Ikon and 75, 90, 135?????

BNF

Established
Local time
3:52 PM
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
99
Location
Europe
The Zeiss Ikon has been peaking my attention more and more. (Fogiel and his work plays a substantial role in this interest too.)

However... if I remember correctly, when I had my M gear (.72), I found that my 135 TE APO and 90 AA were my 2nd and 3rd most used lenses - when my 28 wasn't glued to the body that is....

So, when considereing the Ikon and a nice selection of ZM lenses (21, 35/2, 50/2), which 90 should I choose? The Lanthar at c490US (plus 170US for the finder, no?) seems like an obvious choice.... the 90 Elmarits are mostly 2x that price...

Or, quite frankly, should a forget the Ikon and go for a used M? I'll restate that previously my M and 28 lived together 70% of the time... When buying a new Ikon kit, I think the 21 and 35 are a great combination and compromise instead of one 28.

Any ideas?
 
BNF, thanks for your comment.
In my experience, the ZI is the ideal 35mm fl camera (but I wear glasses, so the 28mm frames are scarcely visible). I use it often for the 50mm too, and sometimes (with the 1.35x magnifier) for the 90mm, but frankly. beyond 50mm the rangefinders are not as effective in framing as SLR's, and the lenses form 75mm onwards, have the same formula for SLR or RF, so there's no longer any construction advantage. If I were you, I'd use the ZI for the 28-50mm range, and buy a Nikon FMxx with the 85/2 or 105/2.5 lens and be a happy camper...
As far as the 75mm shooting on the ZI is concerned, you simply have to guess the frames, so it is a pain. For the 90mm , when I have to, I use the current Elmarit 90/2.8, and I dislike this lens, as it is not up to Zeiss standards in any measure, so you might as well get the CV for less money.
 
mfogiel said:
BNF, thanks for your comment.
In my experience, the ZI is the ideal 35mm fl camera (but I wear glasses, so the 28mm frames are scarcely visible). I use it often for the 50mm too, and sometimes (with the 1.35x magnifier) for the 90mm, but frankly. beyond 50mm the rangefinders are not as effective in framing as SLR's, and the lenses form 75mm onwards, have the same formula for SLR or RF, so there's no longer any construction advantage. If I were you, I'd use the ZI for the 28-50mm range, and buy a Nikon FMxx with the 85/2 or 105/2.5 lens and be a happy camper...
As far as the 75mm shooting on the ZI is concerned, you simply have to guess the frames, so it is a pain. For the 90mm , when I have to, I use the current Elmarit 90/2.8, and I dislike this lens, as it is not up to Zeiss standards in any measure, so you might as well get the CV for less money.

I agree totally with you. For me 50mm is the upper limit
 
Grazie, ragazzi.

I did have very good luck with my M(.72) and the 90 and 135 in both focusing and framing. (My still under 40 year old eyes I suppose...)

For me it is a matter of having a "kit". When I travel, I try and stay light, and having one RF body and 2 or 3 lenses for me is just right.

I'm really torn on this issue of short teles with the Ikon. I am convinced by the work I've seen that the ZM lenses are equal or better than the Leica equivilants. I am sold on the exceptional value too. Not being able to find any sample to hold and try - I have to rely on word of mouth and others' expertise.

I am ok with a 90 finder, but what to do with 135? I know how I am, and even if I say today that I'll stick with 15-75mm, I know that I won't feel complete without a 90 and eventually a 135.
 
Here are 2 shots I took using a Leitz 90mm Cron on the Zi yesterday. I met this guy yesterday in the streets of DC promoting his Hip Hop group by selling CDs made by his group.
 

Attachments

  • Image28.jpg
    Image28.jpg
    235.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Image29.jpg
    Image29.jpg
    233.3 KB · Views: 0
Any more opinions about the best way to use a 135mm on the Ikon?

The 90mm I understand, use the 85mm framlines and they are close enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom