italy74
Well-known
Hi guys,
I'm just coming from the SLR world and although of course I still have to budget for another expensive world, I'd like to have some hints on cross-based systems as follows.
By the time, I guess I'd like to afford a Zeiss Ikon but with a mixed lens kit.
Biogon 21 F/4.5 - I don't need all that speed and would use that only now and then.
Summicron 28 F/2 asph.: this is the KEY of all. Being my eye "28mm-preset", here I like the faster stop compared to Zeiss, plus, Leica seems to be the winner also optically speaking (roughly said, by specs, although I don't want to seem a pure measurbator here). I don't see any topic about it, though.. why? None owning it?
Summicron 50 F/2 or Zeiss 50 F/2. Here it partially worths what said for the 21. Partially since I'd surely use more so the faster stop is useful. Personally, I'd have preferred something a little wider, on the 40-45mm to pair with the 28, but this isn't really a concern. Here however I need some advice since I can't still compare these two different lenses. One having both would be a great help. I think to use them mostly in the F/2 - F/8 range and prefer a little more contrasty lens.
Apo Summicron 90 F/2 No doubts here, I also think it's a little less expensive than the Zeiss 85 F/2. At "worst" I even read very good things of the latest elmarit F/2.5
Again, I'm out of the 1.4 lens lust. I had it with my current SLR line and decided it's NOT that useful working with such shallow depth of field paired with a too stretched optical performance. Working at F/2 would be better, even because both Leica and Zeiss lenses perform better wide open compared to F/1.4 wide open. I've seen too much "cheaper" lenses perfoming way better than their more expensive brothers.
I'm also thinking of the APO TELYT 135 F/3.4, but I guess it would be really a dream having such kit.
The other way could be a 25 - 35 - 90 - 135 but, especially on the wider end, I'm NOT sure the 35 would be "enough" wide for my view, so I'd use too much the 25 widening too much nor having any wider lens.
Whatever review or site to deepen RF knowledge through also useful readings would be appreciated. I found extremely interesting the text "Leica M lenses, their souls and secrets" found on the Leica website.
I'm just coming from the SLR world and although of course I still have to budget for another expensive world, I'd like to have some hints on cross-based systems as follows.
By the time, I guess I'd like to afford a Zeiss Ikon but with a mixed lens kit.
Biogon 21 F/4.5 - I don't need all that speed and would use that only now and then.
Summicron 28 F/2 asph.: this is the KEY of all. Being my eye "28mm-preset", here I like the faster stop compared to Zeiss, plus, Leica seems to be the winner also optically speaking (roughly said, by specs, although I don't want to seem a pure measurbator here). I don't see any topic about it, though.. why? None owning it?
Summicron 50 F/2 or Zeiss 50 F/2. Here it partially worths what said for the 21. Partially since I'd surely use more so the faster stop is useful. Personally, I'd have preferred something a little wider, on the 40-45mm to pair with the 28, but this isn't really a concern. Here however I need some advice since I can't still compare these two different lenses. One having both would be a great help. I think to use them mostly in the F/2 - F/8 range and prefer a little more contrasty lens.
Apo Summicron 90 F/2 No doubts here, I also think it's a little less expensive than the Zeiss 85 F/2. At "worst" I even read very good things of the latest elmarit F/2.5
Again, I'm out of the 1.4 lens lust. I had it with my current SLR line and decided it's NOT that useful working with such shallow depth of field paired with a too stretched optical performance. Working at F/2 would be better, even because both Leica and Zeiss lenses perform better wide open compared to F/1.4 wide open. I've seen too much "cheaper" lenses perfoming way better than their more expensive brothers.
I'm also thinking of the APO TELYT 135 F/3.4, but I guess it would be really a dream having such kit.
The other way could be a 25 - 35 - 90 - 135 but, especially on the wider end, I'm NOT sure the 35 would be "enough" wide for my view, so I'd use too much the 25 widening too much nor having any wider lens.
Whatever review or site to deepen RF knowledge through also useful readings would be appreciated. I found extremely interesting the text "Leica M lenses, their souls and secrets" found on the Leica website.
Last edited:
northpole
Established
Hi Dino,
I'm sure you'll receive many opinions on each of the lenses mentioned. A couple of my own thoughts to add to your considerations:
28mm - an interesting comment made to me recently is that the 28mm Summicron is extremely hot property at the moment with very high prices both new and used - part of the explanation offered, apart from it being a great lens, that this is favoured by M8 users who with film may otherwise have opted for the 35mm optic. It may be an option, depending on your finances, to start out with the Biogon and see if the market cools a bit over the next year? Depends how important that 0.8 f-stop value is to you!
50mm - from what I have read (I only own the Summicron) both lenses are capable of fantastic results. Which one to go for? Perhaps better guided by which brand you are likely to opt for - if you are going the Leica route overall, stick with the Summi and enjoy a similar optical fingerprint.
90mm - I was put off the Summicron by size and weight considerations (the lens that is!). One of my drivers for partially setting aside slr's is weight and bulk. That's largely why I gave up the 0.8 f-stop and went with the Elmarit. If I want a lens of this size and beyond I'll revert to my Nikon gear and get my back brace out!
Using a 90mm and 135mm lens on a rangefinder regularly doesn't seem the easiest approach - the viewfinders aren't really set up well to deal with this - particularly on my 0.72 viewfinder. You can get viewfinder magnifiers but it all seems a bit of a nuisance switching these things around - especially if you are outside in the cold!
I'm not sure what viewfinder options are available with the Zeiss camera but this is one thing you should consider - you infer that you are more likely to be predominantly using the 28mm lens. This would lend itself to the 0.58 viewfinder - especially if you wear glasses; however this would be the poorest match for the 90 & 135 optics which work better with 0.85.
Lots to think about before you commit your monies! Good luck!!
This link is a good starting point for information on Leica and Zeiss optics:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/site_map.html
Peter
I'm sure you'll receive many opinions on each of the lenses mentioned. A couple of my own thoughts to add to your considerations:
28mm - an interesting comment made to me recently is that the 28mm Summicron is extremely hot property at the moment with very high prices both new and used - part of the explanation offered, apart from it being a great lens, that this is favoured by M8 users who with film may otherwise have opted for the 35mm optic. It may be an option, depending on your finances, to start out with the Biogon and see if the market cools a bit over the next year? Depends how important that 0.8 f-stop value is to you!
50mm - from what I have read (I only own the Summicron) both lenses are capable of fantastic results. Which one to go for? Perhaps better guided by which brand you are likely to opt for - if you are going the Leica route overall, stick with the Summi and enjoy a similar optical fingerprint.
90mm - I was put off the Summicron by size and weight considerations (the lens that is!). One of my drivers for partially setting aside slr's is weight and bulk. That's largely why I gave up the 0.8 f-stop and went with the Elmarit. If I want a lens of this size and beyond I'll revert to my Nikon gear and get my back brace out!
Using a 90mm and 135mm lens on a rangefinder regularly doesn't seem the easiest approach - the viewfinders aren't really set up well to deal with this - particularly on my 0.72 viewfinder. You can get viewfinder magnifiers but it all seems a bit of a nuisance switching these things around - especially if you are outside in the cold!
I'm not sure what viewfinder options are available with the Zeiss camera but this is one thing you should consider - you infer that you are more likely to be predominantly using the 28mm lens. This would lend itself to the 0.58 viewfinder - especially if you wear glasses; however this would be the poorest match for the 90 & 135 optics which work better with 0.85.
Lots to think about before you commit your monies! Good luck!!
This link is a good starting point for information on Leica and Zeiss optics:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/site_map.html
Peter
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Here's some short comments. A note at the beginning: Don't listen too much to what other people are saying - as the saying goes, show me an opinion and I'll show you someone on the Internet supporting it. Also, don't judge lenses by flickr images and 640x480 forum uploads.
Philipp
CV 21/4 is a little faster, a lot cheaper and quite contrasty which you seem to like. Very good lens and quite compact. I wouldn't give mine up.italy74 said:
Summicron-C 40/2 or Rokkor-C 40/2, modified to bring up the 35mm frame on the ZI (should be quite accurate). Or a 40/1.4 Nokton which is a good, sharp, contrasty lens. You don't have to use the extra stop, but sometimes it will allow you that extra shot that is impossible otherwise. Some people don't like the bokeh, but that's a matter of taste. The Nokton costs the same as the other two and probably represents better value.italy74 said:
Firstly, I'd say an 28/2 is at least as "stretched" as a 50/1.4; secondly I'd say f/1.4 is sometimes nice to have - you don't have to use it all the time, but it wouldn't be an argument against a lens in my book as long as I don't pay a premium. Beyond 50mm it becomes unmanageable though IMHO.italy74 said:
Philipp
faris
Well-known
Hi Dino, welcome to the rangefinder world. to answer your questions:
1. recommend subscribe ( $37/yr..i think ) to reidreviews. the best money u will
spend on reviews of rf lenses.
2. i too am new to rf and here is my take on ur choices.
a. zm 21/4.5..excellent lens. cv 15mm would be cheaper
b. have the cron 28. the best wa lens...no question.
c. between the cron 50 and zm 50...i luv the zm 50. real contrast/sharpness/excellent in/out focus rendition, imho.
d. cron 90..size put me off. heavy and expensive.
i too am from the nikon world. heavies drove me to rf. rf is wide. above 50mm
stay with nikon. i have the elmarit/2.8..a reasonsable compromise.but love
my nikkor 85/1.4 and the 70-200/2.8 vr.
just my 0.02$ worth.
1. recommend subscribe ( $37/yr..i think ) to reidreviews. the best money u will
spend on reviews of rf lenses.
2. i too am new to rf and here is my take on ur choices.
a. zm 21/4.5..excellent lens. cv 15mm would be cheaper
b. have the cron 28. the best wa lens...no question.
c. between the cron 50 and zm 50...i luv the zm 50. real contrast/sharpness/excellent in/out focus rendition, imho.
d. cron 90..size put me off. heavy and expensive.
i too am from the nikon world. heavies drove me to rf. rf is wide. above 50mm
stay with nikon. i have the elmarit/2.8..a reasonsable compromise.but love
my nikkor 85/1.4 and the 70-200/2.8 vr.
just my 0.02$ worth.
peter_n
Veteran
Dino welcome to the forum and my first question is what is wrong with italy06? 
So the 28: what do you need the extra stop for? DOF effects get more difficult as you go wider on the focal length. At f2.8 there are a number of very good lenses apart from Leica's, the Zeiss Biogon, the Konica M-Hexanon for example and getting a bit slower there is the CV Color Skopar which is very highly regarded. There is also the CV Ultron (f1.9) which I think is discontinued. I'm not keen on the Summicron 90/2 AA: big, heavy and not-so-sharp close up. It's a good lens but not a great one. Rangefinders don't do well with lenses above 100mm, if you're going to be using a 135mm a lot I would keep your SLR kit. Keep working on the research but the best thing is to try for yourself. It sounds like you have a bit of a slush fund so get yourself a body and then buy a couple of used lenses to start and see how you like them. That's what I did and it worked for me, there are so many variations in just the Leica kits that it is overwhelming and you can't trust what you read on the internet. You have to try for yourself. Good luck with your choices!
So the 28: what do you need the extra stop for? DOF effects get more difficult as you go wider on the focal length. At f2.8 there are a number of very good lenses apart from Leica's, the Zeiss Biogon, the Konica M-Hexanon for example and getting a bit slower there is the CV Color Skopar which is very highly regarded. There is also the CV Ultron (f1.9) which I think is discontinued. I'm not keen on the Summicron 90/2 AA: big, heavy and not-so-sharp close up. It's a good lens but not a great one. Rangefinders don't do well with lenses above 100mm, if you're going to be using a 135mm a lot I would keep your SLR kit. Keep working on the research but the best thing is to try for yourself. It sounds like you have a bit of a slush fund so get yourself a body and then buy a couple of used lenses to start and see how you like them. That's what I did and it worked for me, there are so many variations in just the Leica kits that it is overwhelming and you can't trust what you read on the internet. You have to try for yourself. Good luck with your choices!
italy74
Well-known
Hi all there,
thanks for your comments and site suggestion. I'm already reading (sorry for the wordplay) what Mr Puts writes.
First of all, I'd like to answer to the latest question about the 28 F/2. Well, since it would be my main lens, I prefer investing there and having a stop faster than conventional F/2.8 lenses. Of course, being mostly a landscape lens, it will (would) be surely used at smaller aperture, plus the focal lens isn't that long, but however I still prefer having more margin while working. Furthermore, from what i see, the F/2 is really an awesome lens, at least optically speaking.
I agree with who suggest to keep Nikon for longer focal lenghts and a RF camera for landscapes / wider views, even for the simple reason mentioned above: working with longer focal lenghts is indeed easier on SLRs than RF due to the different and more ravvicinated view of your subject.
As you see in my sig, the combo I love more is actually the F6 with the 17-35 and a roll of Velvia; since I discovered slides, my D200 is more on the shelf than on the field, ceremonies aside. I still look for something more compact, and some already suggested the Bessa to start with but I'm not sure about that. This is still an exploring phase since I know shooting with RF is more challenging under several aspects for which I'm not yet ready. As always, if I would ever do the step, I'll move straightly the Zeiss Ikon and (seen what above) probably the only triplet 21 - 28 - 50 mm. F6 will remain MY camera, the one to use when I go out for a walk in the woods, but for reportage and stealthier shots a RF would be surely better and less "intrusive", plus probably safer and easier to manage abroad.
I forgot to mention that I'm actually attending at a photographic academy in Milan (where after the base course I study fashion and reportage) and, to afford such expensive camera / lens combo, I'd like to start a little photographic school here in my town for teenagers, with reasonable prices and small groups to work with.
Then, since the "other" side (related to fashion and body / people / ceremony photography in general) is still alive, I hope to afford also the D3 (which wonder of a camera, its noise management and fine lens tuning worth alone the price) which I think to use for stunning images while maintaining a reasonable MB size. I'm not a "pixelpeeper", 12 MP are enough for me. But with D200 (especially if compared with a roll of PROVIA or EKTACHROME 100) I feel SO limited while being able to see noise already after iso 400. If you have seen any D3 image at 6400 iso, well, it's more or less like my D200 at 200 iso... unbelievable. Well, it's not right to talk here about other gears, it was just to give you an overall view of the whole process. F6 - D3 - Zeiss Ikon, what a triplet!
Bottom line, I've still to figure out what "italy06" means.. this is a nick I don't know, maybe someone in the past chose one similar to mine, but it's not me, however.
thanks for your comments and site suggestion. I'm already reading (sorry for the wordplay) what Mr Puts writes.
First of all, I'd like to answer to the latest question about the 28 F/2. Well, since it would be my main lens, I prefer investing there and having a stop faster than conventional F/2.8 lenses. Of course, being mostly a landscape lens, it will (would) be surely used at smaller aperture, plus the focal lens isn't that long, but however I still prefer having more margin while working. Furthermore, from what i see, the F/2 is really an awesome lens, at least optically speaking.
I agree with who suggest to keep Nikon for longer focal lenghts and a RF camera for landscapes / wider views, even for the simple reason mentioned above: working with longer focal lenghts is indeed easier on SLRs than RF due to the different and more ravvicinated view of your subject.
As you see in my sig, the combo I love more is actually the F6 with the 17-35 and a roll of Velvia; since I discovered slides, my D200 is more on the shelf than on the field, ceremonies aside. I still look for something more compact, and some already suggested the Bessa to start with but I'm not sure about that. This is still an exploring phase since I know shooting with RF is more challenging under several aspects for which I'm not yet ready. As always, if I would ever do the step, I'll move straightly the Zeiss Ikon and (seen what above) probably the only triplet 21 - 28 - 50 mm. F6 will remain MY camera, the one to use when I go out for a walk in the woods, but for reportage and stealthier shots a RF would be surely better and less "intrusive", plus probably safer and easier to manage abroad.
I forgot to mention that I'm actually attending at a photographic academy in Milan (where after the base course I study fashion and reportage) and, to afford such expensive camera / lens combo, I'd like to start a little photographic school here in my town for teenagers, with reasonable prices and small groups to work with.
Then, since the "other" side (related to fashion and body / people / ceremony photography in general) is still alive, I hope to afford also the D3 (which wonder of a camera, its noise management and fine lens tuning worth alone the price) which I think to use for stunning images while maintaining a reasonable MB size. I'm not a "pixelpeeper", 12 MP are enough for me. But with D200 (especially if compared with a roll of PROVIA or EKTACHROME 100) I feel SO limited while being able to see noise already after iso 400. If you have seen any D3 image at 6400 iso, well, it's more or less like my D200 at 200 iso... unbelievable. Well, it's not right to talk here about other gears, it was just to give you an overall view of the whole process. F6 - D3 - Zeiss Ikon, what a triplet!
Bottom line, I've still to figure out what "italy06" means.. this is a nick I don't know, maybe someone in the past chose one similar to mine, but it's not me, however.
peter_n
Veteran
No it was just that they won the World Cup in 2006... I have a one-track mind, sorry!
Ororaro
Well-known
You're too SLR-ish, man.
Leica is not a system to own 50 lenses and have a bag full when shooting. You only need one lens and that's it.
Leica is not a system to own 50 lenses and have a bag full when shooting. You only need one lens and that's it.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Just ask around what the lenses-to-bodies ratio on RFF is and you would be amazed how Leicaites appear to disagree in practice.NB23 said:
Philipp
haagen_dazs
Well-known
NB23 said:
i like that word... SLR-ish
true about the one (or max 2 lens) system
light and easy to go around
italy74
Well-known
Hi guys
now I got it...
To Tell The Truth (has already the " T T T T " acronym been invented?) and for the ones not knowing it, such victory has come in a very delicate moment, when all the inner football was passing through a deep crysis and many clubs were fined heavily for their debts and (some of them) also illegal behaviour.
About the SLR-thing, well, I think there's one thing for each specialty... and about lenses, I have no that large kit as some have. As I said, my 17-35 is the lens mostly used (especially when I'm out for myself) but I also have a 90mm macro which is very good for portraits and a 50mm F/1.4 (I took it when I was in the "measurbation" phase and of course now I wouldn't resell it). Finally, I have a 28-75 F/2.8 which is the natural complement of the 17-35, but, despite its good optical qualities (saying "good" is to respect what a Leica or Zeiss lens could have), I use it mostly paired with the 90mm while shooting fashion in Milan. Usually, however, unless I move out for a holiday, I go with F6 plus the only 17-35 or another lens mounted, depending on the moment.
now I got it...
To Tell The Truth (has already the " T T T T " acronym been invented?) and for the ones not knowing it, such victory has come in a very delicate moment, when all the inner football was passing through a deep crysis and many clubs were fined heavily for their debts and (some of them) also illegal behaviour.
About the SLR-thing, well, I think there's one thing for each specialty... and about lenses, I have no that large kit as some have. As I said, my 17-35 is the lens mostly used (especially when I'm out for myself) but I also have a 90mm macro which is very good for portraits and a 50mm F/1.4 (I took it when I was in the "measurbation" phase and of course now I wouldn't resell it). Finally, I have a 28-75 F/2.8 which is the natural complement of the 17-35, but, despite its good optical qualities (saying "good" is to respect what a Leica or Zeiss lens could have), I use it mostly paired with the 90mm while shooting fashion in Milan. Usually, however, unless I move out for a holiday, I go with F6 plus the only 17-35 or another lens mounted, depending on the moment.
Last edited:
jbf
||||||
Personally I'm having to wrestle with the 28mm focal length. I'm so used to composing a 35 or 50mm lens... that 28 is difficult for me.
I have the 50/2 Planar and I love it so far. I havnt really found that many instances that I honestly needed the extra stop. In reality, I can handhold up to 1/8th and even 1/4 sometimes and still get quite an exceptional shot with sharpness.
I recently purchased the CV 28 Ultron... but still fighting issues of that FOV. Not used to having so much space to compose and also worry about so many different things in the composition. So it's definately posing a learning curve for me.
I have the 50/2 Planar and I love it so far. I havnt really found that many instances that I honestly needed the extra stop. In reality, I can handhold up to 1/8th and even 1/4 sometimes and still get quite an exceptional shot with sharpness.
I recently purchased the CV 28 Ultron... but still fighting issues of that FOV. Not used to having so much space to compose and also worry about so many different things in the composition. So it's definately posing a learning curve for me.
Hacker
黑客
28 Elmarit ASPH should be considered also.
italy74
Well-known
Hi Hacker,
I'm sure about that, but my aim was investing to get the best lens for the most used and favourite focal lenght, as everyone of us does for himself.
Thanks, though.
I'm sure about that, but my aim was investing to get the best lens for the most used and favourite focal lenght, as everyone of us does for himself.
Thanks, though.
furcafe
Veteran
I have the 28/2 Summicron ASPH (it was my "discount" lens for being an early M8 adopter), but use it mostly on the M8. It is, of course, a fine lens, but per peter_n's post, for your money you should seriously consider trying the Cosina Voigtlander 28/1.9 Ultron, which I also have. The Leica is better wide open, but not 9x better (which is the current approximate cost difference). The Ultron is also a LTM lens, so you can use it on a thread mount body.
When I was shopping for a 28mm lens, my only camera body with 28mm framelines was my favorite Minolta CLE. For my environmental portrait project, many interior shots, I wanted compact, fast, and sharp. The 28 'cron was the obvious "suspect", and I was lucky to find one as "new old stock" at an authorized dealer at a "used" price. I've been very pleased with its performance, but I was equally pleased with the performance of the Voigtlander 28 Skopar... its only drawback was the speed issue.
On the 21mm, as far as I can make out, the F4.5 Biogon's big advantage is lack of rectilinear distortion. Otherwise, the 21 Skopar might be a good consideration. Here again I was looking for speed and went with f2.8. But if that's not a big deal for you, and this is an occasional focal length need, then the Skopar saves $$$ and performs excellently too.
On the 21mm, as far as I can make out, the F4.5 Biogon's big advantage is lack of rectilinear distortion. Otherwise, the 21 Skopar might be a good consideration. Here again I was looking for speed and went with f2.8. But if that's not a big deal for you, and this is an occasional focal length need, then the Skopar saves $$$ and performs excellently too.
Hacker
黑客
italy74 said:
I have both, and the 28 Elmarit ASPH has lower distortion and higher contrast than the 28 Cron ASPH. It is also best in weight.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
True, but that's not a big advantage. In practice it doesn't matter all that much, I think, unless you're doing architectural photography. Note that the Skopar doesn't have a lot of distortion either, and that distortion is actually quite irrelevant in practice IMHO unless you're photographing brick walls.Doug said:
Here are some of this year's shot with the 21 Skopar. Not much in the way of great photography, just as a check to see if distortion matters. So here's a landscape shot:
Even if the lens had distortion worth speaking of, you wouldn't notice it in this kind of scenery. And here's a cityscape shot:
What distortion you see in the buildings is not from the lens, but the usual wideangle effect. That effect is so pronounced with 21s in general that whatever rectilinear distortion the lens has is completely irrelevant. Unless you put the camera on a tripod with a spirit level you won't notice rectilinear distortion at all. And if you do that, you might be using an SLR anyway.
The distortion-free projection of the 21/4.5 mattered in the 50s when the lens was new and people were using rangefinders for architecture and the like. Nowadays an architectural photographer won't use a rangefinder anyway, and for all other photographers the little advantage the Biogon has is completely irrelevant IMHO. So in practice I think the Biogon isn't worth it.
Philipp
Turtle
Veteran
NB23 said:
I disagree! Two is better, but then again three more flexible and four means....oh ****. I have four: 28,25,50,90 but very rarely take them all out. i nearly always aim for two, soemtimes three. If I was doing a two lens combo it would be: 35, 75....damnI dont have one though, with a 25 thrown in to make it a 3 lens combo.
To be honest as much as I would like a 21 biogon 4.5 I think the most useful lens for me would be a 75 so I could go out with the 35, 75 rather than having to go short with the 28,50 or long with the 50 90 or have a huge gap with 35, 90.
More lenses to me means more to choose from depending on what you plan on doing. If you plan on hitting indoor venues, take you fast stuff, walkabout landscapes/urban take wider stuff etc.
It does not get much better than a rangefinder with one spare lens in the pocket, feeling nice and light and unencumbered!
as for the 28 Cron thingy, if the owner does not intend heavily emphasising the wide apterture use of this lens I see it as a total waste of money....hence why I plugged for the Biogon.
as for the 90 Asp Cron....I see the wide aperture as being great for portraits....where this lens is not so hot i.e. close up. Shooting more distant scenes, f2 is rarely so useful. In this regard I think the new Summarit 2.5 sounds superb, or a 75 asph cron which goes closer and is again a diamond up close, allegedly. My Elmarit M does its job fine for much less weight and cost!
I would personally think carefully about the money that could e saved by going from the 28 f2 cron to a biogon/elmarit-M and a 90 asp Cron to a used Elmarit-M or Summarit 2.5. Unless you are routinely demnading the wide open perfection the money would perhaps be better invested in a second body?
PS the 50mm planar is astoundingly good and will gaian come in half the price of teh Summicron...yet more money towards your second body! Its rather plesant to be able to walk out with Delta 100 in one body and TriX/Neopan 1600 in the other!
italy74
Well-known
Thanks, Turtle
I think if I should have to make a choice, however, I'd keep the 28 F/2 and would take the 90 F/2.5. However, actually (as one of my colleagues says tongue in cheek: "the metal Leica and Zeiss need to make your camera and lenses is still 3 km below the deepest metal mine on the planet")
How much I like that! :bang: :bang: :bang:
I think if I should have to make a choice, however, I'd keep the 28 F/2 and would take the 90 F/2.5. However, actually (as one of my colleagues says tongue in cheek: "the metal Leica and Zeiss need to make your camera and lenses is still 3 km below the deepest metal mine on the planet")
How much I like that! :bang: :bang: :bang: