Sam N
Well-known
How close are the ZI's 35mm framelines to the FOV of a 40mm lens? My next lens purchase will probably be a 35mm lens (If I can decide on one), but for now I'll be using the 40/1.4. I've heard that Leica's 35mm framelines are "conservative" and work decently with 40s. Is the ZI the same way?
While we're talking about 40s vs 35s, has anyone used both Nokton Classics (35 and 40)? How is the 35 different other than focal length?
While we're talking about 40s vs 35s, has anyone used both Nokton Classics (35 and 40)? How is the 35 different other than focal length?
lic4
Well-known
Ive heard that the ZI 35mm framelines fit 40mm better than the Leica M6's do.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I'm using a 40mm Sonnar, and the framelines seem to be close enough. To be truthful, I generally don't remember the exact framing of every photo that I take (even with an SLR), and I doubt that most people do.
ljsegil
Well-known
Agree completely. Nice combination with the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar, makes pretty pictures, sometimes even for me.
LJS
Sam N
Well-known
I also found this post that backs up what people in this thread are saying:
http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=1239
By the way, my 40mm Nokton brings up the 35mm framelines on the ZI. Is this normal or was my Nokton modified (I bought it used)?
http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=1239
By the way, my 40mm Nokton brings up the 35mm framelines on the ZI. Is this normal or was my Nokton modified (I bought it used)?
lic4
Well-known
It must have been modified- from what I understand, it should bring up 50mm framelines in any (non CL, non CLE) M camera with automatically selected framelines.
android
Established
The 40mm Nokton does bring up 50mm framelines. Coincidentally, I'm actually waiting for Aperture to mod mine to bring up the 35mm framelines. Using the frameline select lever becomes tedious pretty quickly IMHO.
bennyng
Benny Ng
The Rollei 40mm f/2.8 Sonnar does bring up the 50mm frame line on the Zeiss Ikon when used with the supplied LTM to M adaptor. Of course, for those who prefer they can always swap the LTM to M adaptor with a Voigtlander 35/135 adaptor.
For the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 Nokton, it's already an M mount, so it has to be modified to 35mm if that's your preference. Given the generous framing on the Bessa and Zeiss Ikon, I would think that the 50mm frameline should work just fine.
Cheers,
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
Pretty much the main reason I stopped using my M6 was because the framelines were just not accurate enough. I dont claim to remember the exact framing of every photo I take, but if you are in the habbit of framing objects in the left and right frame edge, and you see your compositions routinely cutoff its very easy to remember that you did not see THAT in your frame. If you dont tuck things in corners, you are right, its probably not a big deal and close enough can be good enough.
sockeyed
Well-known
I find it interesting that the Nokton 40mm works well as a 35mm on the Zeiss Ikon as that is not the case with the Bessas from my experience, where the 35mm framelines are quite 'wide'. On my M6 they are 'tighter' and 40mm works better as a 35mm on it.
In regard to your second question, I have both the Nokton 35 and 40, and there is very little difference between the two: they are the same size and have the same handling. The hood of the 40mm is very slightly longer, and the 35mm has "35" engraved on the barrel (the 40 has nothing). The 35mm is too new to me to comment much on how it performs vs. the 40, but from everything I've seen is have a very similar signature.
In regard to your second question, I have both the Nokton 35 and 40, and there is very little difference between the two: they are the same size and have the same handling. The hood of the 40mm is very slightly longer, and the 35mm has "35" engraved on the barrel (the 40 has nothing). The 35mm is too new to me to comment much on how it performs vs. the 40, but from everything I've seen is have a very similar signature.
Last edited:
Sam N
Well-known
I did some informal tests with the 40 Nokton on the ZI with 35mm framelines.
Results: Inconclusive.
The 35mm framelines seem to be fairly accurate on the ZI. The Nokton certainly doesn't cover the whole frameline area. It's close enough for most things, I guess.
The Nokton is such a great lens that I'm not sure I want to sell it for the 35mm version (which I've heard mixed things about). A summicron or ZM 35 would be nice, but I'm not sure if I can give up the 1 stop on my most-used lens. The 35/1.2 is tempting since I certainly can't afford a 'lux. I'll probably just deal with the slightly innacurate lines for now.
Results: Inconclusive.
The 35mm framelines seem to be fairly accurate on the ZI. The Nokton certainly doesn't cover the whole frameline area. It's close enough for most things, I guess.
The Nokton is such a great lens that I'm not sure I want to sell it for the 35mm version (which I've heard mixed things about). A summicron or ZM 35 would be nice, but I'm not sure if I can give up the 1 stop on my most-used lens. The 35/1.2 is tempting since I certainly can't afford a 'lux. I'll probably just deal with the slightly innacurate lines for now.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
How close are the ZI's 35mm framelines to the FOV of a 40mm lens?
I modified my CV 40/1.4 to bring up the 35mm frame...took 10 minutes with a needle file.
Mounting the camera on a tripod with camera back open, I then tape a piece of matte drafting film in the image plane with the shutter opened to B. You can now see exactly what the lens sees, albeit in reverse.
Leveling the camera with a bubble level and using tall building edges as references, I then went through all apertures and focusing distances, I would say the 35mm frame line is about as close to 100% coverage of the 40/1.4 as possibly can be. Using the inside edge of the frame line provide ample insurance.
I still use Nikon F2's and have long been spoiled by 100% coverage.
Last edited:
Sam N
Well-known
The film I used for the tests mentioned in post #11 is mounted slide film, which probably accounts for most of the difference. I do shoot a decent amount of slide film, but at $10 a roll for development, that will probably change.
With negative film the difference is probably negligible.
With negative film the difference is probably negligible.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The 40f1.4 works very well on the Zi. I use the inside of the framelines as a guide and mentally "crop" slightly. The odd shot I can loose an edge or a detail that I thought was in there. however, if I need absolute framing, I go back to a Nikon F! Rangefinders are not that accurate, the frames are guide lines (be it Leica,CV,Zeiss or Hexar).
As for the differemce between the 40 and the 35f1,4's. Not much, excecpt with the MC 40/1,4 which has bit more contrast than the 35f1,4 SC's (which is to be expected anyway). Both my 35f1.4's are SC's as that fits my black/white shooting. As for the "tempest in a teacup" discussion about the 35f1.4 and focus shift - I have not had any problem with it. Just about every lens has a focus shift with different apertures, Leica is no exeception nor is Zeiss. Each lens tends to have "sweet spot" when it all comes together and admittedly it can take quite a few rolls to nail this down.
Most lenses perform well 2-2.5 stops down from maximum aperture, some have the sweet spot at maximum, 35f1.2 nokton is one, Asph Summilux, Summicron 75, Planar 50f2.0 ZM are others. That does not mean that they go "bad" at other apertures, just that they excell at their "sweet spots".
The 35f1,4 is a throw back to the old Summilux 35 and exhibits similar characteristics, slightly lower contrast at 1.4, but less flare than the Summilux, and less smeared highlights.
The 40f1.4 is probably not as sharp as the 35f1,4 at wide open, but it has a very nice rendition at f4-5,6.
My criteria is simple, shooting black/white a lens has to be able to produce a good 11x14" print at any aperture and if I know the optimum aperture and use it, it should give me a 16x20" from a full frame neg (this is with 400asa film -TriX,NP 400 etc). The lens should also be able to handle a contrast range matching the film. Dodging dep shadows or burning in fried highlights is occasionally necessary, but not desirable!
As for the differemce between the 40 and the 35f1,4's. Not much, excecpt with the MC 40/1,4 which has bit more contrast than the 35f1,4 SC's (which is to be expected anyway). Both my 35f1.4's are SC's as that fits my black/white shooting. As for the "tempest in a teacup" discussion about the 35f1.4 and focus shift - I have not had any problem with it. Just about every lens has a focus shift with different apertures, Leica is no exeception nor is Zeiss. Each lens tends to have "sweet spot" when it all comes together and admittedly it can take quite a few rolls to nail this down.
Most lenses perform well 2-2.5 stops down from maximum aperture, some have the sweet spot at maximum, 35f1.2 nokton is one, Asph Summilux, Summicron 75, Planar 50f2.0 ZM are others. That does not mean that they go "bad" at other apertures, just that they excell at their "sweet spots".
The 35f1,4 is a throw back to the old Summilux 35 and exhibits similar characteristics, slightly lower contrast at 1.4, but less flare than the Summilux, and less smeared highlights.
The 40f1.4 is probably not as sharp as the 35f1,4 at wide open, but it has a very nice rendition at f4-5,6.
My criteria is simple, shooting black/white a lens has to be able to produce a good 11x14" print at any aperture and if I know the optimum aperture and use it, it should give me a 16x20" from a full frame neg (this is with 400asa film -TriX,NP 400 etc). The lens should also be able to handle a contrast range matching the film. Dodging dep shadows or burning in fried highlights is occasionally necessary, but not desirable!