daniela
Newbie
I currently use a Nikon SRL systems for my fine art photographs which I normally enlarge up to 17"x22". All manual focus and prime lenses (no zoom of any kind) I only shot B&W low speed film (mainly Delta100, sometimes FP4+ or LegacyPro 100).
Film is either printed with a Apo-Rodagon 50mm/2.8 or scanned at 8,000 DPI.
The Nikkor 20mm/2.8 AIS I actually has decent quality with such films and enlargements and I would like to switch to a system with higher optical quality, most notably sharpness. I already use rangefinders (not interchangeble lens) for focal lengths of 35mm and 45mm. Nikon SRL for anything longer than that.
I am thinking to adopt the Biogon 21mm/2.8 to replace the 20mm/2.8 AIS. I am not willing to switch to an expensive system as Leica since I will not use any other lens than a 20/21mm on the newer system.
Given the isses with autofocus with the Contax G1 so much discussed all over the places, I wonder whether, for a 21mm lens operated 99% of the times in daylight (no flash) I really need to go with the more expensive G2 body or I can live with the cheaper and smaller G1.
I do not plan to expand the system and, basically, I will use the body plus 21mm/2.8 as a non interchangeable lens systems.
Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.
Daniela
Film is either printed with a Apo-Rodagon 50mm/2.8 or scanned at 8,000 DPI.
The Nikkor 20mm/2.8 AIS I actually has decent quality with such films and enlargements and I would like to switch to a system with higher optical quality, most notably sharpness. I already use rangefinders (not interchangeble lens) for focal lengths of 35mm and 45mm. Nikon SRL for anything longer than that.
I am thinking to adopt the Biogon 21mm/2.8 to replace the 20mm/2.8 AIS. I am not willing to switch to an expensive system as Leica since I will not use any other lens than a 20/21mm on the newer system.
Given the isses with autofocus with the Contax G1 so much discussed all over the places, I wonder whether, for a 21mm lens operated 99% of the times in daylight (no flash) I really need to go with the more expensive G2 body or I can live with the cheaper and smaller G1.
I do not plan to expand the system and, basically, I will use the body plus 21mm/2.8 as a non interchangeable lens systems.
Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.
Daniela
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I have had both a G1 and a G2 for eight years. I believe all autofocus problems with the G1 are related to the user and not the camera.
however, I always zone focus the 21mm Biogon because of the large DOF.
The 21mm Biogon and dedicated G1 body is a perfect combination of what is possibly the best 21mm lens ever made with incredibly low cost.
however, I always zone focus the 21mm Biogon because of the large DOF.
The 21mm Biogon and dedicated G1 body is a perfect combination of what is possibly the best 21mm lens ever made with incredibly low cost.
daniela
Newbie
Hi Bob, thanks for the answer. In fact, zone focusing is exactly what I had in mind with a 21mm lens. No need to waste time on focusing. This is also what I do with my MINOX's (35mm lens, mostly shot at f5.6 or f8 to take advantage of the incredible resolution of the Minotar lens at such apertures).
However, the 21mm/2.8 Biogon for Contax G does not appear to have a distance scale nor a DOF scale. How do you zone focus you 21mm?
Thanks.
Daniela
However, the 21mm/2.8 Biogon for Contax G does not appear to have a distance scale nor a DOF scale. How do you zone focus you 21mm?
Thanks.
Daniela
Bob Michaels
nobody special
you simply read the distance measurement in the LCD. I once made a simple DOF table for 21mm at common apertures. I quickly began to remember approximately what it was and now go with my tweaked intuition.
Ronald M
Veteran
One of the new Zeiss CF lenses. These is the only third party lenses I would put on my Nikons.
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9?Open
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests
As a full line, these are the best lenses for Nikon Reflex
I have all the Ai Nikon wide lenses from 18 to 35 and frankly they don`t work as well as I would like on my D700 full frame digital. The very corners are soft in detail. I purchesed a nice FE2 and the same lenses work perfectly on film. My conclusion is best you get lenses made for digital if you want to go digital. That would be the 14/24.
I have seen some tests and the 14/24 does as well as the Zeiss and you get a zoom lens. It is somewhat more money than the Zeiss, but it an exceptional lens, better than Nikon primes.
Unless you are willing to spend a lot of money for a marginal improvement, stay with what you have.
Medium or large format trumps the best 35 mm ever created, but you can not go cheap here either. Old Yashica Mat 124 or 1960 large format lenses are not the answer.
Perhaps you can find someone who put a Leitax mount on a Leica 21 4.0 Super Angulon.
Someday I may try this. The APO leica R lens on a D700 are commonly done with outstanding results. I have used a 280 2.8 and it makes superb files. I have never read a report of people not liking the results. Older Leica lenses are not reported on much.
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9?Open
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests
As a full line, these are the best lenses for Nikon Reflex
I have all the Ai Nikon wide lenses from 18 to 35 and frankly they don`t work as well as I would like on my D700 full frame digital. The very corners are soft in detail. I purchesed a nice FE2 and the same lenses work perfectly on film. My conclusion is best you get lenses made for digital if you want to go digital. That would be the 14/24.
I have seen some tests and the 14/24 does as well as the Zeiss and you get a zoom lens. It is somewhat more money than the Zeiss, but it an exceptional lens, better than Nikon primes.
Unless you are willing to spend a lot of money for a marginal improvement, stay with what you have.
Medium or large format trumps the best 35 mm ever created, but you can not go cheap here either. Old Yashica Mat 124 or 1960 large format lenses are not the answer.
Perhaps you can find someone who put a Leitax mount on a Leica 21 4.0 Super Angulon.
Someday I may try this. The APO leica R lens on a D700 are commonly done with outstanding results. I have used a 280 2.8 and it makes superb files. I have never read a report of people not liking the results. Older Leica lenses are not reported on much.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'll agree with Bob that the Contax G 21/2.8 is arguably the best 21 ever in 35mm format. I'd say outdoors in good light the G1 should do fine. Just watch that the thing stays in AF mode if that's what you're shooing in- the focus wheel is in a spot where it can get moved by the strap- and with an aux VF you'd not see this in the VF. For zone focus it might tend to move around as the camera gets handled. My G1 was always doing this, the main reason I switched to a G2.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
You guys start a GAS attack for many people here. I have the 28-45-90 set for the G1,and the lenses are awesome.
Good luck, Daniela. The 21mm lens has a cult following.
Good luck, Daniela. The 21mm lens has a cult following.
kkdanamatt
Well-known
I also have the G1/G2 outfit but without the 21mm lens. The Contax G optics are equal to Leitz's offerings at a fraction of the price. But both the G1 and G2 are a bit quirky...they take some time getting used to. I wear glasses and sometimes I have trouble centering my eye in the VF.
A far less expensive alternative, although not as good optically, is the 21mm C/V LTM lens with a Bessa L body. That combination is cheap, gives TTL metering, and works perfectly for your zone-focus type of shooting. The body is plastic, but so very cheap today. I picked one up for very little on the 'Bay and use it exclusively with the 15mm C/V and 21mm C/V.
A far less expensive alternative, although not as good optically, is the 21mm C/V LTM lens with a Bessa L body. That combination is cheap, gives TTL metering, and works perfectly for your zone-focus type of shooting. The body is plastic, but so very cheap today. I picked one up for very little on the 'Bay and use it exclusively with the 15mm C/V and 21mm C/V.
uhligfd
Well-known
Contax G2 ~ 400 $; 21/2.8 Biogon ~ 500 $ if you are lucky. The manual focus (= zone focus on a G) is so much better on the G2, but why not use the auto focus? This constant recommendation is beyond me. I always like and get good results with auto focus.
daniela
Newbie
Thanks to everybody. Few points here:
1) ToRonald M
I discarded the Distagon with Nikon mount for several reason: it is big and heavy, costs three times as much as a Biogon for Contax G, I have read that it is less sharp than the Biogon and, finally, I believe that from 50mm down the way to go is a rangefinder.
I tried digital and discarded with no regret. I have purchased a 10 MP DSRL which is collecting dust after about 2K shoots. Fully agree that my wide angle primes perform terribly with it, especially the 20mm/2.8 AIS which is much much better on film.
I am quite puzzled, however, by your statement: "Unless you are willing to spend a lot of money for a marginal improvement, stay with what you have. "
I do not understand this. I do not have the Biogon 21/2.8 yet and would like to purchased one on the assumption that is not marginally better but rather far better than the Nikkor 20mm/2.8 AIS (of course, due the conditions above: 100 ASA B&W tabular film, 17"x22" prints, scan at 8,000 DPI).
2) To kkdanamatt:
I did not thinked initialy to our idea of a 21mm C/V LTM lens with a Bessa L body. In fact, it sounds a very good alternative to the G1/2 + Biogon 21/2.8. It certainly fits better my style of shooting (I am more confortable with manual focus rather than AF and also like to shoot the wide angles with zone-focus style. Furthermore, I rarely shoot below f5.6, therefore I do not care about the lower luminosity of the lens.
However, I am not at all familiar with such lens: how far worse is than the Biogon? do you have links where its sharpness is compared to the Biogon? Is it any better than the Nikkor 20mm/2.8 AIS with SRL bodies?
Thanks. Cheers,
Daniela
1) ToRonald M
I discarded the Distagon with Nikon mount for several reason: it is big and heavy, costs three times as much as a Biogon for Contax G, I have read that it is less sharp than the Biogon and, finally, I believe that from 50mm down the way to go is a rangefinder.
I tried digital and discarded with no regret. I have purchased a 10 MP DSRL which is collecting dust after about 2K shoots. Fully agree that my wide angle primes perform terribly with it, especially the 20mm/2.8 AIS which is much much better on film.
I am quite puzzled, however, by your statement: "Unless you are willing to spend a lot of money for a marginal improvement, stay with what you have. "
I do not understand this. I do not have the Biogon 21/2.8 yet and would like to purchased one on the assumption that is not marginally better but rather far better than the Nikkor 20mm/2.8 AIS (of course, due the conditions above: 100 ASA B&W tabular film, 17"x22" prints, scan at 8,000 DPI).
2) To kkdanamatt:
I did not thinked initialy to our idea of a 21mm C/V LTM lens with a Bessa L body. In fact, it sounds a very good alternative to the G1/2 + Biogon 21/2.8. It certainly fits better my style of shooting (I am more confortable with manual focus rather than AF and also like to shoot the wide angles with zone-focus style. Furthermore, I rarely shoot below f5.6, therefore I do not care about the lower luminosity of the lens.
However, I am not at all familiar with such lens: how far worse is than the Biogon? do you have links where its sharpness is compared to the Biogon? Is it any better than the Nikkor 20mm/2.8 AIS with SRL bodies?
Thanks. Cheers,
Daniela
sper
Well-known
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/625182-REG/Zeiss_410951_0000_028_Ikon_SW_35mm_Film.html
Or a Ricoh GR21...those are cool.
The Zeiss biogon is supposedly better than the Leica 21mm. I've used the CV 21mm ƒ4 on a Bessa-L a lot and it's great. I love that the L has a meter on top of the body, because I was mostly shooting from the hip. It could only be a better combination with the ZM lens. The Bessa-L was basically invented to carry the 15/12/21mm lenses with external finders. If you don't need speed the C biogon will perform just as well as the 2.8.
I mean, these lenses are gonna out resolve your film, so I wouldn't be so concerned with sharpness. However, if you want the best quality 21mm (equivalent) image, there is one answer: Hasselblad SWC. You can get one for like 15-16 hundred bucks, and the people at Zeiss still say that's the best lens they ever made.
What scanner are you using?
Or a Ricoh GR21...those are cool.
The Zeiss biogon is supposedly better than the Leica 21mm. I've used the CV 21mm ƒ4 on a Bessa-L a lot and it's great. I love that the L has a meter on top of the body, because I was mostly shooting from the hip. It could only be a better combination with the ZM lens. The Bessa-L was basically invented to carry the 15/12/21mm lenses with external finders. If you don't need speed the C biogon will perform just as well as the 2.8.
I mean, these lenses are gonna out resolve your film, so I wouldn't be so concerned with sharpness. However, if you want the best quality 21mm (equivalent) image, there is one answer: Hasselblad SWC. You can get one for like 15-16 hundred bucks, and the people at Zeiss still say that's the best lens they ever made.
What scanner are you using?
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
An option that may sound as off the wall is to get Canon Adapter B (for $50-$75),and then get a Canon FL 19mm 3.5. This lens is awesome. It comes as a RF coupled lens or as a less expensive but having same optics FL lens.
Then get a Bessa L.
Then get a Bessa L.
FrankS
Registered User
i've been using my cv 21 lens and finder on a leica cl. nice and compact.
daniela
Newbie
Thanks to all.
sper, I am not sure what you mean by " these lenses are gonna out resolve your film, so I wouldn't be so concerned with sharpness".
In that is the case, what's the point of buying at $3,000+ Zeiss 21mm lens versus a $400 CV analogous?
For scanning, I use a custom made optical assembly.
Daniela
sper, I am not sure what you mean by " these lenses are gonna out resolve your film, so I wouldn't be so concerned with sharpness".
In that is the case, what's the point of buying at $3,000+ Zeiss 21mm lens versus a $400 CV analogous?
For scanning, I use a custom made optical assembly.
Daniela
sper
Well-known
When you see straight 'sharpness' comparisons between all the lenses you see some surprising results. Often the Voightlander lenses are 'sharper' but that doesn't mean they do other things well.
The Zeiss and Leica lenses will control distortion better. The Zeiss is probably the best of the bunch optically, either the f4.5 or the 2.8. However the V'lander 21 f4 is pretty damn sharp. However it doesn't control flare that well, and is kind of slow. The Leica lenses have the best build quality by a pretty far margin.
I haven't heard about the Leica 21mm f1.4 though, so I don't know how that stacks up versus the Zeiss. I would say either Leica or Zeiss lenses are more than suitable so go for the cheapest that suits your needs.
What exactly is a 'custom made optical assembly'? Do you like it? I use a Nikon Coolscan and it does okay. I also have a V700 which is great for the web and for larger formats.
The Zeiss and Leica lenses will control distortion better. The Zeiss is probably the best of the bunch optically, either the f4.5 or the 2.8. However the V'lander 21 f4 is pretty damn sharp. However it doesn't control flare that well, and is kind of slow. The Leica lenses have the best build quality by a pretty far margin.
I haven't heard about the Leica 21mm f1.4 though, so I don't know how that stacks up versus the Zeiss. I would say either Leica or Zeiss lenses are more than suitable so go for the cheapest that suits your needs.
What exactly is a 'custom made optical assembly'? Do you like it? I use a Nikon Coolscan and it does okay. I also have a V700 which is great for the web and for larger formats.