Decisions, decisions (newbie here)

A

alien8

Established
Local time
6:37 AM
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
123
Well, I just took the plunge and bought my first rangefinder (aside from an old yashica that was passed down to me from my dad when I was a kid, and that I barely used). I bought an m6, (200162478344 on ebay if you're interested).

Anyway, the point of this post is to ask for help in figuring out how best to fit this new camera with a lens. I think I can only afford one high quality lens to start off with and I am leaning towards 35mm. I've been leaning towards a v4 summicron (a good lens, but less expensive than the current asphs?). But I am not sure if this is the best way to go. Whatever I buy, I would like it to be a final purchase, as opposed to something I would upgrade from later on.

Thanks,
Sean
 
Make sure you can try out the different focal lengths first. I thought going wide angle (25mm) would be awesome only to find out I can't stand much wider than 50mm.
 
First of all, congrats, I'm in love with my Black M6TTL so you made a good choice.

As far as lenses go, everyone likes different things. My favorite combination is the 35 and 75 lengths. Some people like wider, I don't. 25 seems really populer and CV makes a fair priced one and Zeiss makes a fantastic one.

You can't really go wrong with the 35cron though, the ver 4 is a real populer lens. Another one to look at is the 35mm zeiss biogon, I'm currently loving that lens.
 
If you're looking for 35mm focal length, there is no better buy IMO (I said IMO) than the CV35f2.5 if speed is not an issue, or the CV40f1.4 (which is just about 35mm) if speed is an issue. Also right up there is the Jupiter 12 35mmf2.8 for $75, or the vintage Canon 35mm f2.8. If you've got lots of $ then the Zeiss 35mm f2 is well thought of. The Hexanon 35mm f2 is also great but difficult to find. I think I've named all the alternatives.
 
Hmm, thanks for the recommendations. I am sure that I want to start with a 35. I have actually done a lot of photography over the years, but with SLRs and not rangefinders. I will keep my eyes peeled. I've heard great things about the v4 cron, so that's why I was initially leaning towards that lens, plus the fact that it's smaller than the zeiss biogon.
 
I owned and used the v4 for a number of years and found it to be fine optically but sold it when I won a 35 asph summicron. I also have the Biogon and would rather shoot the Biogon over any of the 35's that i've owned. Optically and mechanically it excells over the v4.
 
Actually money is an issue. I was hoping to get a good deal on a v4. We'll see how that pans out :)

If it really is the case that a biogon excels over a v4 then I suppose I should rethink my choice. I read good things about the biogon, but I also know that the v4 is touted as the "bokeh king" (not that bokeh is first consideration). Whatever lens I get, I know I will likely shoot wide open quite often, so wide open performance is a consideration.
 
Did I mention I absolutely LOVE the Biogon?

p892260155-4.jpg


p837875648-4.jpg


p730601771-4.jpg
 
Wide open the Biogon is better then my asph summicron and much better then the v4. Used bargain price for a v4 will run more than the Biogon new. The OOF at f2 is no better than the Biogon. The Zeiss lenses have superb creamy smooth tones and OOF with modern day sharpness without harshness. Flare controll in the Biogon is the best i've seen. The v4 legend is more Leica myth then fact when compared to other lenses in the same FL. Don't get me wrong, the v4 is a fine lens but not better or even equal to the Biogon. Size is the only thing the v4 has in its favor.
 
another plug for the zm 35/2. one thing don didn't mention above, but has elsewhere on this very topic, is the fact that the biogon is very resistant to flare even without the hood. thus as the 35 cron requires a hood to resist flare, the actual size of these lenses in practice is such that the size comparison looks good for the biogon.

it is my favourite 35. i'd be remiss if i'd mention how great the zm 50/2 and 25 are as well.
 
My first M lens was a 4th version cron which I still have. It is a great lens. What suprised me was how well the 40 Summicron compares to the 35cron iv.
Really, I can't detect a meaningful difference. I shot the 35mm lens for the first 2 years I shot with a rangefinder exclusively. If I were you I'd try a 40 cron, best bang for the buck and if you don't like it , you sell it for at least what you paid for it. And its small like the cron iv.
 
Don't be so sure you won't want a 50. I was accustomed to shooting pretty much exclusively with a 28 on the SLR I used before I purchased my M6. I ended up buying only an M6 with a Zeiss 35/2 (which is an excellent lens, by the way) and I'm starting to wish that I had bought a 50 instead. I suggest you buy the body and then either borrow or rent a lens from both focal lengths just to be sure. I wish I had done so.
 
John Elder said:
My first M lens was a 4th version cron which I still have. It is a great lens. What suprised me was how well the 40 Summicron compares to the 35cron iv.
Really, I can't detect a meaningful difference. I shot the 35mm lens for the first 2 years I shot with a rangefinder exclusively. If I were you I'd try a 40 cron, best bang for the buck and if you don't like it , you sell it for at least what you paid for it. And its small like the cron iv.
Click to expand...
I think the only issue I have with the 40 approach (apart from the view being less wide than the 35) is that the camera doesn't have frame lines for it, and I'd prefer not to have to deal with an external finder, which I think would slow me down white a bit. Cheers.
 
If you're looking for 35mm focal length, there is no better buy IMO (I said IMO) than the CV35f2.5
Click to expand...
I agree - a superb lens.

Also right up there is the Jupiter 12 35mmf2.8 for $75
Click to expand...
That's a surprisingly good lens too, but on an M6 its rear element will block the meter cell.
 
I have used the v4 35 summicron for several years, and it's still my main lens. I trust x-ray's opinion that the zm 35/2 is both optically and mechanically superior, and was tempted to make the switch many times. The reasons not to do so are size, weight, and that I am too familiar with the controls of the v4. At this point, I don't want to worry about getting used to the 1/3 click stop aperture ring for my main focal length. If I am starting the M-system today, yes I would likely go for the Biogon.

photos with v4
 
Last edited:
If you are thinking of a final purchase and money does matter, I would be careful to consider a v4 ´cron. They seem to be a little bit expensive neither this or that side of the Atlantic.

I haven´t used a Biogon myself but everybody who did ( and maybe even did not ) praises this lens. For the price it has it seems to be a real bargain.

So - to cut a long story short - I suggest to consider a Biogon, too.

Thomas
 
Whatever lens you get, you're going to be amazed at how much better wide-angle photography is with a rangfinder over SLR. Use and enjoy!
 
Okay, I think these posts have helped to clarify my thinking a little. It's a choice between laying out fairly big $$ for the biogon or saving some and getting the pancake II, which would probably allow me to get another voigtlander in a different focal length, or just save for something later. I've had trouble finding any complete reviews of the pancake II. Mr. Putts doesn't seem to have reviewed it for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom