Peter_S
Peter_S
Hi!
Has anybody here changed from Contax G2 to Zeiss Ikon ZM?
I am somewhat tempted (have a G2), due to the limitations of the G2 for MF, the sometimes tricky AF of the G2 (I am aware of the work-arounds), the limitation of the lens system to f2 and the problems the camera has in cold (battery drain, AF slow).
I know that the G2 has excellent lenses, also in respect to their price, and I certainly appreciate their quality, especially the 21mm.
I keep thinking about trying to sell my black G2 with 21mm, 45mm and 90mm and get an used Ikon with 21mm/f2.8 and 50mm/f1.5 instead.
Now:
- has anybody done the change to ZI (or Leica M6) and can give feedback? The comparison is difficult due to manuell RF vs AF, but any experience with the switch would be appreciated. \
- how do the 21mm (focal length I use most frequently in analog) and 45mm/50mm of G2 and ZM compare? I prefer nice rendering (glow, 3d, whatever you call it/preceive it as) over absolute sharpeness.
- ZI in the cold...comments?
- estimates how much I will suffer financially with this step?
I do not want to keep both, as I try to keep the amount of photo gear low and ditch whatever I do not need necessarily.
Cheers,
Peter S.
Has anybody here changed from Contax G2 to Zeiss Ikon ZM?
I am somewhat tempted (have a G2), due to the limitations of the G2 for MF, the sometimes tricky AF of the G2 (I am aware of the work-arounds), the limitation of the lens system to f2 and the problems the camera has in cold (battery drain, AF slow).
I know that the G2 has excellent lenses, also in respect to their price, and I certainly appreciate their quality, especially the 21mm.
I keep thinking about trying to sell my black G2 with 21mm, 45mm and 90mm and get an used Ikon with 21mm/f2.8 and 50mm/f1.5 instead.
Now:
- has anybody done the change to ZI (or Leica M6) and can give feedback? The comparison is difficult due to manuell RF vs AF, but any experience with the switch would be appreciated. \
- how do the 21mm (focal length I use most frequently in analog) and 45mm/50mm of G2 and ZM compare? I prefer nice rendering (glow, 3d, whatever you call it/preceive it as) over absolute sharpeness.
- ZI in the cold...comments?
- estimates how much I will suffer financially with this step?
I do not want to keep both, as I try to keep the amount of photo gear low and ditch whatever I do not need necessarily.
Cheers,
Peter S.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The lenses of the G2 may be good but with the Ikon you're opening a world of M mount glass that can anly be marveled at.
I love my Ikon and can only recommend it ... it's the best M mount rangefinder available IMO.
As for using in the cold ... living in Brisbane I can't help you there!
I love my Ikon and can only recommend it ... it's the best M mount rangefinder available IMO.
As for using in the cold ... living in Brisbane I can't help you there!
BillBingham2
Registered User
Great question Peter.
While it sounds like you are set on the Zeiss glass figured I would bend your mind a little bit. Have you looked at a CL or a CLE? Both are M mounts and I think about the size of your G2. Not sure about the 50/1.5 on the CLE (short EBL) but f2 is fine, would need to do some research. CLE has a frame for a 28mm, so perhaps a ZM 25 (full frame) and 50 combo?
B2 (;->
Just a
While it sounds like you are set on the Zeiss glass figured I would bend your mind a little bit. Have you looked at a CL or a CLE? Both are M mounts and I think about the size of your G2. Not sure about the 50/1.5 on the CLE (short EBL) but f2 is fine, would need to do some research. CLE has a frame for a 28mm, so perhaps a ZM 25 (full frame) and 50 combo?
B2 (;->
Just a
jawarden
Well-known
I did pretty much exactly as you're planning. It was a very good move I think.
I had a G1, G2, 21mm, 35mm, 45mm, 90mm, all near excellent condition. Sold the whole lot on eBay and netted enough to purchase an Ikon and 35/2, new.
It's up to you whether selling a complete system to start over is a good idea, but one look through the Ikon viewfinder and I knew I was done for. The ZM lenses in general are equal quality to the Contax versions, but some (either of the ZM35s, for instance) are easily better than the Contax version. And of course you can experiment with loads of M lenses too.
I can't answer your question about the 21, but the 50 Planar seems similar to the G45 Planar in rendering to me. The 50 Sonnar is different, in a good way. I chose the Sonnar.
Good luck with your decision!
I had a G1, G2, 21mm, 35mm, 45mm, 90mm, all near excellent condition. Sold the whole lot on eBay and netted enough to purchase an Ikon and 35/2, new.
It's up to you whether selling a complete system to start over is a good idea, but one look through the Ikon viewfinder and I knew I was done for. The ZM lenses in general are equal quality to the Contax versions, but some (either of the ZM35s, for instance) are easily better than the Contax version. And of course you can experiment with loads of M lenses too.
I can't answer your question about the 21, but the 50 Planar seems similar to the G45 Planar in rendering to me. The 50 Sonnar is different, in a good way. I chose the Sonnar.
Good luck with your decision!
Peter_S
Peter_S
Cheers, Keith & Jeffrey,
The range of ZM lenses is certainly a driving point here.
PS - I also thought about a Leica CL/CLE w/ 40mm Rokkor + 21mm ZM 21mm combo. I quite like the small size of the CL. Any issues with the ZI ZM 21mm on the CL? OK the framelines in the CL are limited, but price and size are appealing.
EDIT - thanks Bill, you read my mind
The range of ZM lenses is certainly a driving point here.
PS - I also thought about a Leica CL/CLE w/ 40mm Rokkor + 21mm ZM 21mm combo. I quite like the small size of the CL. Any issues with the ZI ZM 21mm on the CL? OK the framelines in the CL are limited, but price and size are appealing.
EDIT - thanks Bill, you read my mind
Last edited:
bwcolor
Veteran
I have had the G2 for years and moved into Ikon/Leica over the last 18 months. I use the Ikon far more than the G2, but the G2 really isn't worth much on the market vs. the usefulness in hand. I use it as well as a T3 more as a snapshot camera. I haven't a 21mm for the G2.. 28mm is as wide as I go. On film, I think that from a practical point of view, the G2 lenses are really first rate. My main complaint regarding the G2 is the tiny viewfinder compared to the huge/bright viewfinder of the Ikon. I do have the Zeiss 21mm compact lens for my 'M' cameras and find it to be an outstanding performer, but have little real credibility with regards to this opinion in that it is the only 21mm that I have owned.
Neare
Well-known
I think the swap is roughly equal value (if your 21mm is black too), perhaps the zm and both lenses might equate to a bit more than your kit with the current market value. Not bad.
Personally I don't think f2 is limiting and the G lenses are pure class, some of the best lenses you can buy. That said, if you want MF you're going to need to trade up. +1 for the ZM lenses and for the Sonnar. The sonnar has a very different rendering to the G prime. It's softer, smoother and makes everything look good.
Also the Ikon is a great camera and the best M viewfinder you can get for all focal lengths. The Ikon won't feel as sturdy as the G though. Not that the ZI is not a solid camera, it's just lighter materials.
In the cold the body won't gnaw your hands off as much. But the battery will still die at a increased pace. The battery life in the ZI in normal conditions is supposed to be at 80-90rolls. Not sure what the G is though but I guess AF uses more juice anyway.
Personally I don't think f2 is limiting and the G lenses are pure class, some of the best lenses you can buy. That said, if you want MF you're going to need to trade up. +1 for the ZM lenses and for the Sonnar. The sonnar has a very different rendering to the G prime. It's softer, smoother and makes everything look good.
Also the Ikon is a great camera and the best M viewfinder you can get for all focal lengths. The Ikon won't feel as sturdy as the G though. Not that the ZI is not a solid camera, it's just lighter materials.
In the cold the body won't gnaw your hands off as much. But the battery will still die at a increased pace. The battery life in the ZI in normal conditions is supposed to be at 80-90rolls. Not sure what the G is though but I guess AF uses more juice anyway.
Last edited:
morback
Martin N. Hinze
Peter,
I'm constantly debating the other way around because of my T3 that just keeps delivering the best pictures without fuss (not to mention the IQ). If we were close we could just do a swap for some time and see for ourselves
The ZI is great, manual focus is great, zone focus is great, but the .7 minimum focus distance not so much. .9 if you plan on getting the Sonnar. If you can't tell how limiting it is, here's a situation: Sitting with your mate at a table in a cafe, you will not be able to focus his/her face with a .9 lens without leeeeaning back.
Just an fyi.
Also, I changed my batteries for the first time in 2 years yesterday (My ZI cam in at the end of September 2008). I have not noticed anything bad with the ZI in the cold. I think a while back someone commented on using his ZI in a cold environment (icicles forming on the bottom) just fine.
Just like any battery camera, keep it warmish and it will perform.
I'm constantly debating the other way around because of my T3 that just keeps delivering the best pictures without fuss (not to mention the IQ). If we were close we could just do a swap for some time and see for ourselves
The ZI is great, manual focus is great, zone focus is great, but the .7 minimum focus distance not so much. .9 if you plan on getting the Sonnar. If you can't tell how limiting it is, here's a situation: Sitting with your mate at a table in a cafe, you will not be able to focus his/her face with a .9 lens without leeeeaning back.
Just an fyi.
Also, I changed my batteries for the first time in 2 years yesterday (My ZI cam in at the end of September 2008). I have not noticed anything bad with the ZI in the cold. I think a while back someone commented on using his ZI in a cold environment (icicles forming on the bottom) just fine.
Just like any battery camera, keep it warmish and it will perform.
Cron
Well-known
if you prefer special rendering you will find special Zeiss lenses in M-mount, eg Sonnar 1,5/50 and surely also Biogon 2/35 which may satisfy in this way.
As I have the Biogon 2/35 as well as the 2/35 Planar for G-system I wish the Biogon would fit to my G2. Not said the Planar is a bad lens, I like it very much, but the Biogon is sharp from wide open with really beautiful rendering. Planar is a little soft wide open but also has a gentle look.
As I have the Biogon 2/35 as well as the 2/35 Planar for G-system I wish the Biogon would fit to my G2. Not said the Planar is a bad lens, I like it very much, but the Biogon is sharp from wide open with really beautiful rendering. Planar is a little soft wide open but also has a gentle look.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Peter,
I had a G2 outfit on loan for a year, and in my book, there's no comparison. The G2 had/has a small range of lovely lenses that focus quite often, while the ZI takes a huge range of lenses from awful to the best in the world, and you control the focus.
How cold is 'cold'?
Cheers,
R.
I had a G2 outfit on loan for a year, and in my book, there's no comparison. The G2 had/has a small range of lovely lenses that focus quite often, while the ZI takes a huge range of lenses from awful to the best in the world, and you control the focus.
How cold is 'cold'?
Cheers,
R.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Peter, I made that swap a year and a half ago. My G2, 21, 28, 45, 90 plus a few minor accessories for a ZI + 35/2.
I'm not sure about the financial side of it. The G2 system isn't worth much so, IIRC, I came out a little behind on the ZI purchase. But yours is black and that will make a big difference in value.
I can honestly say I've never regretted it. There are trade offs, however, and it isn't as clear cut as it seems.
The ZI is the real rangefinder experience. And that experience is incomparable (and the reason some people can't understand the whole "rangefinder thing") to any other type of camera including the G2.
To me, what you really have to base your decision on is whether you want manual focus and whether you want to get into buying and trying a range of lenses. Those are the two main reasons to make the switch. I can't imagine there is much difference between the 21s and the speed you are gaining with the 50mm 1.5 is, IMO, pretty minimal. Certainly not a determining factor especially because the Sonnar has such a distinctive look to it as well as focus shift.
Having said that, I have much preferred the feeling of being in more control of the camera and the undefinable feel and experience of using the ZI.
I'm not sure about the financial side of it. The G2 system isn't worth much so, IIRC, I came out a little behind on the ZI purchase. But yours is black and that will make a big difference in value.
I can honestly say I've never regretted it. There are trade offs, however, and it isn't as clear cut as it seems.
The ZI is the real rangefinder experience. And that experience is incomparable (and the reason some people can't understand the whole "rangefinder thing") to any other type of camera including the G2.
To me, what you really have to base your decision on is whether you want manual focus and whether you want to get into buying and trying a range of lenses. Those are the two main reasons to make the switch. I can't imagine there is much difference between the 21s and the speed you are gaining with the 50mm 1.5 is, IMO, pretty minimal. Certainly not a determining factor especially because the Sonnar has such a distinctive look to it as well as focus shift.
Having said that, I have much preferred the feeling of being in more control of the camera and the undefinable feel and experience of using the ZI.
Last edited:
nonot
Well-known
I also made the switch from a G2 to a Leica M - I can't comment on the ZI but I will say that the opportunity to control the focus %100 of the time is a definite advantage about %75 of the time for me personally. Meaning that even though I have complete control over the focus of my M6, I still miss shots. With my G2 I could shoot people on the street with ease, knowing I'd get about ~%95 of the shots I pointed that thing at. It was that +- %10, coupled with the constant worry about the G's electronics that made me switch - I can always get better and more experienced with manual focus.
As for price, I got my original G2 with 21/28/45/90/TLA140 and an extra date back for $1200 when I bought it basically new. I traded the kit minus the 21 and vf for a basically brand new M6 and some credit against a lens when I decided to buy one from the seller. I sold the 21/vf and purchased a Summicron-c 40/2 and some film with the leftover dough.
Super long-winded, but I'd say go for it. You have a black kit, it's worth more than mine was, but I'd say I got extremely lucky with both my original G2 purchase as well as the trade and sale. If you're addicted to the zeiss glass (which is totally reasonable!) you can sleep knowing that you can always buy the conversions from japan.
As for price, I got my original G2 with 21/28/45/90/TLA140 and an extra date back for $1200 when I bought it basically new. I traded the kit minus the 21 and vf for a basically brand new M6 and some credit against a lens when I decided to buy one from the seller. I sold the 21/vf and purchased a Summicron-c 40/2 and some film with the leftover dough.
Super long-winded, but I'd say go for it. You have a black kit, it's worth more than mine was, but I'd say I got extremely lucky with both my original G2 purchase as well as the trade and sale. If you're addicted to the zeiss glass (which is totally reasonable!) you can sleep knowing that you can always buy the conversions from japan.
Peter_S
Peter_S
Thanks for all the replies, I really appreciate it (letting the G2 go will hurt so I have to know it is the right choice).
I narrowed it down to Zeiss Ikon or Leica CL (which I like more and more) with either their 50mm/40mm lenses and the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Biogon (I primarily need a good, fast wide angle lens).
Can live witout 90mm, and will not buy a medium format folder as thought, that money can be put into the swap if needed. Sounds good.
Finally - any thoughts about the 21mm Biogons...have the G Biogon converted (500 Euro-ish) in Japan or get the ZM 21mm? I am pretty set on selling the G lens and get the ZM. Anything and anyone in favour of a conversion?
Cheers,
Peter
I narrowed it down to Zeiss Ikon or Leica CL (which I like more and more) with either their 50mm/40mm lenses and the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Biogon (I primarily need a good, fast wide angle lens).
Can live witout 90mm, and will not buy a medium format folder as thought, that money can be put into the swap if needed. Sounds good.
Finally - any thoughts about the 21mm Biogons...have the G Biogon converted (500 Euro-ish) in Japan or get the ZM 21mm? I am pretty set on selling the G lens and get the ZM. Anything and anyone in favour of a conversion?
Cheers,
Peter
Last edited:
bastian a.
Well-known
I use both, Contax G2 + 35, 45, 90mm and different Leica M bodies with Leica lenses.
It's a big difference and every system has its advantages. If I had to sell one, I would keep the Leica.
It's a big difference and every system has its advantages. If I had to sell one, I would keep the Leica.
nonot
Well-known
I am considering purchasing the ZM 21 as well and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this. Is the newer Biogon 21 the same as the G Series or are there differences optically?
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
F/2 is definitely fine on my CL, in all conditions. My f/1.4 50mm Summilux, however, is reliably difficult to focus accurately on the CL when wide open, at shoving distances, at night. I can count on a few wasted shots when I try it, so I tend to keep it at f/2 or f/2.8. It otherwise works perfectly.
One other thing... the CL works fine with the three 50mm Leitz lenses I've had on it, but the 50mm framelines, in that already smallish finder, can feel pretty tight. The CL's not something I'd choose for constant use with any fifty, if better options were on the table and within economic reach.
Go with the Zeiss Ikon.
Last edited:
Peter_S
Peter_S
Biogon G 21mm vs ZM 21mm f/2.8
Biogon G 21mm vs ZM 21mm f/2.8
-- double post--
Biogon G 21mm vs ZM 21mm f/2.8
-- double post--
Last edited:
Peter_S
Peter_S
Done. Just got an Ikon with Sonnar 50mm and Biogon 21mm. Will use that over the winter (backed by my Sigma DP2s), and then decide what I do with the G2.
Cheers everybody for the help!
Peter
Cheers everybody for the help!
Peter