Considering the Zeiss Ikon

wjlapier

Well-known
Local time
2:21 AM
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
1,895
As the subject says I'm considering the Zeiss Ikon. I'm mostly interested in the 21mm f/4.5 lens as I have the 50's version and use it on a Nikon S2. Just a few questions from anyone who might have/had a S2 and could compare the two. Basically, how do the two differ in size dimension-wise as well as weight? How about the 21? The newer version would probably be better because of newer technology--true? Unfortunately, I would have to sell my Nikon kit to purchase the Zeiss Ikon and the 21 f/4.5, and a finder. Is the Ikon that much nicer of a camera that one would do that? I shoot the RFer less often than I do my other film cameras, so I don't think I would miss the S2 too much--maybe :)

Thanx--Bill
 
If it is only about shooting with the C Biogon, the most cost effective solution is to use it on the Bessa R4A - you get the 21mm frames, the parallax corrected fosusing and framing, and you get an AE/ME camera as an extra for a little more than the Zeiss viewfinder alone. That being said, for lenses between 28 and 50mm the ZI is a truly great camera, excelling in the 35mm fl in my opinion. As far as comparing the C Biogon to the old Contax Biogon, I believe Tom Abrahamsson has made some comparisons already in this forum.
 
Last edited:
I really disliked using a 21mm on my ZI. I love shooting wide lenses, but I really don't like external finders. I bought the R4A primarily for using the 21mm and really love it. I find it much easier to compose and shoot. My ZI is probably my most used camera right now (the Biogon is practically welded on) but for shooting 21, the R4A wins hands down.

Alan
 
Zeiss Ikon makes a finderless body that is intended for wide lenses. Of course, that relegates you to zone focus, but the depth of field of the 21 should be enough to comensate for minor focusing errors.

Otherwise, I'd probably pick up the less-expensive Bessa camera (R2 or later).
 
Back
Top Bottom