Pavel+
Established
Hello again. I had a bad experience with the M8 and can't afford the M9 so I dropped out of the idea of rangefinders for a few months now. But I miss the simplicity and directness of my brief times with a rangefinder and so I want to give it another try. I have digital but slowly find that as a hobby it is not the thing for me. I'm a full time (salaried) pro - but still love the hobby part of it and digital is somehow slowly becoming "not it".
So I want to give another kick at the can. I really liked the M4-P but a while ago I had a chance to play with the Zeiss Ikon. Wow. So now I'm 90 percent sure that I am going the Ikon way. My dilemma is between two lenses; the 28 biogon or the 35 biogon F/2.0. I plan to get the 50 Planar for sure and first thought to supplement it with the 35. I like the idea of the speed but I was wondering if with only a three lens kit (90, 50, and one other) if the 28 may not be a better idea. More of a unique set of perspective I was thinking?
What do you guys think? Is the 35 close enough in focal length to the 50 to make the 28 a better choice? Does the viewfinder of the Ikon work ok with the 28? optically .... how is the 28 with respect to flare and distortion?
I plan to use this mostly for family snaps and a bit of street style photography - mostly again, family members.
Any samples of both lenses would be greatly appreciated!
I plan to order a Zeiss Ikon in a few days - as soon as I decide which of these two lenses to order with it. Thanks!
So I want to give another kick at the can. I really liked the M4-P but a while ago I had a chance to play with the Zeiss Ikon. Wow. So now I'm 90 percent sure that I am going the Ikon way. My dilemma is between two lenses; the 28 biogon or the 35 biogon F/2.0. I plan to get the 50 Planar for sure and first thought to supplement it with the 35. I like the idea of the speed but I was wondering if with only a three lens kit (90, 50, and one other) if the 28 may not be a better idea. More of a unique set of perspective I was thinking?
What do you guys think? Is the 35 close enough in focal length to the 50 to make the 28 a better choice? Does the viewfinder of the Ikon work ok with the 28? optically .... how is the 28 with respect to flare and distortion?
I plan to use this mostly for family snaps and a bit of street style photography - mostly again, family members.
Any samples of both lenses would be greatly appreciated!
I plan to order a Zeiss Ikon in a few days - as soon as I decide which of these two lenses to order with it. Thanks!
Nando
Well-known
I'm a 35/50 guy when it comes to rangefinders and a 28/50 guy when it comes to SLR's. This is largely because I prefer the 35 lines on my MP's .72x finder than the 28 lines. I also find 35mm a bit easier to visualize without looking through the viewfinder.
I tend to use either 35 or 50 for a long period of time. I only change lenses when I really have to. Many times, I carry two bodies, one with a 35 and the other with a 50.
I tend to use either 35 or 50 for a long period of time. I only change lenses when I really have to. Many times, I carry two bodies, one with a 35 and the other with a 50.
Huck Finn
Well-known
If I had it to do over again, I would have bought only one lens & would have used it for a while before I bought anything else. It's very hard to know what you need because it depends so much on what you shoot, how, where, & when.
The lens that sees the most time on my ZI is the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar because it is so compact. The focal length is very versatile & it renders beautiful photographs. The CV 28/2.8 makes a nice combination with it so that I have something wider to go to. It's also very compact;m in fact both lenses are about the same size. And I love the rendition that it gives me too.
When I need the speed, I go to the 50/2 Summicron & 35/2 Biogon combination. The 35/2 gets more use, so I'm in the process of switching from the Summicron to the 50/1.5 C-Sonnar because it will offer something completely different in results.
I'm finding that 2 lenses at a time is more than enough for me to juggle.
I'm finding that the speed isn't very important for my use, given the really good 800 film that Kodak still has available. I think that you only need the speed if you want the different look that you'll get wide open, but that depends on personal shooting style. For me, having a compact kit is more important than the speed.
The 28 lines in the ZI viewfinder work fine for me.
The lens that sees the most time on my ZI is the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar because it is so compact. The focal length is very versatile & it renders beautiful photographs. The CV 28/2.8 makes a nice combination with it so that I have something wider to go to. It's also very compact;m in fact both lenses are about the same size. And I love the rendition that it gives me too.
When I need the speed, I go to the 50/2 Summicron & 35/2 Biogon combination. The 35/2 gets more use, so I'm in the process of switching from the Summicron to the 50/1.5 C-Sonnar because it will offer something completely different in results.
I'm finding that 2 lenses at a time is more than enough for me to juggle.
I'm finding that the speed isn't very important for my use, given the really good 800 film that Kodak still has available. I think that you only need the speed if you want the different look that you'll get wide open, but that depends on personal shooting style. For me, having a compact kit is more important than the speed.
The 28 lines in the ZI viewfinder work fine for me.
Last edited:
Pavel+
Established
Thanks. The lens I really like is a 50 ... but ... perhaps its some kind of insecurity, but it seems somehow that with only a 50 it would be limiting.
I'm pretty much decided on the 28, but if I can do with the hand holdability of iso 400 film and f/2.8 then I think the 35 would be attractive in the 2.8 version. I take it that the 35 2.0 is the popular one due to the price being so close, but the 2.8 35 seems like a little gem. Man, these choices! And so little money!
I don't know if I'm imaging things but to me it feels like a rangefinder lens is longer than a SLR lens. A 50 of an slr seems wider than on a rangefinder ... but I know that does not make any sense.
I'm pretty much decided on the 28, but if I can do with the hand holdability of iso 400 film and f/2.8 then I think the 35 would be attractive in the 2.8 version. I take it that the 35 2.0 is the popular one due to the price being so close, but the 2.8 35 seems like a little gem. Man, these choices! And so little money!
I don't know if I'm imaging things but to me it feels like a rangefinder lens is longer than a SLR lens. A 50 of an slr seems wider than on a rangefinder ... but I know that does not make any sense.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Hey Huck -- I'm in your camp. In order, here's what gets used the most:
-- 40mm Sonnar: Great all-purpose lens. Compact, easy to use.
-- 50mm Planar: An excellent 50 and enough speed for me. Lovely for close-up work (0.7 meters).
-- 25mm Biogon: Apparently, my world ... and vision ... aren't as wide as I thought. I use this lens on occasion but not as much as I though that I would. Great lens, however.
As to the original question: I'd probably go with a 28/50 combo. 35 can almost be like 50, and 28 gives you a nice, noticeably wider alternative.
-- 40mm Sonnar: Great all-purpose lens. Compact, easy to use.
-- 50mm Planar: An excellent 50 and enough speed for me. Lovely for close-up work (0.7 meters).
-- 25mm Biogon: Apparently, my world ... and vision ... aren't as wide as I thought. I use this lens on occasion but not as much as I though that I would. Great lens, however.
As to the original question: I'd probably go with a 28/50 combo. 35 can almost be like 50, and 28 gives you a nice, noticeably wider alternative.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
An RF is my "walking around" camera. Outdoors, I usually go with a 50mm lens with a 35mm for when I need cannot take a couple of steps back.
Anything wider, even a 28mm, usually imparts a "wide" look to images that I don't often care for.
FWIW, a faster lens gets you indoors where I wind-up using my 35mm most often. With ISO 400, f2@1/30th can be fast enough during daytime and a little beyond. However, 1/15th is hit and miss for me which made me move from the CV 35/2.5 Color Skopar to the ZM 35/2 Biogon and ultimately to the CV 35/1.4 MC Nokton. With people subjects in candid situations, having the option of a higher shutter speed can be valuable when flash isn't an option.
Anything wider, even a 28mm, usually imparts a "wide" look to images that I don't often care for.
FWIW, a faster lens gets you indoors where I wind-up using my 35mm most often. With ISO 400, f2@1/30th can be fast enough during daytime and a little beyond. However, 1/15th is hit and miss for me which made me move from the CV 35/2.5 Color Skopar to the ZM 35/2 Biogon and ultimately to the CV 35/1.4 MC Nokton. With people subjects in candid situations, having the option of a higher shutter speed can be valuable when flash isn't an option.
mfogiel
Veteran
I would undoubtedly go with the 35/2 Biogon. It is a better lens of the two, it is a stop faster, it flares less, and it lends itself to more universal use. Finally, the 35mm frame in the ZI is a delux viewfinder combination. If I have to go on a trip with one camera and one lens only, I take the ZI plus 35/2 Biogon (and some rolls of Tri X). Here are some samples:
However, if you are sure you want a 50mm, then the 28 Biogon would be a great companion, BUT I would get the 50mm first. Here are some samples with the 28 Biogon:
However, if you are sure you want a 50mm, then the 28 Biogon would be a great companion, BUT I would get the 50mm first. Here are some samples with the 28 Biogon:
Last edited:
kxl
Social Documentary
Same here - I use mostly a 35mm, then a 50mm, and found that on the few occasions that I wanted to go wide, I wanted wider than what a 25mm could offer; 21mm worked much better. So, I sold my ZM 25mm - but I agree, it's a great lens.
Wrt the OP, while I agree that a 28/50 spreads out the FL range a bit better, i personally have never really liked the 28mm FL. So, I would vote for a 35/50 -- specifically for street, 35 as primary and 50 when the need arises. Just my $0.02.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
My starter one camera/lens RF outfit was the ZM with CV 40/1.4. For my type of photography and over a two year period, I was very satisfied.
Had a good 2X extender been available then, I might have selected a 35/1.4 instead, allowing a usable 70/2.8. [A 35~70 zoom is my favorite Nikon standard lens.]
In purchasing an Epson R-D1 recently, I also purchased a CV 25/4, making it a single lens outfit at 38/4...my CV 40/1.4 is now a 60/1.4, Okay.
Had I decided on a 3 lens outfit originally, I might have selected 28/50/85.
Now in my own evolution case, it would have to be a 25/40/75...I wish CV will make a new style M-mount 75/2.8...soon.
N.B. A CV 25/4 brings up the 35mm frame line in the ZM, which, if you compose right to the rim, gives you a margin of 15% all round.
Had a good 2X extender been available then, I might have selected a 35/1.4 instead, allowing a usable 70/2.8. [A 35~70 zoom is my favorite Nikon standard lens.]
In purchasing an Epson R-D1 recently, I also purchased a CV 25/4, making it a single lens outfit at 38/4...my CV 40/1.4 is now a 60/1.4, Okay.
Had I decided on a 3 lens outfit originally, I might have selected 28/50/85.
Now in my own evolution case, it would have to be a 25/40/75...I wish CV will make a new style M-mount 75/2.8...soon.
N.B. A CV 25/4 brings up the 35mm frame line in the ZM, which, if you compose right to the rim, gives you a margin of 15% all round.
samoksner
Who stole my light?
35 biogon gets my vote as well, just a brilliant, superb lens really. Had the priviledge of shooting with one for a week, and was almost crying when i had to give it back. The 28/2.5 sounds and looks a bit boring by comparison, however, the 21 biogon is a perfect match for a 35 + 50 combo.
dfoo
Well-known
The 28 framelines, as a glasses wearer, work really well on the Ikon when I compare it to the M4-p. The biogon 35/2 is a great lens, but a bit big. Thats why I went for the 2.8 biogon-C. Perfect size.
Pavel+
Established
Uggg. You guys are making it difficult!
Tell me then about 35 and the 40. Are the framelines for 35 a pain with 40?
And between the 35 Voight F/1.4 and the 35 biogon - any thoughts? (though I think I prefer the Biogon because of the consistent feel to have a three lens set and I care a lot about flare, esp veiling flare)
So - I know for sure I want the 50. I'm pretty persuaded by the voices for the 35 Biogon and if I were to get that then perhaps later the 25 F/2.8.
I had the 25 Zeiss in a Nikon mount for a time. It was about as wide as I liked but I did really like it except the corners were a bit poor on the ZF mount. I now have a 24 Nikon PC-E and love it except that 24 seems to always give an odd distortion to the corners that I don't find at all natural or flattering in people shots. My thinking was that the 28 would be the widest focal length, which still looked fairly natural. Jason's comment on the 28 imparting a wide look already has got my attention. The only thing is that 35 seems so close to 50.
MFogiel ... were the last three with the 28?
One of the reasons that I'm inclined to go with my second favorite focal length first as opposed to the 50 is that B&H has an incredible special on several combinations and the 28 comes with a hood and Zeiss's terrific shoe mount 28 viewfinder and the body - for $1855! That brings the actual price of the body down to next to giveaway prices. Add the 50 for $700 and I'm good to go. Of course I don't know how useful the external viewfinder is at 28? I need to make sure that savings don't get in the way of smarts though.
I'm well familiar with slr shooting. I know which lengths I need there and find that there are many focal lengths that I have no need for. For example my D700 with a 25 and macro 60 was just perfect. Once in a while I'd use an 85 but not much. Do you find that the rangefinder is different enough in use that it is to be considered that different focal lengths should be tested out - or is it the same for you all?
Tell me then about 35 and the 40. Are the framelines for 35 a pain with 40?
And between the 35 Voight F/1.4 and the 35 biogon - any thoughts? (though I think I prefer the Biogon because of the consistent feel to have a three lens set and I care a lot about flare, esp veiling flare)
So - I know for sure I want the 50. I'm pretty persuaded by the voices for the 35 Biogon and if I were to get that then perhaps later the 25 F/2.8.
I had the 25 Zeiss in a Nikon mount for a time. It was about as wide as I liked but I did really like it except the corners were a bit poor on the ZF mount. I now have a 24 Nikon PC-E and love it except that 24 seems to always give an odd distortion to the corners that I don't find at all natural or flattering in people shots. My thinking was that the 28 would be the widest focal length, which still looked fairly natural. Jason's comment on the 28 imparting a wide look already has got my attention. The only thing is that 35 seems so close to 50.
MFogiel ... were the last three with the 28?
One of the reasons that I'm inclined to go with my second favorite focal length first as opposed to the 50 is that B&H has an incredible special on several combinations and the 28 comes with a hood and Zeiss's terrific shoe mount 28 viewfinder and the body - for $1855! That brings the actual price of the body down to next to giveaway prices. Add the 50 for $700 and I'm good to go. Of course I don't know how useful the external viewfinder is at 28? I need to make sure that savings don't get in the way of smarts though.
I'm well familiar with slr shooting. I know which lengths I need there and find that there are many focal lengths that I have no need for. For example my D700 with a 25 and macro 60 was just perfect. Once in a while I'd use an 85 but not much. Do you find that the rangefinder is different enough in use that it is to be considered that different focal lengths should be tested out - or is it the same for you all?
Pavel+
Established
Incidentally, one of the reasons I kind of gave up on 35 film was how hard it was for me to get good results with my epson 4490. At work I have one and I have determined that mine must have been damaged. The same model but a different scanner - and now I get really great scans! Go figure - all that time wasted.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I don't have a 28, but do have the 25 and don't use it as much as either the 35 Biogon or 50 Sonnar. The first lens on teh rf is the 35 witht he 50 a close second, though it feels a bit telephotoish after using the 35. The 35/2 Biogon is a super lens.
I also have the 25/28 viewfinder, which is a very nice piece of glass, albeit quite expensive. I couldn't shoot the Ikon with a 28 without it - glasses...
Mike
I also have the 25/28 viewfinder, which is a very nice piece of glass, albeit quite expensive. I couldn't shoot the Ikon with a 28 without it - glasses...
Mike
FS Vontz
Aspirer
The 28mm Biogon is the next lens I expect to get for my G1. 35 is too much like 50(that is, 45) for me.
thomasw_
Well-known
The 40mm lens in 35 lines was annoying to me. YMMV.
I agree with mfogiel, if you go with a ZI, you'd be best to get the ZM 35/2 and shoot with it; it is a fine lens, albeit perhaps a bit large for a f2 35. The 50 and 35 combo rocks. There's enough of a difference between the two focal lengths to make the lens switch interesting
I agree with mfogiel, if you go with a ZI, you'd be best to get the ZM 35/2 and shoot with it; it is a fine lens, albeit perhaps a bit large for a f2 35. The 50 and 35 combo rocks. There's enough of a difference between the two focal lengths to make the lens switch interesting
Jaans
Well-known
I can only relate my personal experience with the 35mm Biogon 2.0 and it runs pretty much contrary to what others have recommended.
My Biogon which I bought new has had a number of problems. Slack/wobbly focusing ring and paint flaking in the lens leaving black residue that has had to be cleaned out. I think the lens is cursed. I have been to the repair shop twice with this lens, so I am out of pocket with time and money. My Biogon's wobbly focus ring was not unique to mine and is a common problem amongst the range. However, I have not read about other users getting paint flaking off so perhaps I am really unlucky.
In terms of usage, focusing in the vertical position is unpleasant to say the least. The highlights have no special glow that tends to come with its Leica competitors. The images produced are clinical, the lens has no character.
I just wish that I had bought a summarit, as the summarit on my compact Leica CM 2.4 produced images that left my Biogon far behind. My Rokkor 40mm multi coated version also leaves the Biogon for dead.
So perhaps consider either of these or even a wonderful summaron or pre-asph summicron.
As I said I can only relate my experiences but I won't be touching another ZM lens again. Black and white especially was not good with this lens. It is more favored for color.
Cheers,
Jaans
My Biogon which I bought new has had a number of problems. Slack/wobbly focusing ring and paint flaking in the lens leaving black residue that has had to be cleaned out. I think the lens is cursed. I have been to the repair shop twice with this lens, so I am out of pocket with time and money. My Biogon's wobbly focus ring was not unique to mine and is a common problem amongst the range. However, I have not read about other users getting paint flaking off so perhaps I am really unlucky.
In terms of usage, focusing in the vertical position is unpleasant to say the least. The highlights have no special glow that tends to come with its Leica competitors. The images produced are clinical, the lens has no character.
I just wish that I had bought a summarit, as the summarit on my compact Leica CM 2.4 produced images that left my Biogon far behind. My Rokkor 40mm multi coated version also leaves the Biogon for dead.
So perhaps consider either of these or even a wonderful summaron or pre-asph summicron.
As I said I can only relate my experiences but I won't be touching another ZM lens again. Black and white especially was not good with this lens. It is more favored for color.
Cheers,
Jaans
fuwen
Well-known
I am a 28/50 shooter. Only when I want to bring only 1 lens then it is the 35/2.
Pavel+
Established
Well, I went to my local dealer and made the decision. Much thanks to all for the imput. I decided for the Zeiss Ikon and the 28 F/2.8. I almost changed my mind due to all the postive comments for the 35 but in the end the the fact of how close the 35 and the 50 are made me chose the 28. The 28, I think, is the widest focal length with which one can comfortably use the built in viewfinder. That counted a bit, as did the fact that for $1849 I will receive the Ikon, the 28, a lens hood and the 28mm accessory viewfinder. When you factor in the costs of the various parts it brings the cost of the Ikon down to about 550 dollars. You can't beat that as a deal.
Next month I'm going to aim for the 50 f 2.0 and then perhaps if I find that the 28 focal lenght is a bit wide for me ... I will get a 35.
I hope eventually to have two bodies and the 28, 50 and the 85 .... and perhaps the 35 one day too. Thanks everyone for the input.
Now I have to figure out which film does best at iso 800!
Next month I'm going to aim for the 50 f 2.0 and then perhaps if I find that the 28 focal lenght is a bit wide for me ... I will get a 35.
I hope eventually to have two bodies and the 28, 50 and the 85 .... and perhaps the 35 one day too. Thanks everyone for the input.
Now I have to figure out which film does best at iso 800!