MikeL
Go Fish
Hi xray,
Here's a side by side from a past thread, with a noctilux, CV 35mm 1.2, and summicron asph.
Cheers,
Mike
Here's a side by side from a past thread, with a noctilux, CV 35mm 1.2, and summicron asph.
Cheers,
Mike
thomasw_
Well-known
well you need some size to grip on the lens for ergonomic functionality; thus my tiny, tiny elmar 35/3,5 was a nasty piece of business to handle: I hope that whoever stole it from me is suffering untold eye strain and bashed finger tips. that last shot is the one that settles the size issue for me with regard to the zm 35.
thanks for taking the time to set this up xray!
thomas
thanks for taking the time to set this up xray!
thomas
colyn
ישו משיח
x-ray said:
OK!!!!
I admit it!! Mine is bigger than yours....my 400mm f/5 Telyt lens that is...
amateriat
We're all light!
Somewhere, Melanie is rolling her eyes...
x-ray: your comments about reliability/mechanical integrity have struck a chord with me. As someone who has done pro shooting only off-and-on, and had to occasionally deal with dodgy gear from time to time*, I've relied on data from full-time pros such as yourself about what works and what doesn't, although I also know that sometimes it's the luck of the draw (worked six years for a stock house whose staff shot Canon EOS only; some interesting stories there)
As far as size goes, I favor smaller and reasonably fast over huge and crazy-fast. But the fact that I gave up my SLRs and honking-big lenses means I'm secure in my masculinity, right?
I said...right?
* (I had an episode years ago on a shoot where TWO fairly new Pentax LX "pro" bodies locked up on me almost simultaneously; turns out there was a glitch in early-production models, and I might have been the guy who discovered it. Now I knew the meaning of that old joke about pioneers...)
- Barrett
x-ray: your comments about reliability/mechanical integrity have struck a chord with me. As someone who has done pro shooting only off-and-on, and had to occasionally deal with dodgy gear from time to time*, I've relied on data from full-time pros such as yourself about what works and what doesn't, although I also know that sometimes it's the luck of the draw (worked six years for a stock house whose staff shot Canon EOS only; some interesting stories there)
As far as size goes, I favor smaller and reasonably fast over huge and crazy-fast. But the fact that I gave up my SLRs and honking-big lenses means I'm secure in my masculinity, right?
I said...right?
* (I had an episode years ago on a shoot where TWO fairly new Pentax LX "pro" bodies locked up on me almost simultaneously; turns out there was a glitch in early-production models, and I might have been the guy who discovered it. Now I knew the meaning of that old joke about pioneers...)
- Barrett
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Here are two photos of lenses from my test of 35mm/40mm lenses:
Bosk
Make photos, not war.
The size of that Leica 35/3.5 Elmar in Raid's shot is just incredible. I had no idea they were so petit.
raid
Dad Photographer
The Elmar is a tiny lens indeed. Compare it to the 35mm/1.2 and you see the enormous size of the Beast.
x-ray
Veteran
Keep those cards and letters coming in. Let's see some more images of lenses and a film box.
phatnev
Well-known
Im just happy to know that if I eventually get the 21, 28 1.9, 35 1.2, 35 2.5, 40 1.4, and the 50 1.5 my kit will still be smaller than the 70-200 2.8 VR AF-S I used to carry
Nando
Well-known
X-ray,
Thanks for the photographs of the size comparisons. The Zeiss isn't so much larger after all. It's a bit too late for me to reconsider my decision. To be honest, I'm so excited about getting the Summicron-ASPH that I'm not even thinking about anything else but going out and shooting with it.
Thanks for the photographs of the size comparisons. The Zeiss isn't so much larger after all. It's a bit too late for me to reconsider my decision. To be honest, I'm so excited about getting the Summicron-ASPH that I'm not even thinking about anything else but going out and shooting with it.
x-ray
Veteran
Nothing wrong with the summicron. Enjoy it and make some great images.
Avotius
Some guy
I agree the over all size difference is not a big deal with the biogon and summicron asph, but what turned out to be a big deal for me was the hoods. The biogons hood is pretty big and that with the length on my bessa make it so it was covering up about 20% of the 35mm frames which I didnt like too much, where as the summicrons hood just comes into the corner a hair. I think its because I have been spoiled by my voigtlander 35 PII that I think that, the PII is shocking small when you have been using the 50 Planar a lot then switch over. Also another thing, the hood on the zeiss lenses is not friendly to my camera bag and they often get caught when im taking the camera out or putting it in.
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
Get a 3rd party screw-in hood from eBay that is a reasonable size. Dealer heavystar sells excellent hoods that are inexpensive. If you must spend lots of money B+W make excellent hoods (available from B&H in NYC). The only Leica hood I use is on the 24/2.8 because a round hood doesn't work on that lens.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The handling of a tiny lens does come into the mix for me. It is what I dislike about the 40 Summicron. The thing is just too small for me to work with easily.
I'll try and get some of these shot today. That 'no genitalia' rule will make it a little less fun, but I'll do my best.
Impending battery death. See you later.
I'll try and get some of these shot today. That 'no genitalia' rule will make it a little less fun, but I'll do my best.
Impending battery death. See you later.
peter_n
Veteran
I'm sure it is but these modern lenses don't flare that much so I use the hood for protection. Below is a pic of a heavystar hood on my 35 Summilux ASPH. I'ts about the same diameter as the lens.ErikFive said:
peter_n
Veteran
What is the filter size on the Biogon?
mkl
Registered User
Great idea to compare lens's size.
My two cents: a Tele-Elmarit thin, a CV 21/4 with his indispensable LH1 hood attached, a current Cron 50 and a Cron 35 v4 with hood.
Left of the Tele-Elmarit is the 12575 hood I use with it. This hood (made for the Elmarit 90 and "fat" Tele-Elmarit) is, imho, better than the rubber hood which come with the "thin" Tele-Elmarit.
My two cents: a Tele-Elmarit thin, a CV 21/4 with his indispensable LH1 hood attached, a current Cron 50 and a Cron 35 v4 with hood.
Left of the Tele-Elmarit is the 12575 hood I use with it. This hood (made for the Elmarit 90 and "fat" Tele-Elmarit) is, imho, better than the rubber hood which come with the "thin" Tele-Elmarit.
Attachments
sepiareverb
genius and moron
sepiareverb
genius and moron
And two more-
1) The 40/2 and the 135/4 Tele-Elmar
2) The 50/2.8 collapsable and the 40/2
Didn't include the Konica 50/2 in these- it is at work on the M5. It is a near double for the 50/2 but with a slightly wider barrel, 40.5mm filter instead of 39.
1) The 40/2 and the 135/4 Tele-Elmar
2) The 50/2.8 collapsable and the 40/2
Didn't include the Konica 50/2 in these- it is at work on the M5. It is a near double for the 50/2 but with a slightly wider barrel, 40.5mm filter instead of 39.
Attachments
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
OK Erik. Do I have a hood for you...ErikFive said:
35/2.5 Pancake I lens hood (not included with lens) DISCONTINUED $29
on this page: http://www.cameraquest.com/inventor.htm
This is a very sturdy Voigtlander hood that was sold separately from the original CV 35/2.5 Pancake I lens. Here is a pic of it on my lens:
As you can see it is quite small and I think would work great on your Biogon.