Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander or just GAS

Gid

Gid

Well-known
Local time
10:10 PM
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
1,794
I have a RD-1 plus CV 28 1.9, CV 35 1.7, CV 50 1.5, CV 75 2.5 and Summarit 50 1.5 (impulse buy). I mostly use the 28 and the 35. Generally I take only one lens when I go out with the camera and work within the constraints of that lens' field of view. I shoot whatever is interesting - sometimes landscape, sometimes architecture, sometimes street candids. I don't shoot indiscriminately just because its digital. I have images I am happy with from all of the lenses. I know the equipment doesn't make the photographer - just look at some of the old Magnum shots. I've read all of the reviews I can on CV, Leica and Zeiss (a bit thin on the ground) lenses and I know the CVs are well regarded especially at their price point. However, its Xmas, its annual bonus time and I like shiny things, hence the point of this thread.

I am considering "upgrading" my lenses. I've looked at either the 25 Biogon and possibly the 35 Biogon against the 28 F2 Summicron Asph or 35 F2 Summicron Asph. Price wise I can get both Zeiss lenses for about £1360 (new with shades) or save some money and buy just the one. I would have to pay £1500 for a new Summicron 28 or £1100 for a new 35 F2 Summicron Asph. I have seen a mint second hand 35 F2 asph for £850. I'm not keen on the 35 1.4 Asph as the reviews seem doubtful (not bad, but not as good as they should be considering the price) - at least compared to some others. I have no brand allegiance, but if I'm going to buy I want what is considered to be the best in the hope that I won't keep getting GAS. Other factors to consider are size/weight - the smaller the better - and I'll probably just keep the one lens on the camera for 95% of the time.

So help me spend or save some money. I know the most expensive lens won't make me a better photographer, but it will almost certainly make me get out more with the camera. The benefit of your experience and any alternatives will be greatly appreciated.

Best regards

Gid
 
Gid,

I couldn't begin to advise you on such a complicated choice but let me just say that the Leica 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 are superb on the R-D1.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Gid: I know nothing about the lenses you mention, but I can categorically state that you will continue to have GAS regardless of your choice.

Dr. Earl
 
Thanks Guys

Thanks Guys

Thanks to Sean for upping the ante to £1790 (35 1.4), thanks to Trius for confirming that GAS is a permanent afflication and thanks to Huck for muddying the waters by making me re-read Sean's reviews.

It seems to me that if I don't get the 21 2.8 Elmarit, 35 1.4 Summilux and 50 1.4 Summilux my photography will suffer untold failures. Maybe I should sell some guitars, the car, the house - anybody want some reasonably well behaved kids ...............

Thanks

Gid
 
Gid, unless you're Very Fussy/Very Careful, I doubt if you'll be able to see any difference upgrading these lenses - they're all pretty good.

That said, the one lens that made a big difference to me was the 21/2.8 Elmarit-M. It's noticeably better than other 21's I tried. I hear that the 21 Zeiss is even better, but I haven't tried one. For me (I like wide angle), that's where I'd put the money.
 
Gid said:
It seems to me that if I don't get the 21 2.8 Elmarit, 35 1.4 Summilux and 50 1.4 Summilux my photography will suffer untold failures. Maybe I should sell some guitars, the car, the house - anybody want some reasonably well behaved kids ...............

Thanks

Gid
Click to expand...

Gid, glad to see you have your priorities straight. :D

Much of what you discuss is subjective. Since you say that you will be using only one lens 90% of the time, you should know best which focal length you prefer to use most of the time, which seems to be somewhere in the 25 - 35 range & which will of course eliminate most of the other choices once you've decided.

What is not so subjective is some of the spec's on these lenses. Since you've done a lot of reading already, I assume you're aware of the fact that any of the Zeiss or Leica lenses will improve your minimal focus distance as compared with the CV 35 & 50 you already have. You say "the more compact the better," so I also assume that you've noted that any of the Zeiss or Leica lenses you're considering are also more compact than your CV lenses. What you may not have noticed is that the Zeiss lens lengths, as reported, include the mount, which CV & Leica spec's do not. So the Zeiss lenses are more compact than they appear from their spec's. You can find the lens lengths, measured without the mounts for better comparison, on the Zeiss pages of the Cosina website (www.cosina.co.jp).

Huck
 
25mm Skopar

25mm Skopar

Hello:

Are you not conflicted over a possible choice between the 25mm CV Skopar and the faster 25mm Biogon.

I find the Skopar impeccable.

yours
Frank
 
just a comment about the 35 1.4 asph. I had the cron (f/2) first, then added the 35 1.4 asph, and sold the cron, then I missed it for its fantastic "look" (very flat field) so I bought it again but after a while I realized I never take it with me since I always choose to get the extra stop. The lux is a really fantastic lens. Don't let reviews discourage you. It is extremely useful. It will never happen to you that you will look at an image and wish you had taken it with another lens. It might very well happen to you that you will find yourself in a situation and that you will wish you had the extra stop. The lens is remarkable wide open. and it works so nicely with the RD-1 that it turned to be nearly the only lens I use. I use it much more than my 28cron sph. When I want wide I use the 15vc. at least my copy focuses perfectly with the RD-1. Look on the Leica forums and I can assure you that you would not find a bad word about that lens. just my 2c.
 
If I could afford it, I'd buy every lens ever made, but then I'd be so hung up on inventory, that I'd have no time for photography.

I've looked again at all the reviews I can and I have to say that I do have a hankering for the 35 1.4 summilux asph. There's a titanium version on *bay at the moment (UK) with a buy it now price of £1,000 and its new. Not sure about it, because they normally go for around £1700 new. Its here, http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Leica-titaniu...569451782QQcategoryZ30062QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Also the same seller has a 50 1.4 summilux titanium for the same price more or less. This is another that I would have no problem owning.

Ultimately, this is GAS. My current lenses doubtless out resolve my abilty, but there is only one cure for GAS.

I'll let you know what I end up with.

PS. There was an RD-1 on *bay last night - saw it with about 3 minutes to go - I think it went for about £1,000.

Regards

Gid
 
Re: The 35 and 50 summilux lenses on *bay - they're not the aspheric versions - explains why they're cheaper. Not sure they're good value for non aspheric though.

Gid
 
I know that it may be heresy in this forum but having used both M film and and RD-1 cameras my feeling is that a lot of the perceived benefits of the top Leica lenses is rather lost in the mush of the 6mp RD-1 sensor and its bayer and AA filters. I particularly felt this was true with the wider lenses. It was probably all in my mind but my feeling was that the wider lenses (e.g. the 35/2 ASPH which I used as the 'normal' lens on the RD-1) tended to have a more 'smeary' look to the pixels (viewed at 100%) than longer lenses such as the 50 'cron and 50 Noctilux. I had put this down to the 'angle of incidence' issue with rangefinder lenses and digital sensors but I have no science to back this up. Of course, a good Leica lens is always a good investment for the future - especially if you still shoot film alongside your RD-1 - but I think you are right to consider upgrading your lenses as more of a 'GAS' exercise than something which will make your images better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom