800$ -35 Cron Pre-Asph or Zeiss 35 Biogon or VC 35 1.2??

800$ -35 Cron Pre-Asph or Zeiss 35 Biogon or VC 35 1.2??

  • Total voters
    177
i've seen great pics from each lens.

if you could handle each one and decide on ergonomics, price, availability etc.

joe
 
In my humble opinion, it all depends on what you plan to shoot. The only advantage of having the Nokton is that you can shoot in very low light. If you don't plan to do that you'd be happier with one of the others, I think.
 
Cheaper lenses usually don't perform as well in the corners as their Leica equivalents wide open. However, since your RD-1 has a cropped sensor, you might get Leica performance for half the price. It's worth doing some research.
 
matt fury said:
I'm biased, since I have a Ultron for sale in the classifieds... :)
Click to expand...

Hi Matt,

I would snap it up... but unfortunately I was looking for black one...to match the body..
 
Nick R. said:
Cheaper lenses usually don't perform as well in the corners as their Leica equivalents wide open. However, since your RD-1 has a cropped sensor, you might get Leica performance for half the price. It's worth doing some research.
Click to expand...


Nick,
Thanks for the advice, in the end I probably will go with the Ultron based on price...I already have a lot into it with the body and my 50 summicron..
Fortunately I live in San Diego, but the only unfortunate thing is there are no good camera stores here to try rangefinder lenses. Everything is either Nikon or Canon SLR and digicams..I have to order a lense try and then if I don't like it send it back..Its a lot of trouble. I took a chance on the R-D1 from BH photo and everything seems to be working out..
 
I had a Nokton 35/1.2, and it's a great lens but it's pretty big and heavy (not sure if it matters). Performance is excellent, very sharp and great OOF when shot at larger apetures, it's also the only thing faster than a Summilux in 35mm. The lens is very flare resistant, out of the three you mentioned I'd say it's the most versatile lens you could possibly get to cover all your shooting situations.
On my M6 it weighed the camera down quite a bit, I don't wear my M's around my neck so it wasn't a big deal, but if you do it won't balance well.

I've been interested in the Biogon 35/2 as well, looks really sharp stopped down and the bokeh is pretty nice but I have not fondled one ;). they seem to perform very well based on the samples I've seen posted.

The pre-asph Leicas...come on man, it's a Leica, a virtual penis-extender! (oops :eek: did I just say that, probably, it's Friday) Very compact and sharp with outstanding OOF, but at 800 bucks you can buy the others new and the pre-asph gently fondled.

good luck,
Todd
 
I have the Nokton and voted for it. I don't know the others, so I guess I'm biased! It has only one drawback, which is the size: it can be seen in the viewfinder (M7 0.72x) and invades the 35mm framelines to a significant degree. For me, it's tolerable. Others may find this more of an issue. IQ is very good even wide open - in real life photography. I never "tested" it. *IF* you want a low-light lens you can't beat this at the price.
 
anaanda said:
Looking for a 35 for my R-D1?
Click to expand...

Won't go wrong with Zeiss - though I doubt you will lose with any of em. I have found really fast lenses can have a little more distortion that slightly slower ones - for 35mm, f2 seems to be about ideal unless you really need super low light.

Also consider that the lenses can get big and heavy with wider aperture - this may be a pain in the keester if you want to remain small and discrete (though if that is a big consideration, there are a ton of smaller P&S digicams)
 
I agonized, analized and comparisized getting a 35mm for the last few months. In the end, I realized that I already had several very good 35mm 2.8 to 3.5 lenses. So, the Nokton made the most sense in terms of giving me a lens with additional capabilites. A lens that would expand my photography. I didn't need one those things Todd mentioned! :D

I ended up not buying another 35mm lens. :D I have enough already. Blasphemy, I know. I did, however, buy 14 pounds of MF SLR & lenses. Is that ok? GAS works in mysterious ways.
 
Just to mess with your mind, what about the 40/1.4?

If you need to stick to at 35, I agree with Steph, if you think you want the speed, go with the 35/1.2. It is a big lens, FAST and sharp.

I have some great shots with the 35/1.7, but have loaned it to my son and gone with a 40/1.4. I love the 35/2 'cron, used it for years and it is smaller than the 35/1.7. The 40/1.4 feels as small and miine is smooth as 'cron.

You might want to check how the 'cron works (light fall off) with the RD-1. I think the 35/1.2 will do fine as should the ZI. Not sure about the 40 either,

B2 (;->
 
BillBingham2 said:
Just to mess with your mind, what about the 40/1.4?


B2 (;->
Click to expand...

That notion crept into my brain too. Except I had too many 50s & too many 35s. OK,OK, I had NO 40s. :D

Seriously, it's worth a look. Probably the smallest 1.4 lens around. Certainly one of the least expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom