I have these 35mm lenses, do I need a Zeiss 35mm f2?

V

Vickko

Veteran
Local time
4:02 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
2,827
Location
Canada
View My Gallery
I have these 35mm lenses, do I need the current Zeiss 35mm f2?

- f3.5 Summaron LTM
- f2.8 Summaron M
- f2.8 Zeiss Biogon for Contax IIa
- f2 Summicron Ver 4 (1913~1983 lens), "bokeh king"
- f1.8 Nikkor classic (old version)
- f1.2 Nokton

Can you comment on whether:
- with the new Zeiss, I get 0 distortion, which none of the above have?
- any unique signature that the new Zeiss has, which none of the above have? I read that the new Zeiss is "clinical" in its imaging.

regards
Vick
 
Oh, forgot:

- 40mm f2 Summicron - is pretty much like a 35mm
- 3.5cm f3.5 Elmar LTM

And, you're right, this isn't a matter of "need".

More like "is there a gap to close?"

....Vick
 
Vick,

I have had a ZM 35/2 and most your current 35s. Depending on how you define "need" and based on your current 35s, I would answer "no". Two answers -- I shot the ZM 35/2 only on film, and I never noticed distortion. It may have distortion but it would very very small and insiginificant on film. As regards the lens signature -- I found the ZM 35/2 to stamp a gloss on my photos both in colour or B+W film. I did not like this. The ZM 35/2 is too big for a f2 35 for my taste, it being a bit bigger than the summilux 35/1,4 Asph w/o their hoods. That said, the zm 35/2 is sooo flare resistant, you can usually get away without using a hood.
 
You're lacking

You're lacking

The new 2.8 Zeiss forget the 2.
Personally, the 2.8 Summaron M is the smallest, ergonomic, most bang, you own it, and everything else is GAS (but consider yourself lucky and affluent to own what you have).

It also plays very well with the newer color negative films (not in your face contrast yet sharp).

The older signature lenses with the new color negative films and Photoshop is a KILLER combination. I find it far superior to the new digital alternatives (RAW) if you are making art.
 
You think you need it but it will turn out to be GAS.
funny but true in any way. 😀

(i just love the wordplay with this acronym)
 
ferider said:
Sell all of them, and buy yourself the Summilux asph and a ticket to Paris or Hawaii.
Click to expand...

Vick, R's idea is not bad one...the summilux 35 asph is a very fine lens, but it is the second best 35 I have used. If i am not mistaken, though, you already have the best 35 -- the 2005 re-issue of the S-mount W-Nikkor C 35/1,8? Perhaps consider getting your copy converted to M-mount....it would cost than a zm35/2 and way less than a summilux asph 35 😉 That's if it is not heretical to tamper with mounts according to your photographic morals!?
 
Sell them and get a J-12 to slum with.
The financial windfall will keep you in film for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom