Vickko
Veteran
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
- 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
back alley
IMAGES
need?
no.
no.
Vickko
Veteran
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
- 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
Hultstrom
Member
Of course.
Of course.
You can never have too many 35mm-lenses, and you can stop at any time. Right?
/M
Of course.
You can never have too many 35mm-lenses, and you can stop at any time. Right?
/M
thomasw_
Well-known
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.
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.
ferider
Veteran
Sell all of them, and buy yourself the Summilux asph and a ticket to Paris or Hawaii.
Oh Two
Established
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'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.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Sure you don't.
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
No. Spending the extra money to sideline the Summicron IV would be unnecessary.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
You want the lens. You *need* professional help. 
bizarrius
the great
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)
funny but true in any way.
(i just love the wordplay with this acronym)
aizan
Veteran
this. i wouldn't bother going on vacation, though. the summilux asph would be enough. or a summicron asph, or biogon.
ampguy
Veteran
Did cavemen really invent fire??
ZeissFan
Veteran
Hmm ... this is a question no one can answer but you, because it comes down to "want" vs. "need." Two different things.
Pablito
coco frío
back alley
IMAGES
Like so many of the questions people ask on RFF.
sigh...
and yet you seem up to making comments like these all day long as well...
raid
Dad Photographer
I would say, keep the Cron and the 1.2 Nokton.
Then go with what Roland suggested.
Then go with what Roland suggested.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Threads like this reaffirm my decision to just visit here once or twice a week lately!
thomasw_
Well-known
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!?
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Sell them and get a J-12 to slum with.
The financial windfall will keep you in film for a long time.
The financial windfall will keep you in film for a long time.