50/1.4’ on an SL Typ 601, which is full frame?
@@Pembers357 I'm guessing TO means the 35 Summilux TL, which brings the crop factor but also reduces mp's.
Thorsten, have you noticed the EVF getting scratched on the Q2 when using glasses?
No, I haven't experienced that. If it happens I would look for metal buttons on trousers, or zippers and such (or the frame of the glasses).
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard Thanks
You say that you always shoot 'wide open.' When you use the Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 'wide open,' do you always use the Leica SL2 body? If you shoot with an M10, do you shoot 'wide open' but always with the EVF attachment? Shooting an M10 with a Noctilux lens 'wide open' without the Visoflex attachment is very frustrating for me, i.e. sometimes sharp focus, many times not.
I started using the SL2 recently, in the last six months. M10-P I still consider my main camera, and mostly without Electronic ViewFinder. The Noctilux, the 90/2, the 75/1.25, the 90/1.5 and so on are not difficult to focus on the M10 with he rangefinder. The camera has to be in sync, and you can check if it is by focusing on something at a far distance. Wen you focus at infinity (i.e. as far away as the focusing ring can be turned to focus), the hilltop, buildings, etc in the far distance has to match. If the focus mechanism doesn't match, the camera has back focus or front focus, and that will affect all focus distances. \
So, if the focusing mechanism is ok, then focusing is possible. And then it is is a matter of simply focusing and take the photo. The moment you start fine-tuning the focus (by turning back and forth on the focusing ring), or you doubt your focus ... then it will be off in many photos.
The way to do it is to be sloppy: You turn the focusing ring, and the moment you see it matches, you take the photos. Try it, I have "cured" many in my workshops in a few hours with this.
Your eyesight can be less than perfect, it doesn't matter, because if you can just vaguely see that the focus snaps in, you can focus.
What you can do wrong with focusing is to focus on something that can't be focused on. You must have contrast, or lines, or both, an edge to align the focus on. I often move the camera towards an edge (a nose in sunshine whereas the background is dark; that is a high contrast line right there). Of for portraits, I often use the camera vertical, so I use the horizontal edge under the persons eyeball to adjust the focus (much easier than using the pupils of the eye). And so on. It's simple, and nobody can get focus right if there is no lines or contrast to "put on top of each other" in the rangefinder.
Hope that helps :-)
So many good lenses for every system these days. It’s more about the photographer IMO
Interesting.. I surveyed a sample of pictures I took over the last 2 years with a zoom and I'm either 24mm, 35-40mm or 60, but most are 35 (actually 17mm in micro 4/3 format).
Wow this is awesome! I always wonder why people say your eyes see 50mm but my eyes always see like super wide angle, now I understand, the 50mm is the area where you able to focus in that wide angle of your field of view of your eyes! Plus a lot other great details and skills of yours! Thanks a lot!
By the way, where can I get that yellow strap, my favorite color is yellow, I hope they make silver Q2 soon but wish they will keep the yellow numbers marking on the lens like the black color model, less readable but still I like yellow, that yellow strap will help to make it appear to me and spark tp use the camera more often too!
The yellow strap is here: www.overgaard.dk/Thorsten-von-Overgaard-Gallery-Store-Camera-Strap-Calfskin-Leather-Orange-Edging-Always-Wear-a-Camera-for-LeicaQ2-LeicaM-Fujifilm.html
When I'm going to photograph with my M10 with only one lens, it is a 35mm. With a 50mm lens, I have to take also a 28mm with me. If I had only a 50mm I would miss a lot of motives.
Great video, It's been a while since you posted. I so agree with what you say about zooms. I love them for their utility but they make you lazy. I will be getting a 28mm f2 Voigtländer for my m8 and adapted z5 (continue to dream of the M10) for now. Learn the lens you use and see the world through it......
The shot at 5:44 is that Paris Thorsten?
Yes, on Place de la Concorde (in the background)
Magic Of Light recognized the chairs and the pond. Thought it was Jardin de Tuileries
I used a 50mm today and use it often.
In 5 years..
Im Thorsten Overgaard. Im a Danish photographer. I identify myself as he/him
Very interesting. I think I’m 35, but my best photography is 50…my ambition is 21.
85 and 135 for me
Adam Ansel hsd 3 plates, a sd card holds 10000 shots. Is there Inflation?
Inflation means there is so much money around they hold less value. So in a way, yes.
But in photography you decide how many you take, and how much value you put in each frame.
I am a fan of your episodes but without subtitles, I have a lot of useful information: (((
Compression wise (not Angle of View), I See in 58mm terms, irrespective of the sensor-size, be it Micro-4/3rds or Fullframe or Medium-Format,
but there is no 58mm lens for my Leica M10-P white LE .... so I have to use my 50/1.4 Summilux (that came as a kit/set). The 58mm (or 65mm) is an irreplaceable Focal Length, one for a lifetime. There's no substitute for it, 35-40mm lenses is not the answer, technically, as, 35-40mm is Compositional No-Man's Land, neither here, nor there, where finding the correct Frame is difficult, what to include/exclude is a dilemma. Number Two Lens (if at all I would have another) is the 28mm -- Summicron/Summilux-M or Q2 Mono or APO-Summicron-SL. The 28 can't be my one & only Do-All Lens, but can readily & easily become my 2nd lens. I may later think of 85/90/105/135/200 as the 3rd lens. For a 200mm f/2 lens I would get a Canon/Nikon body.
Thanks Thorsten Sir, for your inspiring & influential input and insight.
Nice 🙂
The Russian 44-2 Helios is a 58mm f.2. You could fit it on your M10P with an adaptor. Or any mirrorless body. I use it on a Leica SL.
@@vinylisland6386 thanks for reminding, i had forgotten it totally, .... yes it’s 3rd party, not native, but definitely an option, & a very good at that.
35mm all day long for me
Your photos are not that great on Instagram. Do you have a website?
It would be the 35mm :)
28
Fabulous
According to American Photo Bob McNeelys photo of Bill Clinton was taken with a Canon EF 28-70mm f. 2.8 L USM on a Canon EOS-1N camera.
He talks about using Leica in the book, and 3200 ISO Kodak. Get the book, it's a great read and great photos.
I think I'm 35 mm. :)
Hello from Turkey do you like Turkey
I'm a super takumar. Fast and toxic! lol
Leica people are stuck in the sixties-seventies.
Leica er sikkert udmærket, men jeg kan love at jeg aldrig vil anskaffe et! Jeg kommer næppe heller nogensinde til at eje et objektiv med større blænde end 1.8.
Jeg er ikke professionel fotograf, jeg er ikke hobbyfotograf, jeg er vel dårlig nok amatør. Jeg hører til det store flertal af Fest- Ferie- og Familiefotografer. Men jeg kan alligevel godt lide at vide lidt om, hvad jeg har fingrene i, og jeg kan godt lide kvalitetsudstyr - inden for rimelighedens grænser. Jeg valgte for længe siden (1996) tilfældigvis et Canon spejlrefleks, og jeg har aldrig set nogen grund til at skifte mærke. På et tidspunkt gik jeg jo over til digital, og på grund af prisen blev det APS-C, og det har jeg aldrig fortrudt. Billedkvaliteten er mere end tilfredsstillende, så jeg kunne ikke drømme om at købe full frame. Objektiver har jeg efterhånden mange af, og jeg er glad for at de dækker brændvidder fra 10-600 mm (svarende til 16-960 mm full frame). Det dyreste objektiv i samlingen er et Sigma 135 mm F1.8, men det er nu ikke det jeg bruger mest. Jeg foretrækker så langt en zoom frem for en fast brændvidde, og det jeg har taget flest billeder med, er uden tvivl mit 18-55 mm F3.5-5.6 (og i filmæraen var det mit tilsvarende 28-80 mm F3.5-5.6). Til indendørs foto uden blitz vælger jeg dog næsten altid mit Sigma 18-35 F1.8 på grund af den fantastiske billedkvalitet, men jeg vrider stadig ind imellem i zoomringen i et forgæves forsøg på at komme længere ud end de 35 mm. Heldigvis har jeg så også et Sigma 50-100 mm F1.8.
Jeg rejser ikke meget, men hvis jeg gjorde, og hvis jeg kun måtte medbringe ét objektiv, ville det nok blive mit 18-135, trods den lidt ringere billedkvalitet og den lille max-blænde. Jeg ville dog være stærkt fristet til at snyde og vælge 18-55 + 55-250, da sidstnævnte har glimrende billedkvalitet.
Selvfølgelig kan jeg godt lide at kunne sløre baggrunden, men evnen til at zoome er meget mere værd for mig, så jeg både kan tage gruppebilleder og snigportrætter; de mest spændende ansigtsudtryk får man ikke, når folk ved de bliver fotograferet, så en tele er et must! Hvis jeg skulle på Safari at fotografere løver og giraffer, ville det i stedet blive mit 150-600 mm. (Jeg ville dog nok forsøge ar liste mit 18-55 ned i lommen også).
Så hvilket objektiv “er” jeg? Jeg føler bestemt ikke, jeg “er” nogen bestemt brændvidde, men skulle jeg vælge én (hvilket jeg er glad for, at jeg ikke skal), ville det nok blive 35 mm, men jeg ved at jeg ville føle det som en spændetrøje. En zoom er frihed!