iridium7777
Established
nikon_junkie said:
i got the .85. what's wrong with the 35 fame lines? i thought thought they're ok, but you can't go lower than 35mm, which is fine for me.
i'm coming from a dslr world, i figured i have a lot get used to about a rf anyways, so maybe the lines won't look that bad?
thanks for all the replies. my feel is not to get the 40 just because i do plan on getting a 50 down the road. i think it'd be silly to have a 40 and a 50 as my main set.
i was thinking about starting with a 50mm but think the 35 would be more versatile in case i wanted to do some scenery shots where i need to fit more things into an image.
i am strongly leaning towards zeiss, i'm just not used to spending that kind of money.
-kk-
Established
i would add my vote for the 40 summicron/ rokkor, stellar piece of glass for reasonable money.
others i would look at:
color skopar PII 35/2.5 (v small lens, easier to pocket)
zeiss biogon 35 (I would love to have this lens, size much bigger though)
zeiss sonnar 50 (niiice)
nokton 40/1.4 (back to the 40s)
a variety of CV 50s
and of course the 35 and 50 summicrons.
your budget will dictate which stays on the list.
others i would look at:
color skopar PII 35/2.5 (v small lens, easier to pocket)
zeiss biogon 35 (I would love to have this lens, size much bigger though)
zeiss sonnar 50 (niiice)
nokton 40/1.4 (back to the 40s)
a variety of CV 50s
and of course the 35 and 50 summicrons.
your budget will dictate which stays on the list.
-kk-
Established
also to add to one of your comments, I too have just entered the RF world (from SLRs as well). I now have a 40 summicron and 90 elmar i use on the CL. I do intend to add a 50 at some point, not so much for the length/field of view, but to have the option of a diff signature 'look'. so while i understand your concern that they might be a tad redundant to have 2 so close in length, you can also think of them simply as different flavours.
ferider
Veteran
-kk- said:
Have not used the 35 Biogon but agree with KK on all other lenses.
And 50/40 is a great combo, if you use the 40 as general purpose and a
vintage/special signature 50 for portraits. All M mount 40s are great lenses,
sharp across the frame. Any of them can be combined for example
with a Noctilux, Canon 50/1.2, Canon 50/1.5, ZM C-Sonnar 50/1.5,
or even a well collimated Jupiter 3.
50/40 is as different as 35/28 which many people carry together.
Roland.
x-ray
Veteran
You won't regret buying the Biogon. It's a superb lens in every way. I also agree the 40 and 50 are just too close and there's no 40 frame.
About the .85x vf, I have two MP's with .85x and a MP and M6 with .72x. I don't wear glasses but have no problem with the .85x and 35mm frames. I like the more accurate focusing with my 75 1.4 particularly since I mainly use it at 1.4-2.8.
About the .85x vf, I have two MP's with .85x and a MP and M6 with .72x. I don't wear glasses but have no problem with the .85x and 35mm frames. I like the more accurate focusing with my 75 1.4 particularly since I mainly use it at 1.4-2.8.
iridium7777
Established
well, i did it...
well, i did it...
for better or for worse, just ordered the zeiss lens + zeiss hood. should be here mid next week.
the camera came in today, much soon than expected... can't wait to put it all together and start shooting.
thanks all for the replies.
well, i did it...
for better or for worse, just ordered the zeiss lens + zeiss hood. should be here mid next week
.the camera came in today, much soon than expected... can't wait to put it all together and start shooting.
thanks all for the replies.
x-ray said:
thomasw_
Well-known
x-ray said:
I was put onto the 35/2 ZM when I was comparing 35s earlier this year; and this quoted view I do agree with in terms of all round functionality, albeit with one really huge exception, in times of lower available light. I find my CV 35/1.2 to be a wonderful lens in quite low light, rather like a 35FL noctilux@50. It has a wonderful signature in its own right, too. But it is a big, huge heavy beast of a lens and for most daily street shots, the ZM 35/2 is much lighter to mount and hold up to your face. But if you are serious about the 3.5cm focal length, you would do well to save for both; indeed both are great bang for the buck.
Thomas
x-ray
Veteran
thomasw_ said:
I have both too and don't use the CV Nocton daily but when I need the speed it really shines. I'm used to carrying a rolling case of Canon 1DsII gear and lenses plus studio strobes and before digital I lugged a Rollei SL66 system with a half dozen lenses, 2 bodies and half doxen backs plus large studio strobes all on location. This was my compact kit so a 35 1.2 Nokton is no big deal. It's all relative to the degree of torture experienced during a lifetime.
There's certainly nothing wrong with CV lenses. Everyone I have and have seen results from show it can be done for less money. The CV glass is better than anything we had only a few years ago and equals darn near the best today if not better in some cases. I've said before and will say it again that I could take all CV and Bessa gear and do exactly the same thing I'm doing with Leica and Zeiss and do it just as well. I have no experience with the lenses over 50mm but the 50 Nokton, 35 Nokton, 28 Ultron and 15mm are superb and I've made some first rate images with them and not ashamed to let anyone see I have CV glass on my leicas.Enjoy that Biogon and M6 and let us know how you like it.
PS
I had a 50 1.2 Noctilux in the 70's and can honestly say the 35 1.2 Nocton beats the pants off it and also used a F1 where i worked and feel the same about the Nokton 35vs the Leica F1 50.
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
If you are getting a 0.85 M6ttl you will most likely find that the 35 frame-lines are at the far edge of what you can see. The field of a 40mm fits nicely inside this. For the money, the 40/1,4 Nokton Multicoated for color or the 40/1.4 Single coated for black and white. You can use this lens as a substitute 35 and 50 for most situations. Once you have "shot" yourself in with it ( at least 3-4 month or 30-40 rolls), you can add a 25/28 and/or a 75/90 to the kit and be set for a long long time. rangefinders are different beasts - you quickly learn how to use the lens that is on the camera, rather than fiddlying with changing lenses or dragging bags of extra lenses along. It is a matter of seeing and adjusting your position to use what you have. It is better to have one lens and a lot of film than all the alternatives and no film!
x-ray
Veteran
We each have our own style of shooting. I've always carried a small bag with two bodies with a 21, 35, 50 and 90 and in the last couple of years have added a 75. I will alternate a 25 and 21 or sometimes add a 28 inbetween the 21 and 35. I will frequently change lenses during a shoot and often shoot with all of them. Rarely do I carry a 135. This is the way I've worked for 40 years but for others one lens and one body is the trick.
nikon_junkie
Established
I like being able to see the framelines. I found it impossibly unreliable coupling the .85 with a 35mm. It works well with a .72 and I know it's a matter of choice, but... the .85 is not the ideal or first choice IMHO.