FanMan
Established
Peripatetic,
when I read this discussion, it remembers me very much to my own decision when I bought the ZI in September 06. In summer 2006 I realized that I had nearly forgotten my hobby „photography“. I woke up one morning and I noticed that I had not taken a photo for months if not for years (except those with my digital point&shoot, which do not count, since it is (a) no fun to use this camera (the time lag between pressing the button and the moment the shutter opens seem to be decades long) and (b) the results are - let‘s say not comparable to the results of a real camera (e.g. the viewfinder does only approximately shows what might be on your photo). And I noticed how many situations were gone, how many opportunities I had lost. It made me nearly cry.
And so I thought about a DSLR and I went to the local photo store and the salesman showed me those. I thought about buying a DSLR and the salesman said that everyone now wants a DSLR and that film is outfashioned and that no-one wants film anymore and I held the 5D in my hands and it felt sterile. He laughed out loud, when I asked for an analog camera and he even laughed more, when I asked for a rangefinder. And I considered the price of a DSLR and that there is today a D200 and in 12 months a D300 and read on the internet about sensor cleaning and I thought that digital is not my way.
The longer I thought about it, the more I realized that I wanted to stay with film. And I was sure that I always wanted to have a rangefinder camera. I discovered that forum here and I liked the discussions and the way the users communicate very much. That together with Mike Eleks blog about the ZI made me want the ZI.
Since I have the ZI I have the photography bug really bad again. Currently I‘m reading a biography about Robert Capa and „Magnum Stories“ and when I see the shots taken with rangefinders I get goose-skin - yes, photography IS strange
. Perhaps I‘m silly. Of course I know that in the end it does not matter if you have a SLR or a RF or a DSLR. And I know that my own capabilities are lightyears away from the shots in „Magnum Stories“, but, who cares? I have fun fun fun using a rangefinder and that is all that counts.
I can tell you: it is so much fun to use a rangefinder camera. Except when going to work, I seldom leave the house without the camera. Some of my friends have bought in the last year a DSLR. They normally do not take the camera with them. When I asked for the reason I got the answer „too heavy“ or „too bulky“. Or „to use it the right way I first have to read the manual and to understand how the camera works, but I had not yet the time for that“. And so there is indeed a difference between the ZI and a DSLR. If you are looking for the decisive moment in photography, you have to have your camera with you at that moment.
The only thing that makes me sad is that I did not discover earlier the path back to photography.
when I read this discussion, it remembers me very much to my own decision when I bought the ZI in September 06. In summer 2006 I realized that I had nearly forgotten my hobby „photography“. I woke up one morning and I noticed that I had not taken a photo for months if not for years (except those with my digital point&shoot, which do not count, since it is (a) no fun to use this camera (the time lag between pressing the button and the moment the shutter opens seem to be decades long) and (b) the results are - let‘s say not comparable to the results of a real camera (e.g. the viewfinder does only approximately shows what might be on your photo). And I noticed how many situations were gone, how many opportunities I had lost. It made me nearly cry.
And so I thought about a DSLR and I went to the local photo store and the salesman showed me those. I thought about buying a DSLR and the salesman said that everyone now wants a DSLR and that film is outfashioned and that no-one wants film anymore and I held the 5D in my hands and it felt sterile. He laughed out loud, when I asked for an analog camera and he even laughed more, when I asked for a rangefinder. And I considered the price of a DSLR and that there is today a D200 and in 12 months a D300 and read on the internet about sensor cleaning and I thought that digital is not my way.
The longer I thought about it, the more I realized that I wanted to stay with film. And I was sure that I always wanted to have a rangefinder camera. I discovered that forum here and I liked the discussions and the way the users communicate very much. That together with Mike Eleks blog about the ZI made me want the ZI.
Since I have the ZI I have the photography bug really bad again. Currently I‘m reading a biography about Robert Capa and „Magnum Stories“ and when I see the shots taken with rangefinders I get goose-skin - yes, photography IS strange
. Perhaps I‘m silly. Of course I know that in the end it does not matter if you have a SLR or a RF or a DSLR. And I know that my own capabilities are lightyears away from the shots in „Magnum Stories“, but, who cares? I have fun fun fun using a rangefinder and that is all that counts.I can tell you: it is so much fun to use a rangefinder camera. Except when going to work, I seldom leave the house without the camera. Some of my friends have bought in the last year a DSLR. They normally do not take the camera with them. When I asked for the reason I got the answer „too heavy“ or „too bulky“. Or „to use it the right way I first have to read the manual and to understand how the camera works, but I had not yet the time for that“. And so there is indeed a difference between the ZI and a DSLR. If you are looking for the decisive moment in photography, you have to have your camera with you at that moment.
The only thing that makes me sad is that I did not discover earlier the path back to photography.
peripatetic
Well-known
It's here...
It's here...
Well I purchased online from Matsuiyastore.
Put in the order on Saturday afternoon. The camera arrived this morning. They quote 5-9 days for Europe, but that was about 3.5. Impressive.
But I don't have a lens yet, there seems to be little benefit buying online for the lenses as compared to the rather large benefit on the camera.
I have narrowed it down to a choice between the 35 Biogon and the 50 Planar as my "standard" lens.
I think I'm 65/35 leaning towards the 50mm.
I shall probably then add (as funds allow):
It's here...
Well I purchased online from Matsuiyastore.
Put in the order on Saturday afternoon. The camera arrived this morning. They quote 5-9 days for Europe, but that was about 3.5. Impressive.
But I don't have a lens yet, there seems to be little benefit buying online for the lenses as compared to the rather large benefit on the camera.
I have narrowed it down to a choice between the 35 Biogon and the 50 Planar as my "standard" lens.
I think I'm 65/35 leaning towards the 50mm.
I shall probably then add (as funds allow):
- CV 35 f2.5 Color Skopar.
- Zm 28 f2 Biogon.
- CV 75 or 90.
larmarv916
Well-known
I read "peripatetic" is leaning towards. the 50mm as his standard lens. You might want to just think of going out on a limb and try the 28 Zeiss . both of the 50's are wonderful but.....the 28mm seems to give you a full use of the full view of the ZM viewfinder. The 50mm F1.5 has a more normal focal "feel" over the Planar f2 To me..anyway. The 28 has a slightly more realistic spacing of objects. I went with a 25mm and after a small amount of getting used to it ..Iam moving a away from the 35 focal length and now the 50 feels almost "sub-tele" like a 75mm.
Also I purchased all of my Zeiss lenses from Matsuiyastore and the perfromance was excellent. A good guy.
anyway have fun. Any lens will more than meet your expectations.
Also I purchased all of my Zeiss lenses from Matsuiyastore and the perfromance was excellent. A good guy.
anyway have fun. Any lens will more than meet your expectations.
mfogiel
Veteran
peripatetic
If you are more of a people shooter, start off with the C Sonnar, if you want to do a bit of everything, start with the Biogon 35 or Skopar 35. For me, a one lens outfit is 35mm, 2 lens 28/50 or 25/50 (out of town). Think longer before getting a lens over 50mm, they mostly do not belong to a rangefinder.
If you are more of a people shooter, start off with the C Sonnar, if you want to do a bit of everything, start with the Biogon 35 or Skopar 35. For me, a one lens outfit is 35mm, 2 lens 28/50 or 25/50 (out of town). Think longer before getting a lens over 50mm, they mostly do not belong to a rangefinder.
tom_uk
Established
Peripatetic: Can I ask a couple of questions about the purchasing process from Matsuistore? Did you pay via PayPal? And did you have to pay VAT when it arrived?
peripatetic
Well-known
Which lens? - revisited...
Which lens? - revisited...
OK, so I am a obviously undecided between the Sonnar and the Planar.
The Sonnar seems to have some focus shift that is likely to be a slight annoyance, I am familiar with this on my Canon 50mm f1.2 L. The Planar has not been reported to have any focus shift.
The extra stop is not a huge deal for me, I think I am most likely to be using the ZI in decent light; my Canon 5D and 50mm f1.2 L pretty much take care of low-light work. Also to be honest I am not at all sure that I am going to be able to manual focus accurately and quickly at f1.5 for a while. It will probably take some practice, f2 will probably be sufficient so the Sonnar has no advantage there.
The Planar also seems to be a fair bit sharper and more contrasty from the MTF charts - this is not particularly a problem for me. I realise that for normal sharp BW film this may not be ideal, but I am a high-contrast type of shooter and I suspect I may well end up shooting mostly colour negative film then scanning and converting to BW in Lightroom if I want to. Perhaps not; time will tell.
The Planar is somewhat cheaper, around £200. Not a huge deal, but I don't have money to burn either.
In this thread I have had some people warn me against the Planar and some against the Sonnar!
I guess I am more of a people shooter, and also a lot of my pictures are of children; if they were of adults I'd be more inclined to go 35mm.
I agree that for a one-lens setup the 35mm seems ideal, and that a 28/50 is a great two-lens setup. Which of course swings me back in the direction of the 35. Bah! Maybe I should go 35 and regard it as a challenge to learn to manage with just the one lens. It would certainly bring a change of emphasis to my photography. Hmmm.....
But... the thing about the 50 is that it seems to be that magic focal length where it can act as both a short telephoto, but also be wide enough to take landscape and reportage-style shots too!
There is of course nothing to stop me from getting all of them in the long run, but that doesn't make the choice of the first lens any easier.
Of course you can't make the decision for me, but is there anything you think I have not taken into account?
Which lens? - revisited...
OK, so I am a obviously undecided between the Sonnar and the Planar.
The Sonnar seems to have some focus shift that is likely to be a slight annoyance, I am familiar with this on my Canon 50mm f1.2 L. The Planar has not been reported to have any focus shift.
The extra stop is not a huge deal for me, I think I am most likely to be using the ZI in decent light; my Canon 5D and 50mm f1.2 L pretty much take care of low-light work. Also to be honest I am not at all sure that I am going to be able to manual focus accurately and quickly at f1.5 for a while. It will probably take some practice, f2 will probably be sufficient so the Sonnar has no advantage there.
The Planar also seems to be a fair bit sharper and more contrasty from the MTF charts - this is not particularly a problem for me. I realise that for normal sharp BW film this may not be ideal, but I am a high-contrast type of shooter and I suspect I may well end up shooting mostly colour negative film then scanning and converting to BW in Lightroom if I want to. Perhaps not; time will tell.
The Planar is somewhat cheaper, around £200. Not a huge deal, but I don't have money to burn either.
In this thread I have had some people warn me against the Planar and some against the Sonnar!
I guess I am more of a people shooter, and also a lot of my pictures are of children; if they were of adults I'd be more inclined to go 35mm.
I agree that for a one-lens setup the 35mm seems ideal, and that a 28/50 is a great two-lens setup. Which of course swings me back in the direction of the 35. Bah! Maybe I should go 35 and regard it as a challenge to learn to manage with just the one lens. It would certainly bring a change of emphasis to my photography. Hmmm.....
But... the thing about the 50 is that it seems to be that magic focal length where it can act as both a short telephoto, but also be wide enough to take landscape and reportage-style shots too!
There is of course nothing to stop me from getting all of them in the long run, but that doesn't make the choice of the first lens any easier.
Of course you can't make the decision for me, but is there anything you think I have not taken into account?
Last edited:
Photon42
burn the box
I'd go for the 35 bio. It's perfect as a start, also with the frame lines (you stated you do use glasses). I don't know if telephoto is your cup of tea, but a 90 (Elmarit-M 2.8, e.g.) is a nice companion.
The 35 bio is an outstanding lens, and you get the f/2.0, just like with the planar. Of course leicavistas may say it's footprint is a bit on the large side. But honestly, if you come from a 5diesel, everything else is small here
The 35 bio is an outstanding lens, and you get the f/2.0, just like with the planar. Of course leicavistas may say it's footprint is a bit on the large side. But honestly, if you come from a 5diesel, everything else is small here
mfogiel
Veteran
peripatetic
Photon42 rightly pointed you towards the Biogon 35, it is just a tad soft wide open, so this helps with people shots, and although this is a highly personal opinion, I believe the ZI with this lens is a combination which gives absolutely disproportionate number of outstanding results. In the 50 range, if you like shooting women and kids, the C Sonnar loaded with a chromogenic film will give you really smooth shots, while with a sharper film you will get a more detailed rendering, (like in the photo shown below) and it is more compact than the Planar.
Biogon 35:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1659217311/sizes/l/
C Sonnar 50:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1434997702/sizes/l/
Photon42 rightly pointed you towards the Biogon 35, it is just a tad soft wide open, so this helps with people shots, and although this is a highly personal opinion, I believe the ZI with this lens is a combination which gives absolutely disproportionate number of outstanding results. In the 50 range, if you like shooting women and kids, the C Sonnar loaded with a chromogenic film will give you really smooth shots, while with a sharper film you will get a more detailed rendering, (like in the photo shown below) and it is more compact than the Planar.
Biogon 35:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1659217311/sizes/l/
C Sonnar 50:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1434997702/sizes/l/
peripatetic
Well-known
Thanks everyone for all the advice.
I looked at charts, the reviews, and looked at loads of photos with the different lenses and made up my mind.
I went for the 50 Planar. I shall no doubt be getting more lenses in due course, but for now it seemed like the best choice.
My reasons for choosing the Planar over the Sonnar: I don't want to be worrying about focus shift while I learn how to use a rangefinder, the Planar is sharper (and from this camera I want sharp, high-contrast images), and it's about £250 cheaper.
I decided that 50mm was the right focal length for my main lens. I just do too much portrait work to go 35mm at the start. I will probably want a wide angle as my next lens; probably the 25 or the 28 - with my specs I shall need an external finder for both anyway - so it will most likely be the 25.
For any other focal length I am likely to go CV.
Anyway I put two rolls through my new baby this morning and it was great fun. I shall put up a first impressions report sometime, but for now here are a few of the better shots from my first outing.
I used colour film. One roll each of Kodak Portra 400 VC and Fuji Superia 400. As I remembered from old, Fuji produces lovely greens, it's just that it does so where you want grays and whites too. Yuck. No more Fuji colour film for me. The Kodak is as wonderful as I remembered. I shall of course experiment with some proper BW films too but I think if I can get results from colour that I'm happy with I may stick with it for the extra flexibility of being able to choose some colour and some BW on the same roll.
Can't tell about resolution or anything because the scans were from Jessops (about 2 megapixels), I haven't decided on a scanner yet. The 6x4 prints were very sharp. Scanned shots processed through Lightroom as usual.
Overall I had a blast!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peripatetic/sets/72157603919285794/show/
.
I looked at charts, the reviews, and looked at loads of photos with the different lenses and made up my mind.
I went for the 50 Planar. I shall no doubt be getting more lenses in due course, but for now it seemed like the best choice.
My reasons for choosing the Planar over the Sonnar: I don't want to be worrying about focus shift while I learn how to use a rangefinder, the Planar is sharper (and from this camera I want sharp, high-contrast images), and it's about £250 cheaper.
I decided that 50mm was the right focal length for my main lens. I just do too much portrait work to go 35mm at the start. I will probably want a wide angle as my next lens; probably the 25 or the 28 - with my specs I shall need an external finder for both anyway - so it will most likely be the 25.
For any other focal length I am likely to go CV.
Anyway I put two rolls through my new baby this morning and it was great fun. I shall put up a first impressions report sometime, but for now here are a few of the better shots from my first outing.
I used colour film. One roll each of Kodak Portra 400 VC and Fuji Superia 400. As I remembered from old, Fuji produces lovely greens, it's just that it does so where you want grays and whites too. Yuck. No more Fuji colour film for me. The Kodak is as wonderful as I remembered. I shall of course experiment with some proper BW films too but I think if I can get results from colour that I'm happy with I may stick with it for the extra flexibility of being able to choose some colour and some BW on the same roll.
Can't tell about resolution or anything because the scans were from Jessops (about 2 megapixels), I haven't decided on a scanner yet. The 6x4 prints were very sharp. Scanned shots processed through Lightroom as usual.
Overall I had a blast!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peripatetic/sets/72157603919285794/show/
.
Last edited: