I thought it was the "M9 or something else" thread. That's why I'm offering 'something else' for comparison.
I agree that if you don't need low-light options then you can get a really small M lens kit. I also agree that the wide aperture Voigtlanders are very good value. The problem is to make 'em sing you first have to blow $7K
I really hope another player enters the M mount full frame body arena at a more affordable price now that Leica has shown it can be done. I can't see Leica dropping the price much while there is no direct competitor.
The 5D2's high iso advantage makes this equivalent in low light to a 21 f2.5, 40 f1.4, 85 f2 on the M9. Narrow depth of field is a double-edged sword - subject isolation is a little higher, but greater focus accuracy is required.
Anyway. Nice kit. Would fit in my smallest Domke.
I can say that the 21 and the 85 are great lenses. So is the camera. The 40? But from what I have seen it is a nice lens.
I know this is unfair because the 500D is on a par with the M9 at high isos, so this Leica combination can see in lower light. However, it does illustrate that APS-C bodies, cheap as they are, are not that much deeper and more cumbersome than the M9.
More false comparisons serve no purpose. Try the comparison with a Canon L 35 1.4 w/hood on the Rebel and included a front photo. BTW, the Canon 35 weighs 2X+ more than a Leica 35 1.4.
A DRF is not as versatile as a DSLR and those who buy Leica are not off put at its price. This is pretty settled but continuously discussed. The reality is RFs are niche cameras and Leica doesn't have many competitors. Only a growing RF market will spur innovation and I don't see that happening. So, the M9 is what it is and all the DSLR proselytizing isn't going to significantly impact sales.
Depends on what focal length you like. For 21-28mm, I'd look at the Cosina Voigtlander lenses. The 21/4, 25/4, and 28/3.5 go for about that used. The 15/4.5 screw mount CV lens can be had for that used too. The 28/3.5 has recently been discontinued but is great. I've heard good stuff about the 21/4 too.
For 35mm... I think the CV 35/2.5 is $300 new, or one of the older Canon 35s maybe.
For 50mm, again, one of the CV 50/2.5 are about $300 new, or look for a CV 40/1.4 used (new $400) or a used 50/1.5 (new $400). There are a lot of options here though. I got a Nikkor 50/1.4 for $250. Canon and Nikkors are available - f/2, f/1.8, f/1.4, etc. They should all be around this price. Older Leicas are usually a bit more, but you might find an old Summicron for around that price if you get lucky. Of course, you could always go even older than that - I think the Summars go for pretty cheap, and some people really love them. There's also a plethora of 50/2.8 Elmars. The newer Elmar-Ms go for about $6-700, so if you are willing to buy one that's 30 years old or so, you might be able to drop down to $300.
For 90's, the older Leica 90/4s are dirt cheap. You can pick up the CV 90/3.5 APO Lanthar for cheap too. I don't know if it is the same formula/performance as the one mentioned in the APO thread.
If you are willing to stretch the lens budget a bit to $400-500, a couple of other 50mm options become available. The Konica Hexanon M 50/2 ($400ish?) and the Zeiss ZM 50/2 Planar ($500ish), both used. More 50 Summicrons should pop up in this price range too. A couple of years ago I got a latest version Summicron for a hair more than $500. Probably more of the old, more esoteric Canon and Nikkor lenses too.
There are some other brands that are available too that I don't know much about, like Kobalux. Oh yeah, the Jupiter lenses can be had for like $100 and from what I hear, aren't all that bad.
Whooo. $200-300 does limit you to used CV lenses and older Canon/Nikkors, but they are still pretty good, some quite amazing. Going up to $500 opens a lot more up, and $800ish gets you pretty much any new Zeiss ZM lens, which, depending on your income, could be totally reasonable. You DO NOT have to spend $4.5k on a Leica 50/1.4 ASPH though just to try things out ...Show more →
This is exactly what I needed. Thanks for taking the time to share your wisdom. It appears I have a lot of good choices
James R wrote:
More false comparisons serve no purpose. Try the comparison with a Canon L 35 1.4 w/hood on the Rebel and included a front photo. BTW, the Canon 35 weighs 2X+ more than a Leica 35 1.4.
A DRF is not as versatile as a DSLR and those who buy Leica are not off put at its price. This is pretty settled but continuously discussed. The reality is RFs are niche cameras and Leica doesn't have many competitors. Only a growing RF market will spur innovation and I don't see that happening. So, the M9 is what it is and all the DSLR proselytizing isn't going to significantly impact sales....Show more →
I'm not proselytising, I'm considering the alternatives like the thread title says. The 5D2 with f2 lens is a match for the M9 with an f1.4 lens in many ways. Otherwise I may as well compare a svelte Contax 50 f1.4 with the large, heavy and expensive Leica 50 f0.95. So the question is, given a particular application is there a lightweight alternative to the M9. Clearly the 35L isn't that. It's also clear that the 5D2 can compensate for a stop or so of lens size and weight by resorting to higher isos. That's a benefit to the performance of all lenses, not just the pancakes.
All of Richard's size comparisons have only convinced me that the size benefit of a M9 is huge. All this talk of 'equivalency' with respect to ISO and DOF is basically fruitless, since it depends heavily on shooting habits.
Valorin wrote:
All this talk of 'equivalency' with respect to ISO and DOF is basically fruitless, since it depends heavily on shooting habits.
Not really. However you slice it, the 5D2 will always give you either a stop more shutter speed OR a stop of better sensor quality OR a stop more lens performance with a stop less glass. One way or another that affects everyone - the sensor advantage is real and pervasive.
Well for those who shoot at low ISO, the M9 may even be a better idea since the 5D has pretty noisy shadows, so I don't think that a 5D2 will 'always' be better is really accurate. At any rate, for a low ISO shooter there is essentially no difference between the two. Not everyone needs low-noise high ISO, I can count on two hands the number of times I've shot my D700 above 1600.
A stop of lens performance doesn't necessarily work either since most of us who know what we're doing are selecting shooting apertures not for lens performance but primarily for specific amounts of DOF. Not to mention you can't really talk about lens performance generally since the quality of the glass available is so diverse.
Valorin wrote:
Well for those who shoot at low ISO, the M9 may even be a better idea since the 5D has pretty noisy shadows, so I don't think that a 5D2 will 'always' be better is really accurate. At any rate, for a low ISO shooter there is essentially no difference between the two. Not everyone needs low-noise high ISO, I can count on two hands the number of times I've shot my D700 above 1600.
A stop of lens performance doesn't necessarily work either since most of us who know what we're doing are selecting shooting apertures not for lens performance but primarily for specific amounts of DOF. Not to mention you can't really talk about lens performance generally since the quality of the glass available is so diverse....Show more →
I agree - I made a crude generalisation in both cases, but, I think, nevertheless, a valid.
The Voigtländer 40/2 Ultron is the smallest lens available for Nikon F mount. Yet it's large compared to the little Summicron-C 40/2.
The M is an M8 in this case, which is a 1,33x crop camera. But the M9 is identical in terms of size and weight.
M9 with battery: 585 grams
Voigtländer 40/1.4 (just for fun): 175 grams
Total: 760 grams
And that's still one full stop advantage for the M9, if we're talking about DOF. When it comes to noise and total image quality at low light, the D700/Ultron combo is probably better still.
I'm not proselytising, I'm considering the alternatives like the thread title says. The 5D2 with f2 lens is a match for the M9 with an f1.4 lens in many ways. Otherwise I may as well compare a svelte Contax 50 f1.4 with the large, heavy and expensive Leica 50 f0.95. So the question is, given a particular application is there a lightweight alternative to the M9. Clearly the 35L isn't that. It's also clear that the 5D2 can compensate for a stop or so of lens size and weight by resorting to higher isos. That's a benefit to the performance of all lenses, not just the pancakes....Show more →
My proselytizing comment was more of a general comment and should not have been directed at you. However, a fair size comparison should be made using lenses of the same focal length and aperture, and those lenses should be somewhat equal in IQ. Hence, Canon's top 35 L against Leica's top 35. You mentioned the Leica 50 f0.95, which is a monster. I would consider it fair to compare it against Canon's 50 f0.95. Oh, that's right, Canon doesn't have an f0.95 lens, so any comparison would be misleading. BTW, how big would an f0.95 be if Nikon or Canon built one? I'm guessing it would be real big.
I never questioned the 5D2's ability to deliver quality images. These are different cameras. I'm adding an M9, but not selling my D3 or Nikon lenses. Each has a purpose and at this stage of my life, I can afford the M9. Besides, might as well spend it before the gov taxes the heck out of me.
Not an M9 but close enough in size. The size advantage is there but one will need to consider a grip on the M8/9 to make the size comparison more fair! Width wise, both are about the same, but the height and thickness advantage is undeniable.
