Waterman100
Established
To be honest, I don't know if the following questions make sense, or if I'm trying to compare oranges and grapefruits. Well anyways, here they are:
I'm researching the *right* RF lens to go with a (yet-to-buy) R-D1. This will be my first RF camera. So now, I'm trying to weigh the cost vs. merits of my options, which are:
Zeiss Biogon 35/2.0
CV Nokton 35/1.4
CV Ultron 35/1.7
I want to concentrate on shooting with a normal, 50mm FOV; which is why I have been considering only 35mm lenses, giving an effective FOV of 53.55mm on the R-D1. And I had wanted my 35mm pretty fast, because I intend to shoot street, candid, available light, people, documentary style.
I'd also focus first on shooting for B/W (I know it's a digital camera), before going back to / seeing things in color.
But while browsing through this forum, I stumbled upon this thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=93561 and was thoroughly impressed by the pictures contained within, esp the lens's sharpness and outer zone performance. So now I start to wonder if I should broaden my options and consider the slower Biogon 2.8 as well.
So in light of this wonderful Biogon 35/2.8, why would someone with my profile and experience NOT choose the faster Biogon 2.0 to use on an Epson R-D1, from a technical, optical, and usage standpoints?
Likewise, why reasons would he opt for the Biogon 35/2.8 over a CV 35/1.4 or 1.7 on a R-D1?
For me cost is an issue, but not so much that it should stop considering a particular lens. I just want the *right* lens for my experience and intended use. (But right now, I am not considering the very expensive Leica lenses.)
FYI, I've been taking pictures on-and-off for 20 years. I'm more confortable shooting landscape and other static, geometric objects, but have always wanted to broaden my horizon - hence my intended use mentioned above.
Thanks very much for reading and helping me to go through this process.
I'm researching the *right* RF lens to go with a (yet-to-buy) R-D1. This will be my first RF camera. So now, I'm trying to weigh the cost vs. merits of my options, which are:
Zeiss Biogon 35/2.0
CV Nokton 35/1.4
CV Ultron 35/1.7
I want to concentrate on shooting with a normal, 50mm FOV; which is why I have been considering only 35mm lenses, giving an effective FOV of 53.55mm on the R-D1. And I had wanted my 35mm pretty fast, because I intend to shoot street, candid, available light, people, documentary style.
I'd also focus first on shooting for B/W (I know it's a digital camera), before going back to / seeing things in color.
But while browsing through this forum, I stumbled upon this thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=93561 and was thoroughly impressed by the pictures contained within, esp the lens's sharpness and outer zone performance. So now I start to wonder if I should broaden my options and consider the slower Biogon 2.8 as well.
So in light of this wonderful Biogon 35/2.8, why would someone with my profile and experience NOT choose the faster Biogon 2.0 to use on an Epson R-D1, from a technical, optical, and usage standpoints?
Likewise, why reasons would he opt for the Biogon 35/2.8 over a CV 35/1.4 or 1.7 on a R-D1?
For me cost is an issue, but not so much that it should stop considering a particular lens. I just want the *right* lens for my experience and intended use. (But right now, I am not considering the very expensive Leica lenses.)
FYI, I've been taking pictures on-and-off for 20 years. I'm more confortable shooting landscape and other static, geometric objects, but have always wanted to broaden my horizon - hence my intended use mentioned above.
Thanks very much for reading and helping me to go through this process.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
the biggest problem with 35mm lenses is that are just too damn many of them and too many really good ones.
so i'm going to suggest you get a 40!
the cv 40/1.4 is a great lens, many think it's better than the 35/1.4 and it's a bit cheaper also.
on the rd1, use the 35mm framelines.
there are also, the minolta 40 and the leica 40 along with the rollei 40 lens.
i have had all but the leica 40 and i liked them all.
i currently use the rollei 40 along with the cv 35/1.2.
so i'm going to suggest you get a 40!
the cv 40/1.4 is a great lens, many think it's better than the 35/1.4 and it's a bit cheaper also.
on the rd1, use the 35mm framelines.
there are also, the minolta 40 and the leica 40 along with the rollei 40 lens.
i have had all but the leica 40 and i liked them all.
i currently use the rollei 40 along with the cv 35/1.2.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
You'll get a lot of feedback on this. I'd go with the Ultron; see if you can get a used one -- they have a very nice signature. If you "outgrow" it, or want something different, you can probably re-sell at close to your cost.
segedi
RFicianado
I'd go with the Zeiss. Even the Biogon-C at f/2.8. Center of frame is super sharp and you'll get better edge of frame performance with Zeiss.... which isn't a big deal right now, but when you go full frame (even years down the road) the Zeiss will continue to be a great performer.
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
out of the 3 you listed, i've only used the Nokton. I can't see any reason to give the others a chance lol!
Waterman100
Established
Back Alley -- thanks for the suggestion. Why should 35mm framelines should be used for a 40 lens? With the 1.53 conversion factor, isn't R-D1's 50mm frameline closer to the lens's effective FOV?
Waterman100
Established
Thanks for the responses so far -- and I appreciate the supportive views on my three options. But still, I wonder if there are any technical, optical, or usage reasons for NOT selecting a particular lens in the list... or any reasons for choosing the Biogon f-2.8 over the others? Thanks again for reading.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Of the 3 you mention I would go for the Zeiss Biogon, even the f/2.8, which is a stellar lens. Super optics and relatively small form factor.
back alley
IMAGES
in theory yes, but the framelines on the rd1 actually fit the 40 better.
Catto
Photographer
I can't comment particularly on the lenses you've asked about, but I've used a few other options along the way and recently switched from the (incredibly cheap!) Leica Summicron-C 40mm - which was a very impressive performer, and one of the lenses that sold me on the R-D1s in the first place - to a pre-ASPH 35mm Summilux, which I ADORE.
Got it on the buy & sell board here along with a 28mm Zeiss Biogon; and just to comment on that as well, I had been using the Cosina-Voigtlander 28mm Ultron (f/2) but found it a little fringey and unsharp, even after taking it & the Epson in to a technician here in town. I took a punt on the Zeiss, even though it's slower (f/2.8) and larger - oh, WOW. That was a good move. There are some flare issues at times with it, but overall the lens is astonishing; my main complaint with it has just been that the hyperfocal markings on the body don't match the lens in actual use (at f/11 I now use the f/8 markings, for example); so watch for that if you wind up with one.
So those are my notes - overall, I've had a few Voigtlanders and been happy with them at first, but gradually began upgrading to Leica / Zeiss glass, and the difference is quite impressive. My main note has just been that detail in the blacks are held much better with the Leica glass - esp. the 50mm Summicron - so contrast isn't such a problem in hard lighting situations. I guess my advice would be to skip the Voigtlander step, as you may wind up selling them again and upgrading later - if you only want one lens, make it a used Leica or Zeiss, if you can!
Hope that helps in some way -
R!
Got it on the buy & sell board here along with a 28mm Zeiss Biogon; and just to comment on that as well, I had been using the Cosina-Voigtlander 28mm Ultron (f/2) but found it a little fringey and unsharp, even after taking it & the Epson in to a technician here in town. I took a punt on the Zeiss, even though it's slower (f/2.8) and larger - oh, WOW. That was a good move. There are some flare issues at times with it, but overall the lens is astonishing; my main complaint with it has just been that the hyperfocal markings on the body don't match the lens in actual use (at f/11 I now use the f/8 markings, for example); so watch for that if you wind up with one.
So those are my notes - overall, I've had a few Voigtlanders and been happy with them at first, but gradually began upgrading to Leica / Zeiss glass, and the difference is quite impressive. My main note has just been that detail in the blacks are held much better with the Leica glass - esp. the 50mm Summicron - so contrast isn't such a problem in hard lighting situations. I guess my advice would be to skip the Voigtlander step, as you may wind up selling them again and upgrading later - if you only want one lens, make it a used Leica or Zeiss, if you can!
Hope that helps in some way -
R!
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
You say wide, but 35mm lenses become a short tele on the R-D1... Not the best option as an all around lens... A narrow vision...
I would get a lens wider than 35mm to be able to have a wider view... About speed, I wouldn't care too much...
Cheers,
Juan
I would get a lens wider than 35mm to be able to have a wider view... About speed, I wouldn't care too much...
Cheers,
Juan
kermaier
Well-known
Do you need the speed? If you shoot mostly in good light, go for the smaller, cheaper, sharper, slower lens. In 35mm, you should be considering the CV Skopar 35/2.5 PII -- you can get that for <$300 used, and it's a great lens at any price. (I haven't tried the C-Biogon, but it's really tempting by reputation.)
The M-Rokkor 40/2 is an amazing lens, no compromises in image quality, and also in the $425 range.
If you plan to be up close with your subjects, consider a 28mm lens to give yourself a bit more real estate in the frame. The CV Skopar 28/3.5 is excellent and very compact.
Ari
The M-Rokkor 40/2 is an amazing lens, no compromises in image quality, and also in the $425 range.
If you plan to be up close with your subjects, consider a 28mm lens to give yourself a bit more real estate in the frame. The CV Skopar 28/3.5 is excellent and very compact.
Ari
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
To get some speed and selective focus (and OOF zones focusing close...) the 28 2 Ultron by CV seems a good option to cover most situations...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
mfogiel
Veteran
If you want to shoot B&W, then actually the best choice will be the Ultron. It is a very good lens and has low contrast, which is very helpful with a digital sensor. Sean Reid has tested this lens against higher contrast Zeiss and Leica lenses, and he has praised it very highly. It is also the cheapest of the lenses you mentioned. The Biogons are great lenses, but they are high contrast and super sharp, which may not always be so desirable. Another option could be a v2 or v3 Summicron. Here's a shot wide open on film with a v3 Summicron 35:
Note the low contrast, the pleasant and non clinical sharpness and the characteristic old style Leica bokeh.
Note the low contrast, the pleasant and non clinical sharpness and the characteristic old style Leica bokeh.
Ronchnam
Established
First RF lens
First RF lens
First RF lens
Btw the 40 lens fits exactly the 35 framelines of the R-D1(the 35 lens is a little wider). I have a Leica Summicron C40 which I use most of time, more than my Summicron 35. Cheap, light, and good.
kermaier
Well-known
Also note that, especially for b&w, the R-D1's ISO 1600 is surprisingly good. You may not need fast lenses for your work.
Ari
Ari
LCT
ex-newbie
35mm lenses are true wides DoF-wise but standard lenses on the R-D1 with their 52mm field of view.
No experience with Zeiss or Ultron. My only 35s are the pre-asph Summilux 35/1.4 (latest version) Summicron-M 35/2 (4th version), CV 35/1.4 (SC version)... and Summicron-C 40/2.
- OK for the CV "SC" if you shoot at f/1.4 - f/2. Good sharpness. Smooth bokeh. Beware of focus shift problems below though. Mine is useless at f/2.8 and on. Also the lens flares a lot. In fact it is my worst lens flare wise i must say. The CV 35/1.5 "MC" is better from this view point i've been told but its bokeh is too harsh for my tastes and i have no experience with it anyway.
- The (latest) pre-asph Summilux is still expensive. Sharper than the CV at f/2.8 and on. Softer below with the famous 'Leica glow'. Smooth bokeh. Flares less than the CV but still too much if you intend to shoot against the sun or other light sources. No sharpness at all at f/1.4, glow oblige. F/2 is on par with the Summicrons more or less.
- Summicron 32/2 IV. This lens is well known. Reasonable sharpnesss and contrast. Smooth bokeh. Flares a bit though.
- Summicron-C 40/2. Same fingerprint as that of the 35/2 more or less. Flares a bit as well. Fits perfectly the 35mm frame lines but *not* for close-ups.
FWIW
No experience with Zeiss or Ultron. My only 35s are the pre-asph Summilux 35/1.4 (latest version) Summicron-M 35/2 (4th version), CV 35/1.4 (SC version)... and Summicron-C 40/2.
- OK for the CV "SC" if you shoot at f/1.4 - f/2. Good sharpness. Smooth bokeh. Beware of focus shift problems below though. Mine is useless at f/2.8 and on. Also the lens flares a lot. In fact it is my worst lens flare wise i must say. The CV 35/1.5 "MC" is better from this view point i've been told but its bokeh is too harsh for my tastes and i have no experience with it anyway.
- The (latest) pre-asph Summilux is still expensive. Sharper than the CV at f/2.8 and on. Softer below with the famous 'Leica glow'. Smooth bokeh. Flares less than the CV but still too much if you intend to shoot against the sun or other light sources. No sharpness at all at f/1.4, glow oblige. F/2 is on par with the Summicrons more or less.
- Summicron 32/2 IV. This lens is well known. Reasonable sharpnesss and contrast. Smooth bokeh. Flares a bit though.
- Summicron-C 40/2. Same fingerprint as that of the 35/2 more or less. Flares a bit as well. Fits perfectly the 35mm frame lines but *not* for close-ups.
FWIW
Last edited:
pgmj
Member
The Ultron gives a good compromise between "speed" and size. It performs great on the R-D1, and gives great b/w possibilities if you like the lower contrast drawing. The extra stop and a half over the C-Biogon would also come in handy, especially if this is supposed to be your only lens.
My experience from the R-D1 (which I owned for 2,5 years prior to getting a M8) is that I preferred the 28mm FOV (while now 35mm is my preference on the M8 with its somewhat larger sensor). The CV Ultron 28mm is also a good choice. It might be easier to find as well, since the 35 Ultron is no longer in production.
Regarding the CV 35/1.4 I am a bit sceptical of the bokeh that turns out sometimes. The Ultron isn't perfect bokeh wise either, but a lot better, imho.
My experience from the R-D1 (which I owned for 2,5 years prior to getting a M8) is that I preferred the 28mm FOV (while now 35mm is my preference on the M8 with its somewhat larger sensor). The CV Ultron 28mm is also a good choice. It might be easier to find as well, since the 35 Ultron is no longer in production.
Regarding the CV 35/1.4 I am a bit sceptical of the bokeh that turns out sometimes. The Ultron isn't perfect bokeh wise either, but a lot better, imho.