Deciding on my M240 lens kit.

[agoglanian]

Thank you all for the insight to your preferences and opinions, I hope I wasn't too vague in my description. I have the 35 in hand and its a perfect small size. I wouldn't really want a "huge" lens on this camera, but if it was worth it I could deal with it.

Once I get the body in the mail I'll just work with the 35 until I snag a 50. I know those two are close but I like both focal lengths.

I've had multiple people recommend I just get one Leica lens instead, but am I really missing out THAT much by getting Zeiss lenses?

 

[Doug]

...I've had multiple people recommend I just get one Leica lens instead, but am I really missing out THAT much by getting Zeiss lenses?

Well, Leica lenses tend to be very good and very small. Recent ones are usually sharp across the field even at wide apertures. The Zeiss lenses are fine, and since they avoid aspheric surfaces they tend to be larger and may have more elements. Build quality is adequate, and image quality is very nice.

Some prefer the Zeiss "look" and some prefer the way Leica lenses "render." I like 'em all, but I may be relatively insensitive to the subtleties others express (tho I do see differences in the bokeh). Or there may be a bit of exaggeration in the talk... :angel:

In not having used a Leica lens, one may then wonder from time to time whether something is being missed. A psychological effect, if you will. I have several Leica lenses and several Zeiss lenses plus a few Voigtlander ones... In the ranges you're discussing, I'd be quite happy with a 50 Planar, 2/35 Biogon, the great 25 Biogon, plus I find the 1.8/75 Heliar pretty useful. Honestly I no longer find use for longer lenses.

You're probably wise in taking it slow and see how things shake out. Hope you like the 240!

Doug

 

[Richard G]

I was stunned by how sharp the aspheric 28 2.8 Leica is, but really only when I immobolized it against a window at 1/125s. I find with digital I am looking for 1/500s even with the 28 if I can get it, if I really want the picture to be sharp. My one indispensible lens is the Zeiss 50 C Sonnar. What a marvel. I'd be happy with just my Zeiss lenses. Leica photography is not "all about the glass". It's about rapidly getting the shot, exposure pre-set, shot from the hip sometimes, scale focus misjudged slightly, camera motion blur etc but you got the shot. Most of my 28 2.8 ASPH shots could have been taken with any old 28 available. The image quality from super sharp high contrast modern lenses is sometimes distracting. I am loving my quite sharp and pretty distortion free 1932 uncoated 50 Elmar whose front element haze gives a touch of another world rather then the hyper-reality of this one you get with modern digital.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

You have a Zeiss 35/2 in hand, try that. I like the pix from mine very much.

If you like them from yours, know the Zeiss 50/2 is very well-matched in terms of IQ and handles exactly the same.

If not, go ahead and try a Leica lens; while comparatively pricey, they're not bad.

 

[Bob Michaels]

.....
I've had multiple people recommend I just get one Leica lens instead, but am I really missing out THAT much by getting Zeiss lenses?

I would caution you about making the blanket assumption that Leica lenses must be the best because they cost so much more.

Some here can debate the detail merits of one particular lens vs. another in the same focal length. Others focus on the content of the photo while overlooking the fine nuances of one lens vs. another. Both are valid. It is possible that money you save on lenses will result in more financial resources to go places to photograph. You do need to conclude which is more important to you.

Personally I have a large body of well exhibited work that has been shot over 5 years primarily with 3 different 28mm lenses (Zeiss, Hexanon, CV) No one yet has been able to tell the exhibition prints were originally shot with different lenses.

 

[raid]

With a camera such as the M240, you have many options for a wide angle lens.
This may sound strange, but consider the Canon FD 17mm/4. It has virtually no distortion, and it performs really well. I have recently posted some images on RFF with this lens. It may set you back $300 for a clean example [I have not checked its market value recently]. Get also the adapter for the M240 and Canon FD.


There is no RF focus possible, but usually, anything from 1m-infinity is in focus.

on the M8 with a 22-23mm view:

 

[Ronald M]

24 35 50 has been my long favorite since 24 came mainstream. Unfortunately when I bought into Leica digital, I already had 21 & 28 so I have stuck with that. Lenses wider than 28 require a separate finder which I consider a pain.

I replaced the V3 28 with a new ASPH 28 2.8 and I consider it a bargain lens.

You will need to figure how to code CV /Zeiss lenses or manually set them in the camera menu. Another pain.

Also in my experience, really wide lenses seem useful. In reality , they are not to me.

Also I read a quote from Zeiss that their lenses can not be optimized for digital focus. Only one read one time. I am not interested in Them or CV due to quality issues.

 

[Godfrey]

Thank you all for the insight to your preferences and opinions, I hope I wasn't too vague in my description. I have the 35 in hand and its a perfect small size. I wouldn't really want a "huge" lens on this camera, but if it was worth it I could deal with it.

Once I get the body in the mail I'll just work with the 35 until I snag a 50. I know those two are close but I like both focal lengths.

I've had multiple people recommend I just get one Leica lens instead, but am I really missing out THAT much by getting Zeiss lenses?

Nearly all the lenses made for M-mount are darn good to exceptional quality, so it's a matter of nuance and your own sensitivity to a particular rendering aesthetic. I've been quite happy with even my "bargain priced" Voigtländer Color-Skopars, I like the way they render and the size is delightfully small. The 21 and 28 have some small issues with the M9 sensor that I can correct or live with (search for CornerFix ...); I imagine they'll be similar for the M typ 240 but to a slightly lesser degree.

The only way to know whether you like a particular lens more than another, at this quality level, is to obtain both and try them out, then sell off the one you like less. But if you can only afford one, buy it and work with it: it will be just fine.

Don't let the opinions of others get under your skin. Including mine... 🙂

G

 

[agoglanian]

Oh they don't, I just like to have discussions! I used to be a gear hound, always chasing after equipment, thinking I "needed" it to progress my image making; I learned a number of years ago that this was of no benefit to me.

In all honesty, these days I just go for the focal lengths I like and as long as the lens isn't a total dog it will likely be just fine for me. As Bob so wisely mentioned, the money I save will allow me to go more places rather than be stuck at home with my real nice lens. Also, I very much prefer a lens with character over one that is absolute scientific perfection. As an example, when I was still shooting Canon (so up until a few weeks ago), I preferred their 35mm f/1.4L and 50mm f/1.2L lenses over Sigma's admittedly impressive 35mm and 50mm "Art" lenses. Though the Sigma's are technically superior they left me feeling cold and the images had no character. I kept the 50mm f/1.2L around purely for video purposes on my GH4 because I like the look.

I'm not afraid to spend money on glass when it's appropriate (and when I have it haha!), and to be frank, I'd have had more to spend if I went for the M9 over the M240, but I was swayed by the thought of having a warranty 😉. As an additional note, I do very much like the way Zeiss lenses render (and yes I do mean the Cosina-made Japanese ones). I have owned several ZE lenses for my Canon systems and they all had a real sparkle to them that I really liked a whole heck of a lot. I suspect I will be sticking with Leica for the long run at this point, so in the future as I explore and really, truly get to know my chosen focal lengths, I will know if / when a Leica lens would wind up being the optimal choice. From what I can gather, I don't think I'll be disappointed in the ZM 50mm Planar so I will look into getting one.

Again, I just love to have conversations like this to bounce ideas off of people I respect, and as a note of thanks, I appreciate you guys taking the time to respond to my query. I will be participating much more here even though I've been a member for nearly 10 years haha!

 

[hendriphile]

I was stunned by how sharp the aspheric 28 2.8 Leica is, but really only when I immobolized it against a window at 1/125s. I find with digital I am looking for 1/500s even with the 28 if I can get it, if I really want the picture to be sharp. My one indispensible lens is the Zeiss 50 C Sonnar. What a marvel. I'd be happy with just my Zeiss lenses. Leica photography is not "all about the glass". It's about rapidly getting the shot, exposure pre-set, shot from the hip sometimes, scale focus misjudged slightly, camera motion blur etc but you got the shot. Most of my 28 2.8 ASPH shots could have been taken with any old 28 available. The image quality from super sharp high contrast modern lenses is sometimes distracting. I am loving my quite sharp and pretty distortion free 1932 uncoated 50 Elmar whose front element haze gives a touch of another world rather then the hyper-reality of this one you get with modern digital.

................Right on.

 

[hendriphile]

I know this is a lens discussion but just wanted to say...

I know this is a lens discussion but just wanted to say...

With a camera such as the M240, you have many options for a wide angle lens.
This may sound strange, but consider the Canon FD 17mm/4. It has virtually no distortion, and it performs really well. I have recently posted some images on RFF with this lens. It may set you back $300 for a clean example [I have not checked its market value recently]. Get also the adapter for the M240 and Canon FD.


There is no RF focus possible, but usually, anything from 1m-infinity is in focus.

on the M8 with a 22-23mm view:

Colors of this magic Florida moment well- captured.

 

[thompsonks]

Very nice examples form Bob!

I've used the 28mm lenses he mentioned, and like them all better than the 28 Leica Asph. It's too contrasty for me. It's not a 'sunny day lens' – I had trouble retaining enough highlight & shadow detail.

The Zeiss color seemed a bit off to me. If you value center sharpness, the Hexanon is great. And for a CV, try to get the v.1 f1.9 – it doesn't focus-shift like the newer ones.

 

[agoglanian]

So... I wound up purchasing a ZM 25mm 😉. I think I'm all set now.

 

[Doug]

That's a great lens, Abram. I expect you'll like its results.

 

[ktmrider]

I have a variety of M mount from all three makers and have a hard time telling them apart based on results from the camera. Sean Reid rates many of the Zeiss lenses higher or sharper then the Leitz versions. In fact, some of Leica's cheap models (Sumarits) do better then the more expensive glass.

Personally, I find Leica's present prices way out of line and I do not have a problem spending the money if I thought they were worth it. When the same lens I bought a few years ago for $800 now retails for triple that but inflation only accounts for a small fraction of the price increase, I throw out the bs flag. I only wear one piece of jewelry and do not need it to be my camera.

 

[Godfrey]

So... I wound up purchasing a ZM 25mm 😉. I think I'm all set now.

Sounds good! Now let's see some photos... 🙂

G

 

[agoglanian]

Wait you mean I have to actually take pictures now? I thought the point was just to look at the stuff and admire it? My iPhone has a pretty good camera.



Kidding of course! I'm in the middle of my final couple weeks of my semester so all my design projects are due and I've had little time to shoot, but in a few weeks time I will be traveling to British Columbia and I'll definitely be putting the Leica kit through its paces.

 

[agoglanian]

If I may pose a question..

My copy of the ZM 25mm brings up the 35mm framelines and as I understand this was due to the corrected field of view for the M8's APS-H sensor. I would prefer it to bring up the 28mm frame so I could have a closer representation of what to expect.

Is there a way to replace the lens mount so the cam selects the proper framelines? (An apparent downside of the M240 is the lack of a frameline preview lever).

Curiously, the 35mm frame nearly fills the entire viewfinder on the M240, but if I was to ever get a film M with 28mm framelines I expect it would be slightly different.

 

[YYV_146]

If I may pose a question..

My copy of the ZM 25mm brings up the 35mm framelines and as I understand this was due to the corrected field of view for the M8's APS-H sensor. I would prefer it to bring up the 28mm frame so I could have a closer representation of what to expect.

Is there a way to replace the lens mount so the cam selects the proper framelines? (An apparent downside of the M240 is the lake of a frameline preview lever).

Curiously, the 35mm frame nearly fills the entire viewfinder on the M240, but if I was to ever get a film M with 28mm framelines I expect it would be slightly different.

The .68x viewfinders of the digital Ms are not optimal for 28mm viewing. The .58x finders on certain film M will be better for 28, and the .5x finder on the Bessa R4 camera will be even better (at the cost of focus accuracy).

Yes, you could replace the lens mount - this should be a reasonably simple DIY project, and you can probably source a mount from a Zeiss dealer or repairs person.

Edit: the Bessa is .52x.

 

[agoglanian]

You guys are going to laugh.

I'm on vacation out in Canada right now and I've yet to find an opportunity to use the 25mm, I've only been using the 35 and 50mm. Ironically when I need to shoot wider I've been grabbing my Ricoh GR rather than switch lenses. I also seem to be continuously forgetting to set the lens profile when I swap lenses.

I'm starting to wonder if I should have gone for a 90mm first instead of 25.