Leica M3 w 90mm Summicron: f/5.6@1/125th second   |   Leica M3 w 50mm Summilux f/4@1/60th second

Sunny 16:

You already knew this one, but on the off chance that you didn't:

Your shutter speed should be the ISO (ASA) of the film you're shooting with your lens set at at f/16 in bright sunlight. Increase your exposure by 1/2 stop for morning or afternoon, and 2 stops for just prior to sunset or just after sunrise.

Increase by about 1 stop for more shadow detail, and 2-3 stops for open shade. For deep shade, such as within a forest, it's closer to 4 stops.

For print film, make that sunny 11.

When in doubt, overexpose print film. I usually shoot up to a stop under the rated film speed. After all, when a film's spec sheet claims that it has a stop under exposure latitude, and three stops over exposure latitude, the manufacturer is simply telling you that the higher speed is a marketing ploy.

Slide film is touchy. Plan on doing lots of bracketing. Expose this stuff mumbling the mantra: "Film is cheap... Film is cheap..."

Ever since I started relying on an incident light meter, my percentage of acceptably metered exposures has risen by at least 50%. Reflected light meters, either handheld or in the camera are easily thrown off by light or dark backgrounds.

IMHO, Leica really blew it when they replaced the self timer (a useful gadget) with the meter in the M4-P and subsequent cameras.

I've stopped using in camera meters. Until I got an M7. There's somthing to say for an in camera meter where you can lock the exposure on that part of the scene that you want to show up as middle grey. It's also much faster and more accurate for indoor work, where generally you have a very wide range of exposure possibilities.

Meter the darkest part of the scene that you want to have detail in, and the lightest. If there's more than about 4 stops difference (slow film) or 6 (fast film), you're going to loose detail. You have to decide what you want to emphasize. It's a good time to bracket.

There's no substitute for experience here. You really have to experiment with a few rolls of film, photographing high contrast, back lit subjects, low contrast, flat lit subjects on overcast days to see what sort of results that YOU like. After a hundred or so ruined exposures, you'll start get a feel for what works and what doesn't. This is important. All too many photographers, getting that first roll of disasters back from the photofinisher's, give up on manual cameras. They do not realize that it is part of their learning curve, and they need to learn from their errors, and immediately go shoot another roll!

My own preference for meters in the Gossen Luna Pro. I've used it for so long that I've come to see light in terms of it's 1-22 scale. It's a bit more sensitive than the Silicon meters I've tried. I've also tried a Sekonic L-308B, L-318B, a few Vivitars, the Gossen Luna Pro F, and an old Weston Master V. Well, they all worked, some even measured flash (I never used this feature, the thyristor circuitry in the flash does an excellent job here). The Silicon based meters are fast, but not quite as sensitive, and the Sekonics have an annoying initialization sequence that lasts a few seconds after you turn it on. Don't take this too seriously. All of the meters mentioned above work just fine, in most light you're likely to encounter in general photography.

Add 19 stops to the sunny 16 rule for exposures in full moonlight. If you're shooting 1/1000th @ f/16, you'd be shooting 2 seconds at f/1.0. Better add a second or so for reciprocity. Add another 2 stops for a half moon.

For the moon itself, add 3 stops to sunny 16. To begin to fill the frame with the lunar disk, you'll need a 2000 mm lens.

Preset the exposure and focus, and put the camera on a shelf or brace it against a wall, and use the self timer. This trick works best with wide angle lenses, as they are a bit more forgiving of framing errors.

f stops:

full, + 1/3, + 1/2, + 2/3: full, + 1/3, + 1/2, + 2/3

1.000	1.122	1.189	1.260	1.414	1.587	1.682	1.782
2.000	2.245	2.378	2.520	2.828	3.175	3.364	3.564
4.000	4.490	4.757	5.040	5.657	6.350	6.727	7.127
8.000	8.980	9.514	10.079	11.314	12.699	13.454	14.254
16.000	17.959	19.027	20.159	22.627	25.398	26.909	28.509
32.000	35.919	38.055	40.317	45.255	50.797	53.817	57.018
64.000	71.838	76.109	80.635	90.510	101.594	107.635	114.035

Lens Coverage, in Degrees:

Foc Len  Horiz x Vert          Diag     Foc Len     Horiz x Vert         Diag

14mm	104.250 x 81.203	114.182	55mm	36.244 x 24.616	42.943
15mm	100.389 x 77.320	110.527	75mm	26.991 x 18.181	32.180
17mm	93.273 x 70.435	103.678	90mm	22.620 x 15.189	27.032
20mm	83.974 x 61.928	94.493	135mm	15.189 x 10.159	18.208
21mm	81.203 x 59.490	91.702	180mm	11.421 x 7.628	13.706
24mm	73.740 x 53.130	84.062	200mm	10.286 x 6.867	12.347
28mm	65.470 x 46.397	75.381	300mm	6.867 x 4.581	8.249
35mm	54.432 x 37.849	63.440	400mm	5.153 x 3.437	6.191
50mm	39.598 x 26.991	46.793	1000mm	2.062 x 1.375	2.479

The living table:

The Leitz table top tripod is an excellent chest pod. This will get me at least a stop, if not two. Of course, my subject must also hold still, which is the tough part in available light work.

Keep your film in the freezer and ignore the expiration data. I've never had any trouble.

In a dark room, where you can't get any reading at all, meter on the light source, and then add 4 stops.

Always use a lens hood.
It protects the lens and slightly increases contrast.
Always keep the lens capped when not in use. This is most of the time.
These two measures will keep your lenses cleaner than if you always keep a skylight filter on it. This is because the skylight filter gets dirty too, and it's the front element of your lens. Can't help sharpness if it's dirty, and it can only hurt sharpness and contrast even it it's clean, if only by a tiny amount, for a well made filter.

I have stacks of filters. I rarely use them but I still keep them around. You can never tell when they'll be useful. As mentioned above, I don't recommend using them as permanent lens caps.

There are lots of lovely, elegant bags, backpacks, and other conveyances for cameras out there, and some of them are very good. Most of them have a serious flaw. The look like containers for expensive equipment, and therefore invite the attention of thieves. Avoid bags like these. Sturdy old suitcases, diaper bags, lunch boxes, and the like, are far better. Not only do they carry and protect your valuable equipment, they hide it. I've been known to use a photographer's vest on occasion, but only in such circumstances where it's unlikely to become a target for thieves

Most of our shots are hand held. If you use a tripod it's only a little harder to also shoot a 4x5, with its attendant swings and tilts that most other cameras can't match.

Shoot the fastest shutter speed that you can get away with despite it's requiring a wider lens aperture, up to about 1/125th.

Focus carefully. Squeeze the shutter release. Relax. Hold your breath. Lean against anything you can find. Put an elbow on a knee... anything that steadies you is fair. I've talked to those who say that they can shoot between heartbeats, although I've never managed this one.

Push the shutter release until it's almost ready to fire. In this way, once the desisive moment happens, you only need to move your finger say 1/10th of a milimeter to get the shot. This, of course, minimizes camera shake.

When shooting an animated subject, it's often easier to match its movements yourself rather than to try to follow focus on it.

I often attach the camera to a table top tripod, support the camera on my chest instead of a table, and fire away, with much less camera shake, and very little loss of mobility.

This is as much psychology as photographic technique.

Plan on taking a lot of pictures until your subject relaxes. The first roll is almost always a bust.

I've also found that reflectors alone, sans flash, work very well. When a subject is told that they have to relax and hold perfectly still for up to a second, something comes over them that they seem to take a good picture. 19th century photographers figured this out a long time ago, and it's worth rediscovery.

Have the subject look about 30-40 degrees away from the camera, and then, holding their head steady, look back at the camera. The three quarter profile this creates causes most people to look pretty good.

Fill the frame, but leave an interesting background.
This is where the genius of photography happens. There is no science in the above, it's all art.

Meter the sun, and shoot that, open up 1.5 stops shoot that, and then shoot one 3 stops over. With slides, bracket at 1 stop increments.

This only works for LTM lenses. The LTM thread is 26/inch or 0.9769 mm. (That's an English Whitworth measure! Barnack apparently wished to confound non-Leitz manufacturers would might make the threads with a 1mm pitch and therefore never quite fit the Leica correctly...)

Anyway, using the thin lens equation, you can usually unscrew the lens by up to 2 threads to focus a little closer. The equation:

1/Obj + 1/Imj = 1/Fl.

        Obj = distance between the lens and the object being imaged.
        Imj = distance between the lens and the image.
        Fl = Focal length of the lens.

For example, my Canon 35mm f/2 lens focuses to 1 meter. How much closer can I go?
Solve for the image distance:
1/Img = 1/Fl - 1/Obj.
Substitute the real values:
1/Img = 1/35 - 1/1000 = 0.02757...
        so Img = 36.26. The lens only moves 1.27mm in its entire range!
Now we can find out how much closer unscrewing a thread gives us:
The Img distance will be 1.27mm + 0.977mm = 37.246mm

Now solve for the object distance:
1/Obj = 1/Fl - 1/Img.
Substitute the real values:
1/Obj = 1/35 - 1/37.246 = 0.001723.
so Obj = 580mm, which really extends your range.

Reflex thinking

A single lens reflex is the best What-you-see-is-what-you-get-camera. Perspective error? No way. Depth of field? Just look. Filtration effects? Obvious. Long telephoto? No Problem. Ditto for Macros. Zooms (why, some of us modern photographers swear by them) Of Course! Rangefinders are either clumsy doing these things, or can't do them at all.

For sheer speed of operation, an Autofocus SLR, with a good zoom, can adapt to an unexpected photo opportunity much faster than a rangefinder. Say you're shooting some big shot with a 30 - 300 zoom. You're getting some close up at say 180mm or so, and a heckler starts raising a ruckus off to the side. Zoom! At 30mm you've got them both, while a compatriot with a Leica will have to change lenses. Like changing shoes in the middle of a race.

Bear in mind that many high end SLRs also have a very high sync speed, which makes outdoor fill flash possible. This is important for more formal pictures. Speeds up to 1/250th second are possible, and the best the rangefinder world can offer is the Konica Hexar RF or Voigtlander (Cosina) Bessa, with a sync of 1/125th. Most others, including the Leica, sync at 1/50th or slower. This severely limits their ability to do fill in flash on a sunny day.

A branch with red berries, just after a major ice storm. Canon F1, 90mm f/2.5 Vivitar Series 1, f/5.6 @ 125th. Hand held, no mirror lock up.

As with everything else in life, you have to pay for all of the above. SLRs have their price.

Lenses under about 65mm are not as sharp as their rangefinder compatriots. They can't be. Their rear elements need to clear the reflex mirror, and that does not make for sharper lenses.

Zooms not only have this problem, but they have to zoom as well. You pay in even more sharpness loss, a slower lens, and significantly greater weight and mechanical complexity.

You want automatic diaphragms? Instant return mirrors? Pony up and pay for it in extra mechanical complexity. Slower operation. Loud shutters. You can't see the moment of exposure. Oh, and at the moment of exposure, your average SLR has just bounced it's mirror out of the way, and stopped the diaphragm down, just when you most need absolute, rock solid, steadiness.

The current darling of the hi-tech set is, of course, autofocus. You pay for this with the infamous autofocus pause, wherein you trip the shutter at the decisive moment, and then, an eternity later (1/10th second or longer) the film is exposed.

• Hope you're still holding still and that nothing moved.
• Hope that what the camera focused on is what you wanted it to focus on.
• Hope you don't mind that the lens had to be redesigned to allow light elements, (low mass, low torque) to be used so the tiny motor could focus the lens (this didn't make it any sharper, by the way...).
• Hope that motor doesn't jam...

Spring Tulips, Canon F1, 1000mm f/11 Meade Bowers-Maksutov mirror lens. F/11 @ 1/2 second, mirror locked up.

A wonderfully camouflaged Praying mantis stalks whatever's unwary enough to get in range. Canon F1, 90mm f/2.5 Vivitar Series 1 lens, f/16 @ 1/15th second, mirror locked up. BTW: This 90 is one exquisite lens. It's the sharpest lens I own, and, as you see below, it's got some stiff competition.

My rule of thumb is for macro and telephoto work, I take my Canon F1 and a tripod. I usually lock up the mirror (no mirror bounce or wiggle from the diaphragm) and use the self timer (no wiggle from me!). The Leicas stay home. For anything else, I use the Leicas.

2004 update: I've recently discovered that Leica's old visoflex attachment for the M is more than just a well made curiosity. It transforms your fast rangefinder into a slow SLR. No auto diaphragm! But, on the plus side, it has one of the best ground glass reflex screens in the business, usable even at f/22. It also has a setting that allows you to very gentley move the mirror out of the way. No other SLR sports this feature, and it's enough of an advantage for macro work to have displaced the otherwise excellent Canon mentioned above for my macro photography.

I dare say that I should have called this rangefinder thinking, but the Leica M, for me, is leagues better than the Nikon SP I once had and seems better than any screwmount Leica or Canon or other copy (including the Voightlander [Cosina] Bessa R: The rangefinder base is too short, and screw mount lenses take forever to change), or the Konica Hexar (I don't like having a motor drive as my only wind option or the 0.62 sized finder) The Leica M is also the quietest focal plane shutter camera I've ever used.

Leicas are simple and fast. Push the shutter release, and the picture is being made within about 1/50th of a second of your action. Compare this with about 1/20th of a second with a fast SLR, or 1/4 - 1 second for autofocus. This time lag is critical when you're trying to capture action at it's peak, be it a smile or a kicked soccer ball.

You see the moment of exposure. You'll know if you moved or the subject blinked, and take another. You'll see if you moved the camera. The gentle shutter is much less likely to jar you when you're trying to hold absolutely still. This makes your already sharper lenses sharper still.

You see outside the frame you're using, for all but the widest frame in the camera. This is important. As interesting things occur outside your frame, you see them and can adjust your framing. This makes for better candids and action shots.

If your meter and or batteries die, so what! The camera continues to function just fine, and an experienced photographer can usually guess the light to +/- a stop, usually better.

Almost every neat photographic opportunity will occur again. If you're aware of what opportunities are *going* to happen, (This takes a lifetime of practice, and luck) then you can preset the Leica (exposure and focus), and concentrate on that "Decisive" moment when the image comes together. Then you can take advantage of Leica's lag time of under 1/50th second and have better luck capturing it. Apparently, this is the way that HCB worked.

When in use, the Leica does not spend a lot of time at you eye. I keep mine tucked snugly in the crook of my arm, with my meter in my shirt pocket. Lenses are kept in various and sundry pockets. First, I establish what sort of lighting I'm dealing with, from brightest to darkest, using the meter. Then I wander around looking for likely shots. Often, I leave the lens cap on until I'm ready to take a series of shots.

On seeing a candidate, I set up the camera: Lens. Aperture/Shutter. Focus.

The camera hasn't hit my eye yet. Note that I try and prefocus by scale. This not only allows me to be a bit quicker when I do frame, it also lets me check the depth of field (BTW: a wildly out of focus lens will throw the rangefinder so far off that you'll have trouble seeing both images).

Now. Up to the eye, focus, frame, and squeeze off at just the right moment.

When not in use, the camera body is kept in a pocket, protected by its body cap, lenses by their rear and front caps. You'd hardly know I was carrying a camera. When practicable, I wear a photo vest and keep everything in that.

Leicas are the fastest cameras out there, IMHO, if you plan ahead.

Even the most fanatic SLR-autofocus-zoom lovers out there should consider what happens to their amazing beasts when they find themselves inside, with you host requesting that you not use flash. That unhand-holdable f/4 at 1/4th second becomes a more manageable 1/30th at f/1.4 with a Summilux.

I'm pleased to report that to the general public, you won't look like a serious professional photographer when you're working with Leicas. You need to sport one of the big Japanese SLRs or a medium format camera to do this. The only people who ask about my equipment when I'm working are almost always photographers themselves.

Leicas, and many other mechanical cameras, are repairable. The first ones made in the early 1920s are still in use. There is a small cottage industry that specializes in repairing older leicas. An overhaul costs about $200 or so, and lasts about 10 years. A modern, top of the line auto SLR and its equipment might not be repairable 10 years from now, as the Japanese manufactures tend to not support their older products. It's a good bet that you'll have an easier time getting an M3 overhauled in 2050 than a Canon EOS.

Most serious photographers, once they've learned to use this totally manual beastie, fall in love with it. I've tried to describe the reasons for this above, but you just have to experience it to understand it, and the initial experience can be, well, daunting. Not only is it manual, it's different than any other camera:

• It loads from the bottom. Loading an M2 or M3 is s-l-o-w, and a screwmount tries the patience of Job.
• The M4 and later are much faster, but not up to the latest Japanese standards.
• Only the M5 has a shutter speed readout in the viewfinder. 2003 update: So does the M7.
• By just looking at it, you can't tell if the camera is wound.
• You can't tell what film is loaded in the camera. There's a film speed reminder dial, but you must remember to set it!
• Film rewind on an M2 or M3 is frustratingly slow, faster on an M4, and the rewind crank on the M5 is the best of the bunch. A Nikon F5 is perhaps a bit faster than even an M5, it's automated as well. It's also very loud.
• Leicas are also quite expensive. Leica will assure you that you're getting lots of added value over it's competition, and to a small extent, you are. You're also paying for very small production runs. The only saving grace I can offer is that they hold their value very well. If you buy used, you can usually recoup you investment when you sell it. I always have.

One last thing. There is a significant learning curve. The first time you try to use a fully manual camera for serious candid photography, you'll probably find (as I did) that you're all thumbs. See a candidate picture:

• Get out the meter (Where do I meter in this scene? Incident or Reflected or Spot? [There's a reason for all 3 modes]) - get a reading...
• Now, what aperture - lens opening do I use?
  (What depth of field do I want? How much sharpness do I loose hand holding at a given speed?)
• Finally, focus the camera. (Let's see, what's the most effective plane of focus here?)
• Frame the picture.
• Wait for the scene to peak and squeeze off at the decisive moment.

Realize that it takes a while to get good at the above, and what took 15 minutes the first time you tried it will take 5 seconds or less after a few years. Your pictures will be better for it, as you, and not some electronic gizmo, will be making all the critical decisions about the image, and your percentage of keepers will increase.

Lets face it. One of the nicest parts of using Leicas is the cameras themselves. Their precise manufacture and exquisite performance make them a delight to use. What follows are some personal opinions about Leica Ms.

Before you flame me for having a different opinion than yours, please recall that these are Opinions, not carefully established scientific fact. They might however, give you a starting point for your own set of ideas, which will be strongly colored by your photographic style, as mine are by mine.

I encourage you to have a gander at Steve Gandy's site. He has another set of opinions on Leicas and many other classic cameras. I agree 100% with 90% of what he says.

Also, be sure not to miss Andrew Nemeth's site which has many excellent ideas about Leicas and their use.

Paul Butzi has a delightfully written M6 review that you might also find fun.

Phil Greenspun's site is a wealth of information. His page on how to buy a camera is especially excellent, although we strongly disagree on what camera to buy! His classified ads are as good as anything you'll ever find on eBay, and his technical information is top notch. Click here to go there.

My favorite M is the late M3. The M3 has the best of all the rangefinder finders. It gives an almost life sized image; I find the smaller images of the Contax, Nikon, and other Leicas a bit disconcerting, as I often use both eyes when shooting. It's also the most accurate rangefinder ever produced, although they don't, in general, take kindly to rough handling. The Leica shutter and film transport can take a colossal amount of abuse, but the rangefinder, while hard to damage beyond repair, can be knocked out of alignment by an unlucky bump. This last is common to all rangefinders, not just Leica. 2002 update. The old M3's are quite delicate. I smashed the rangefinder in my 1957 M3 by dropping it from 2 feet onto concrete. Sherry Krauter installed an M6J finder into it, and now it's just like my M7 (see below). The gain of a 35mm frame does not compensate for a flareless rangefinder patch and the almost lifesized view.

An advantage of the M4 and later Ms is that they have Leica's excellent fast loading/unloading feature. It's about ten times faster than the old M3/M2 knob rewind with removable take up spool.

I'm not a fan of the M6. It doesn't have a self timer, which I occasionally use, and it's reflected light meter is not as accurate as my Gossen incident meter. See Steve Gandy's or Erwin Putz's site for a detailed rant about the pros and cons of the M6, but it isn't the camera for me.

M7 update. In a moment of insanity, my poor wallet was stomped by an 0.85 M7. First Leica I've bought new. It is a very nice camera, with some good and bad points. Good:

• It's the quietest Leica ever, especially at the slow speeds.
• For some situations, in variable lighting, the automatic function is wonderfully fast, and the meter is sensitive and accurate.
• There are some nice touches in the camera. Bump pads for a neckstrap. DX film speed registration. If you buy a special long duration strobe, you can X-sync ar 1/1000th. On/off shutter lock.

Bad

• The rangefinder patch flares badly when there are bright lights in the frame. The M3 patch does not do this. This is by far the worst failing of the camera. Everything else is trivial.
• The camera is a bit taller than the earlier Ms, and therefore slightly less portable.
• If the batterys are dead, all you get is 1/60 and 1/125. Better than nothing, but not much.
• If there is a bright light in the center of your picture, and you forget to compensate for it, the shot will be badly underexposed.
• Still no self timer.

I find that the M7 is my favorite theater camera. It gives excellent exposures when the lighting is harsh and changeable (but beware the light in the center of the frame!), and it's so quiet that it's hard to hear the shutter.

Setting the Shutter on B and using the self timer gives you an exposure of around 2 seconds, at least with the M3 and M4. I suspect that the later M2s are similar.

For a interesting discussion about lenses and fanaticism about equipment, Mike Johnson has some cogent points to make.
Click here to get there.

I'll announce at the outset that I'm a fan of fast lenses. I generally am willing to sacrifice portability and depth of field for faster shutter speeds, and therefore, sharper photos. I've found this latter true even when shooting at f/1, with it's terribly limited depth of field.

I'm also a fan of the 50. 50mm lenses are very sharp and fast, and give a pleasing perspective to their photographs, approximating the angle of view of the human eye. For some, this makes the pictures "ordinary".

I suppose if you're going to shoot for the National Geographic, get yourself a 15, 21, and 35 (they love wide angle) or sports (get a Canon EOS with an image stabilized telephoto zoom), or some other specialized pursuit, get the equipment that will allow you to make images that you or your customers love.

That said, the 50 is still the best all around lens, at least for my style of photography. When I'm only taking a single lens, it's almost always the 50.

There are 4 to choose from in the Leica lineup:

The f/2.8 Elmar. Well, it's compact. On an optical bench, it's the worst of the Leica 50s. You or I will never notice any differences, however, as they will be swallowed up by hand holding jitters. If you mainly shoot at f/5.6 or slower most of the time, this is one exquisite lens, and both lens and camera will drop into a large shirt pocket. No other Leica lens can make this boast; I've found that the collapsible Summicron is still a bit too big for this. A pants pocket, yes, but not a shirt pocket. See my comments on the 50mm f/1.9 Canon Serenar below.

The f/2.0 Summicron. The sharpest of the Leica 50s. This is the lens that all other 50s, indeed all other lenses, are measured against. Small enough to be reasonable compact, and fast enough to begin to allow you to work in available light. In the perverse world of marketing, it's also one of the cheapest of the Leica lenses. Hard to beat. My favorite outdoor lens.

I recently acquired a 50mm f/1.9 Canon Serenar. This is a fairly old (50s) lens, and not up to the optical standards of a modern Summicron. It has a focusing lever, which makes fast focusing easier. With practice, you can prefocus the lens by feeling where the lever is before it gets to your eye. The diaphragm and focus controls are precise. The lens surfaces are hard coated, which means they don't scratch easily (a Summicron from the same vintage was soft coated, and easily scratched.). Most important, it's collapsible. Mounted on an M3, the camera and collapsed lens easily slip into a pants pocket. Not quite a point and shoot, but close. It's no substitute for the Summilux, as it's flare control is sup par, but it's a charming lens in its own right.

The f/1.4 Summilux. My personal favorite. Popular photography once flunked its wide open performance: it has a very curved field. This won't matter in the real world, as most of our subjects are more likely to follow that curve than the flat plane that Pop Phot uses for their lens tests. It's the best 50mm f/1.4 lens I've ever used. The lens is delightfully sharp wide open, compared to the Nikon and Minolta 50 f/1.4s I've also used. (FWIW, my Canon 50 on my old F1 is hard to tell from the Summilux, at least below f/4). Get the older version of the lens, with it's elegant reversible hood. The newer ones have the hood built in, and while it's convenient, it intrudes on your viewfinder more than the old one with it's lovely slots, and it just doesn't do as good a job. When the lens is capped and not in use, the old one reverses over the lens making it impossible to focus, and therefore much harder to take a picture of the inside of your lenscap. While not as compact as the Summicron or Elmar, I find it is at the upper limit for easily carried size. To the left is a shot taken by my wife, as my daughter and I try to solve visual riddles taken by an 8x10 view camera. F/1.4@ 1/50th second. To the right is Dr. Paula, a biochemist by training and a ballet dancer by avocation. F/1.4@ 1/15th second.

The f/1.0 Noctilux. This is an optical miracle. That a lens this good and this fast can be produced at all is extraordinary. See Erwin Puts's site for a good technical discussion of the lens. This is not an easily portable lens. My M3, with the Noctilux aboard, suddenly has the heft of my big Canon F1 with it's 50 f/1.4. The lens does not have a reversing lens hood, as described above for the Summilux, and it's lens cap is so awkward that I don't bother with it at all, but just leave the hood on it with plastic bag over it when not in use. The lens buys you another stop, and you can do available light work with a vengeance. With ISO 800 film, operating at f/1, you get shots that would be impossible otherwise. It's great for candids. The people around you just don't think you can be taking pictures, as there is no flash, and that M shutter is so quiet. Also, f/1 really isolates your subject, as the depth of field is extremely limited. If you focus on one eye, and the subject is looking partly away from you, the other eye will be a bit fuzzy. This lens is a different perspective on photography. It's not a general purpose lens at all; at f/5.6, the Summicron is a bit sharper, with slightly better contrast and flare control. This is impossible to notice in the enlargements that most of us use. You can see it in the photodo.com MTF data, but don't sweat it. It's small stuff. Ted Grant, a top notch photographer, uses it as a normal lens. My only problem with it is one of portability. Once it's on the camera, it does it's job very nicely, thank you.
If you like available light this is the one to have. Here we see it in all it's glory, at a photo gallery, appropriately of HCB's stuff. 1/15th of a second, at f/1.0. It vignettes a bit, but the M Leica would have to have a lens mount 30% larger than it does to prevent this. Bear in mind that at f/2.8 it vignettes less than any other 50. The lighting was horrible, about 10 lux or 1 footcandle.

Non SLR cameras have a real advantage over their reflex cousins here. Their wide angle lenses can be made so that the rear element almost touches the focal plane shutter, as there is no reflex mirror to get in the way. 35mm SLRs have a 40mm deep "no lens land" just behind the mount, so a wide angle lens must have a series of large negative lenses in front of a 40mm lens to give the desired wide angle. This is what is known as a retrofocus design. It does not increase lens sharpness or freedom from flare. While the Japanese designers have worked wonders to get around these limitations, the fact remains that they are still there. All other things being equal, the rangefinder wide angles will be smaller, and better performers, than an equivalent retrofocus design.

I'll only discuss lenses I've worked with over the years, look at the above mentioned sites for a more comprehensive discussion.

15mm f/4.5 Heliar. Wow! What a lens. Bang for the buck, there's nothing to touch it. It's sharp and amazingly flare free. The perspective of this lens is bizarre, and unless you use it carefully, you can get what I call "Mercator projection" distortion that ruins images, and it has a bit of vignetting. Used carefully, it's stunning. That it does not couple with the rangefinder is not a problem. The picture to the left illustrates this. That's the overexposed sun in the top left, and you can hardly see the tiny, purple flare spot between the sun and the picture's center. The "Mercator projection" distortion has caused the red Honda to appear as if it's left side were larger than it's right. I should perhaps point out that both "Mercator projection" and vignetting are caused by the inherent geometry of a 15mm lens, it's not the fault of Cosina's superb design. f/6.3@1/125th

Well, I did say the perspective was a bit unusual! f/16 @ 1/8th

Click here for a larger version of this.

21mm f/4 Minolta. A decent lens, for it's time. It was sharp, and prone to flaring if the sun was in the picture.

21mm f/2.8 Elmarit, Aspherical. Wow! Superb lens. Of course it couples with the rangefinder, has superb workmanship, and lovely features. It has a superbly designed hood, a focusing lever, raised red mounting dot, and easily readable labeling. It's very sharp and flare free. The best 21mm lens of the twentieth century. This photo of the interior of the Air and Space Museum doesn't begin to do the lens justice. f/4 @ 1/60

35mm f/3.5 Summaron. Nice lens, but I didn't use it very much, as I often found it just too slow. It's compact and built like a tank. Mine survived a bounding fall down a 50 foot Colorado cliff wrapped in a plastic bag and just received a small dent in the lens cap. On another occasion, it fell out of my pocket into a snowbank and stayed there for a day until I finally found it, none the worse for wear.

35mm f/2.0 Canon. Excellent lens. I'd like to get the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux aspherical, but this lens is just too good to justify that insane effusion of money. It's compact, sharp, and very well built, although not up to Leitz standards.

35mm f/1.4 Summilux, non aspheric. Well, I broke down and effused the money for the Summilux (Feb 2002). It's smaller than its newer Aspheric brother, which is what attracted me to it. With it's shade in another pocket (Bother! It doesn't reverse like the 50 Summilux!) my M4 will drop into a large pocket with this speed demon on it. The asphere just can't do this.
It's nicely sharp wide open, but, of course, not as sharp as the asphere (I'm trading optics for portability here). Once I've fixed my scanner, I'll try and post a few shots here so you can get a feeling for it's contrast and flare (it's hopeless to see resolution differences with the AAD (Analog to Analog to Digital) process. The lens has a lovely hood, (unfortunately not reversable) :-(, red mounting dot, and focusing lever that makes it easier to use than the Canon.

These are usually not the Leica's strong suit. Over 135mm, focusing accuracy is limited, and the Japanese designs are as good optically, as these lenses naturally have their rear elements more than 40mm from the film plane, anyway.

90mm f/4 Elmar. Nice, compact lens. I always found it too slow, however, and dumped it for the much larger Summicron.

90mm f/2 Summicron, older long focus version. Later versions were telephotos to make them more compact, sacrificing a bit of optical performance to do it, until the Asphere came along which is reputed to be the best 90mm ever made. The size of my old lens doesn't bother me. I carry it around in a separate pocket, and it isn't too obtrusive. It's weight helps when shooting. Camera shake is magnified by the longer focal lengths, and the 90 is no exception. The very bulk of this Summicron helps me to steady the lens. On my M3, it balances very nicely for horizontal shots, but it's very easy to get fingers in the way of the rangefinder when held in the vertical. It's acceptably sharp wide open, and my shaky hands are usually the culprit here, not the lens. This is my lens of choice for shooting theater. Stopped down to f/5.6, it's exquisite, but my 90mm f/2.5 Vivitar Series I seems to be even better, and for all I know the latest 90mm aspheric Summicron might be its equal or even better. We're splitting hairs here. Real photographers wouldn't bother to notice, this is the equipment fanatic coming out in me. At left is a shot of Roger Penrose, discussing his views on quantum gravity and the nature of consciousness. F/2 @ 1/30th

135mm f/4 Canon Serenar. Nice, very well made, reasonably compact, heavy old lens. I find that the heavy helped, as with the 90mm Summicron, but it was too slow, as was the Nikkor.

135mm f/3.5 Nikkor. Same as the Canon, above.

135mm f/2.8 Elmarit. Interesting lens. The "eyes" improve focusing accuracy, and are quite delicate, getting out of alignment easily. Treat this lens with kid gloves. The lens gives your viewfinder "tunnel vision", which makes the lens hard to use on any viewfinder but a 0.72x (e.g. M2, M4, and M6) With the 0.72, the image is rendered life sized, so you can keep both eyse open, which makes using the lens much easier. The eyes also make the lens almost unportable, it takes up one of the largest pockets in my photo vest, one usually reserved for large bodies. It's fairly sharp, even wide open. Despite these problems, it remains my favorite 135mm lens, because of it's extra stop of speed.

Now that you've made it this far, dear reader, there's an important fact that I must emphasise. All of the techniques described above are subject to radical change at any moment. Your own style changes as you work, and what was once a good idea is now a hinderance. Carefully metering each shot and determining the dynamic range of a scene is greate, especially for beginners. After a while, you know what to expect and don't need to go through the drill again.

Technology changes. One of these days, digital will evolve to the point that serious photographers use it. Today, it's set up for tyros (that's where the market is!), but one of these days, leica like cameras with superb lenses and high resolution 40 Mpixel backs will appear, and, presto, the serious photographers will all switch. The photojournalists already have.

Skill in photography is acquired by practice, not purchase.

You can't buy quality, you have to grow into it.

Photography is physically demanding; a sporting event! Stay in shape!

If your camera isn't as fast as a Point 'n Shoot, you need more practice.

Photography is the art of selecting those moments of your vision that are memorable.