zombii wrote:
Luka, my advice is to get something like the Planar 50 since they're available and not overly expensive and go ahead and get your M9 and start shooting. You're not really going to know what you'll like until you have it and use it. My lens choices have changed a lot since I first got my M8. At some point, you really need to try one of the Leica lenses because you may not find the ultra contrast of Zeiss lenses as much to your liking as you think. In any case, they're different and you need to see the difference for yourself. I started off thinking I had to have at least my basic three lenses figured out and while I still have two of them, I rarely use them. ...Show more →
Rod, that's good advice. The reason why I'm trying to figure it out beforehand is because of two things. One is that I would like to like the M9 and don't want to ruin it by getting lenses that won't work for me. If I'm not impressed by what I see early on, I may give up on it. The second reason is that I rarely sell any lenses so the ones that I don't like will most likely just collect dust.
The reason why I don't sell my glass (and I have for instance a load of unused Canon lenses) is twofold. First, I don't particularly like the process and second is that the Swedish used lens market is small. At the same time our camera & lens prices are high due to high import duties and taxes (the M9 for instance costs about $8.5k compared to $7k in the US). So if I sell a lens on an international market, I have to take a hefty loss. So out of principle, rather than taking a perhaps 50% loss I keep them instead. I know that I should revise that policy at some point but I still don't want to buy a lens with the intention of selling it later.
zombii wrote:
Charles and I both tried the Sonnar 50. My experience, and I think he'll agree, was that even though they were supposed to be optimized for f/1.5, they were not. That was with two different new copies for me. I haven't used my Planar very much but I haven't seen any sign of focus shift. Charles has used his more I believe so he can answer that better. It's just too slow for how I use 50's plus that high contrast doesn't work well in low light either.
The 35, 40, and 50 Cron's are all excellent lenses. Very sharp, more contrast than the Lux's except for possibly the ASPH's. If I didn't use the speed of the Lux, I'd have a Cron 50. Since I've got the Cron 40, I don't feel the need for a Cron 35. I have a Lux 35 but I use it so little that I'm thinking about selling it to feed my 50mm habit. Based on Charles' posts, there's no way I'd choose the Biogon 35 over the Cron 35....Show more →
Yes, not having a single fast lens bothers me. I like 'em fast as well
That's why I'm thinking about the Sonnar even though the Planar is by all accounts a fantastic lens.
Great discussion and advice. I am sure a lot of people are listening on the side lines.
Rod, Thank you!
The 50/1.5 Sonar is an excellent lens. I could have very easily had it calibrated, at Camera Clinic, to what ever I wanted, regardless of the initial optimization. The extra cost to me would have been $250 -300 with a turnaround of 3 days. This is only downside with the lens, is that you may have to get it recalibrated, otherwise a really nice lens.
The only reason I returned the lens, was that I had found a second hand 50 Summilux Asph, and there was no point in doubling up. The 50/1.5 Nokton is an excellent too. Very cost effective and no downside.
Dan suggestion of the 75 Cron AA, is again one the amazing lenses in the lineup too. Just have a look at the postings in GetDPI forums including Dan's
I do think if you purchased the ZM 50/2 Planar, it is lens you would never sell, as it is very light and its performance is exceptional.
This Thailand trip, I have not taken off the 50 Summilux Asph, for no other reason is that it work, and I am seeing shots differently now. I would normally opt for a 35mm or 28mm FL for street/stall type of shots.
Dan, I'm going to wait a bit with longer lenses until I feel that I can use a rangefinder properly.
Hmm..Joakim, that's exactly the type of gaussian bokeh that I don't like. Yes, it's very smooth but for my taste is too perfectly smooth. It's almost like a lens blur filter applied in photoshop, if you know what I mean - i.e mathematically perfect but without any distinguishing character.
Damn, this is difficult. The easy solution would have been a Zeiss 25, 35 cron and 50 planar but I'm really skeptical about that cron and 35mm is a favorite focal length of mine so I will use it a lot. At the same time I'd like at least one of the lenses to be a modern high quality Leica. Well, I suppose I could always wait for the 50 lux asph..
denoir wrote:
35mm: 35/2 Biogon or 35/2 cron. I was originally thinking Biogon but as much as I like Zeiss after seeing some comparison shots I'm not sure what to think. The Zeiss has IMO a nicer rendering but the cron blows it away when it comes to sharpness and contrast.
That's an easy one! Rendering style over "technical quality" anyday. But, I've got an interesting option for you:
ZM 35/2.8 + Voigtländer 35/1.2
Regarding 50 mm lenses, I'd choose the Zeiss ZM C-Sonnar 50/1.5 for the size and speed. I mean, if you're gonna have the 5D MkII still, do you really need such a lens for the rangefinder? It's large and heavy, and awfully expensive. Sure, the Voigtländer is sort of large too, but fits a purpose that can't be had with the Canon.
Makten, yes, I agree - I'll take rendering style over technical perfection any day.
As for the ZM 35/2.8 + CV 35/1.2, I've thought about them. The 35/2.8 is a bit too slow for my liking. I can live with a f/2.8 UWA but as the 35mm will be my primary lens I need it to work in less than perfect light. The CV 35/1.2 I've considered as well, but I've found it to be a bit too big and I have not really been impressed by the rendering. I did consider the CV 35/1.4 as well - it's nice and compact and although the rendering is nowhere near my Zeiss 35/1.4, it could still do as a fast 35. But I don't want to start an M collection by getting multiple lenses for the same focal length.
So I'm leaning towards getting the 35/2 Biogon. And as for the 50, the Planar is relatively close to the Biogon in rendering style while the Sonnar is something else. So the Sonnar is probably my prime candidate.
Why don't you start with the M9 and the ZM25? Those two seem not to be negotiable, and after you have played with those, you should have a better idea of what you think of Zeiss on M, and if your focal length preferences are going to change.
carstenw wrote:
Why don't you start with the M9 and the ZM25? Those two seem not to be negotiable, and after you have played with those, you should have a better idea of what you think of Zeiss on M, and if your focal length preferences are going to change.
+1 I actually had this very thought a couple of nights ago after reading one of your posts. I think if you start with the Sonnar thinking you're going to be lucky and get one that focuses correctly wide open, you're begging for trouble. If you're willing to send it off to get adjusted as soon as you see that it's off, fine. But if that's going to cast a shadow on your initial experience, don't do it. The ZM 25 is respected by just about everybody that has tried it. I'm not a Zeissaholic and I like it. For the price and for your tastes, this is about the surest way to get off on the right foot. You can always order the Lux 50 ASPH and since it's apparently going to be awhile before you get it, you'll probably have time to cancel the order if you change your mind. As for the Biogon 35/2, I've read several posts in other places that echo what Charles has said. It's not a longer ZM 25 at least not IQ-wise.
I have the 25 ZM, and it has been my most-used lens on my NZ trip for panos as well as individual shots. The length is super-useful and it's never a lens you have to worry about. Contrary my 75cron (blue veiling flare) 35/2.8 biogon (veiling flare and ghosts when using filters) and 18/4 Distagon (big sunstreak flares) have all managed to let me down - albeit in ridiculously demanding conditions - at one point or another. Thank god I'm not shooting film so I can reposition the camera, swap lenses or use my filter cloth as a makeshift hood.
carstenw wrote:
Why don't you start with the M9 and the ZM25? Those two seem not to be negotiable, and after you have played with those, you should have a better idea of what you think of Zeiss on M, and if your focal length preferences are going to change.
A bit to wide and way to slow. I prefer f/1.4 but can tolerate f/2 if it's a good lens. For f/2.8 it really has to be a great lens.
zombii wrote:
+1 I actually had this very thought a couple of nights ago after reading one of your posts. I think if you start with the Sonnar thinking you're going to be lucky and get one that focuses correctly wide open, you're begging for trouble. If you're willing to send it off to get adjusted as soon as you see that it's off, fine. But if that's going to cast a shadow on your initial experience, don't do it. The ZM 25 is respected by just about everybody that has tried it. I'm not a Zeissaholic and I like it. For the price and for your tastes, this is about the surest way to get off on the right foot. You can always order the Lux 50 ASPH and since it's apparently going to be awhile before you get it, you'll probably have time to cancel the order if you change your mind. As for the Biogon 35/2, I've read several posts in other places that echo what Charles has said. It's not a longer ZM 25 at least not IQ-wise....Show more →
Rod, I know that the getting Sonnar is begging for trouble but I would like at least one fast lens that can produce some interesting bokeh. Although the 50/2 Planar seems to be the technically better lens, it's similar in rendering style to the 35/2 Biogon. So I'd like to vary the style. As for the 35/2 Biogon, I'm not expecting it to be anything like the 25/2.8. In fact, I'd be disappointed if it was. The 25/2.8 is a high resolution, high contrast landscape lens that will be used stopped down as far as possible. The 35/2 I would use wide open with emphasis on foreground and background separation and depth in the image.
Based on Charles' posts, there's no way I'd choose the Biogon 35 over the Cron 35.
I am sure a lot of people are listening on the side lines.
