85 or 90?

[back alley]

kinda funny, i started this confident about the canon 85 but now the leica 90 is making more 'sense'.

time to start rolling the quarters...😉

 

[Frank Granovski]

Hopefully, you won't bastardize the Zeiss when you put on the Leica glass. 🙂

 

[Trius]

I had a 90mm Summicron ... f4 I think? Anyway, it was a wonderful, wonderful lens.

 

[Trius]

OK, after a Google, maybe not an f4 ... f2 or f2.8. Sheesh, I'm getting old

 

[rover]

The Canon 85 will balance well on the M3. Do you think it will be a bit heavy on the ZI?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

There is a very nice coated Elmar 9cm F4 in the classified's for a VERY REASONABLE price!

Unless you are going to do a lot of indoor/existing light photography, the F4 is plenty fast. And a LOT lighter.

 

[payasam]

In percentage terms, an 85 differs so little from a 90 that frame lines are not an issue. I'd suggest that you go for whatever fits your budget, your camera or cameras, your needs and preferences. These three words should be anathema, wherever they are found: racism, parochialism, xenophobia.

 

[back alley]

There is a very nice coated Elmar 9cm F4 in the classified's for a VERY REASONABLE price!

Unless you are going to do a lot of indoor/existing light photography, the F4 is plenty fast. And a LOT lighter.

i may too late for this deal.
i have the 50/1.2 for indoor shooting so i think f4 is ok.

 

[back alley]

These three words should be anathema, wherever they are found: racism, parochialism, xenophobia.

i do not believe these words are in my vocabulary, at least not when it comes to people.

 

[back alley]

The Canon 85 will balance well on the M3. Do you think it will be a bit heavy on the ZI?

i remember putting the 135 on the bessa r and it felt pretty good.
i tried it on the zi and it also was fine.

don't be fooled, the zi is not a light camera. it is lighter than the m3 or p but not by much.
in fact, as a street shooter who uses a wrist strap and not a neck/shoulder strap, it is a much better weight.
joe

 

[payasam]

Joe, those who speak of "brand loyalty" and of keeping "families" together, even when they are of metal and glass, practise the same sort of reasoning. Unreason, to be accurate. Keeping blood-lines "pure" and such-like garbage. But this is the sort of stuff I write about in my non-RFF name, Mukul Dube, and it probably doesn't fit here. What I mean, really, is that it's *good* to adapt things to uses for which they weren't made. Putting one maker's M lens on another maker's M body doesn't go nearly so far.

 

[back alley]

if you're speaking of reason in the logical sense, but i see nothing wrong with liking to keep brands together. it can be for categorizing or for shooting.

and i see a huge difference between people and things.

 

[payasam]

Nothing wrong with keeping brands together -- but nothing wrong either with mixing them if they mix well. People sometimes go to great lengths to adapt something from Brand A to fit something from Brand B, just because Brand B does not have what they want. Yes, people and things are different; and I don't see that I said they were the same. I meant a purely imaginary notion of "purity". It makes commercial sense for Canon, for example, to say that only Canon made NiMH cells should be used in its digicams. All manufacturers do this. But consider the Leica thread mount cameras. Were there not many, many lenses and accessories made for them by makers other than Leitz? Some were direct replacements for Leitz products, others were useful things that Leitz never made.

 

[Frank Granovski]

Okay, just get the Minolta M Rokkor 90mm F4 or just get another 35mm Zeiss.