Slow photography, so which lens?

[toksuede]

Hello there.

I'm planning (the operative word here) to buy a Zeiss Ikon. I know, it's nuts.

For the past couple of months, I have searched far and wide for a perfect digital solution for a walk around-put it in your bag and take it out whenever you need to shoot-camera. What I have discovered is that all digital compacts are in lack of better words "crap". I use D3 for work and if I want something that takes as good as an image as that, I would have to buy a DSLR or go back to film.

So back to film it is. I've owned a Contax G2 some time ago and remember it to be a very good camera. Rangefinder takes less space than SLRs, so here I am. I considered about going Voigtlander or Konica, but if I'm going to really stick with it, Zeiss Ikon seems to be the one that will keep me busy until there are no labs that develop film in Paris.

I absolutely unashamedly admit that I'm a novice with RFs. And I'm not going to spend more than 500 dollars on a lens (yet). My favourite lens on the D3 is the 17-35 f2.8 and I'm hoping for a wide lens that will make shooting without an LCD monitor a happy one.

As a requirement, I would like to have one that is relatively fast (no slower than 2.8), more compact the better (doesn't have to be pancake, but you know what I mean), easy to focus (what's with these knobs on the focusing ring?), and reasonably priced. I have no qualms buying it used and I will shoot mainly in colour (negs, not slides).
As for the subjects, mainly people, on the streets and inside buildings.

Here are the preliminary candidates:

35/1.4 Nokton
35/2.5 Type II Skopar
28/2 Ultron
25/4p Skopar*
21/4p Skopar*

*my theory is, wider the lens, less problems with low shutter speed, thus the inclusion of these "slower" lenses.

By the way, is it easy to focus and compose with the 25 and 21mm lens using the Zeiss Ikon and without the external view finder?

Any help / advice / ridicule is welcome.

Ryu

 

[yanidel]

I have owned all these lenses except the Nokton. The 25/4 was the sharpest and very compact. But I think the Ultron will be more versatile for your needs.

 

[italy74]

Not to forget you should purchase a viewfinder for whatever wider than 25 mm. Some tend to save money use the whole viewfinder as the effective view of a 25 mm but I'm not sure if it works well or not. An external Zeiss viewfinder may cost up to 375 € (!) so I'd go too for the 28/2 or the 35 F/2.5 (would you use it often also at night? if not, maybe this could be the right one for you)

 

[norman]

staying with the zm, as it is what you want...i would go with the 35/1.4 cv lens.

norm

 

[toksuede]

Ah, so there is no way I'm going to fiddle with an external viewfinder, which is way out of my personal economic crisis. 🙂

So, it's down to 28 Ultron, 35 Skopar, and the 35 Nokton.

I feel like I'm goint to feel "cramped" with the 35, but then it's full stop faster than the 28. The Skopar is good as it is compact, but full two stops slower than the Nokton.

Decisions....

 

[sojournerphoto]

First up, I'm not sure that 35mm film will fgive you the same image quality as your D3. Film offers a different quality, which is worth working for if you like it. Otherwise the Oly Pen? Did you try the Ricoh GX100/200 - horrid at high iso though

As to the Ikon - great camera. I nearly bought another today, but was (fortunately!) outbid.

As well as the choices above you might consider the 35/1.7 Ultron ( abit longer than the Skopar, but still smaller than your dslr stuff) You will need an adaptor for most of thse lenses.

If you got really lucky you might find a Biogon 35/2 for about your top price, but you would have to be really lucky.

Focus tabs are easy when you get used.

If you wear glasses then I wouldn't even consider a 28 on the Ikon unless you are happy with the external viewfinder.

Enjoy and post some pictures here.

Mike

 

[Bob Michaels]

By the way, is it easy to focus and compose with the 25 and 21mm lens using the Zeiss Ikon and without the external view finder

Focusing the 25mm & 21mm lenses is as easy as falling off a log. You just zone focus and utilize the large depth of field. No need to use the rangefinder patch at all. And since you will not be using the framelines, you can get by with any screwmount to M mount adapter.

I have both the CV 25mm and 21mm lenses and would not hesitate to recommend either of them.

However, a strong suggestion: chose the focal length lens / field of view you like. I find that way more important than everything else combined.

 

[sepiareverb]

Did you try a Ricoh GRD2?

I don't know any of those lenses.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I would also suggest you consider the CV 28mm f3.5 even though it does not meet your f2.8 minimum. Remember you can hand hold a RF easily at 1/15th second.

It is a very very good lens optically, quite compact, and relatively inexpensive.

That lens and a ZI body can be slipped into a loose fitting pants pocket. I cannot do that with my Zeiss 35mm f2.0 mounted, nor can I do it with the CV 25mm because of the external finder. But I can with the CV 28 3.5

That is becoming my most used lens. Recently I did a long weekend airline trip carrying only a CLE w 28mm lens and six rolls of film. And, I was able to make it work everywhere. Even with environmental portraits of the grandkids and some inside shots.

 

[KenR]

Wide angle

Wide angle

As you seem to prefer wide angle lenses, have you thought about the Bessa R4? It is made for wides and would obviate the need for the auxillary finder with the 21mm lens.

 

[thinkfloyd]

I had the same dilemma before, looking for a "stuff-in-bag-camera" after feeling ridiculous lugging around my DSLR everyday. Went for the RF folders at first, then found a great deal on a used RD-1 with a 40 rokkor lens from a felow RFF member here. I must say, after getting the RD-1, I stopped (for the meantime) looking for other cameras. It's perfect for my needs! Though seeing you want IQ similar to your D3, film is the only way to go, since I reckon a FF digital rangefinder is a long ways away (and will surely cost an arm and a leg and a kidney and a spleen...)

 

[toksuede]

Thank you all.

1. Compact digital camera
All of them (and I mean ALL of them) are crap. There's not a single one that is noise free at iso 400. Maybe the Fuji. As long as the camera makers decide that more pixels mean more sales, I'm going to stay away from it.

2. Lens
I really appreciate all the suggestions and recomendations. I think I'm going to goto a photography store to test out the Ultron and the 28 Skopar.

3. R4
I think the construction of the ZI was what I wanted over anything else. I'm sure the R4 is a good camera, but it's just not for me. But completely agree with you on its wide angle ability....

Thanks again everyone and once I get it, I'll post again!

 

[back alley]

i have a zi and i had an r4a, the r4a is extremely well built.
there should be no hesitation because of build quality.

 

[Tom A]

I also have the ZI and the R4M's. My original R4M is still going strong after several years of hard use. It is my wide-angle camera - and as I like wides, it comes along everywhere. It might not look pretty anymore - but no issues with it.
The ZI is well built, but if you are going wide - it is worth considering the R4M. And you can get a R4M and a couple of wides for what a ZI costs with one lens.