rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I don't think I understand what you mean by "complement"; I normally understand a "complement" of X as something different from X that does something that X doesn't do. Another fast, big 35 won't do anything your fast, big 35 doesn't do.
It sounds a bit like you're mainly collecting fast lenses in order to be in the possession of fast lenses. Which is fine as a hobby, but under this kind of premise there is really no difference between a Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer, Konica, Yoyodyne or any other lens. If you buy thing just to have them, anything is fine as long as you can have it.
If you're interested in a photographic complement, I'd get a compact, very good medium-speed 35. If you're into classic lenses, I'd recommend the Canon 35/f2.8; if you're into modern lenses, it'd probably be the Rollei/Zeiss 40/2.8. The focal length difference is negligible (one step back and the angle is the same), but the lens is very small, and quite good (from what I see and hear - never had one, never shot one).
kram
Well-known
The good old speed verse size debate. I have changed my mind on this, but only slightly. I like fast lens, but I like good quality images (what's the definition of that again
)at the wider apeartures. So a compact 'fast' lens
e.g. 35mm at f1.4 or 50mm at f1.2, with poor resolution and other problems , no thanks. I would prefer the lens to be manufacturered so the image quality would not suffer due to the demands of compactness.
However, if some how I had the leica 50mm f0.95, I might feel it was too clumbersome and big for the camera, whereas the ZM sonnar f1.5 (or leica ASH f1.4) would be OK size wise. If zeiss could produce a 35mm f1.4 under say 350g, that could be just right mass wise. If it was going to be 450g, I would stick to the f2. It's a balance, cost /size/ performance.
If I want to use a good compact 35mm f2.8, I use my Minox
)at the wider apeartures. So a compact 'fast' lense.g. 35mm at f1.4 or 50mm at f1.2, with poor resolution and other problems , no thanks. I would prefer the lens to be manufacturered so the image quality would not suffer due to the demands of compactness.
However, if some how I had the leica 50mm f0.95, I might feel it was too clumbersome and big for the camera, whereas the ZM sonnar f1.5 (or leica ASH f1.4) would be OK size wise. If zeiss could produce a 35mm f1.4 under say 350g, that could be just right mass wise. If it was going to be 450g, I would stick to the f2. It's a balance, cost /size/ performance.
If I want to use a good compact 35mm f2.8, I use my Minox
ferider
Veteran
Following rxmd's thoughts, the only thing in my mind that can complement a 35/1.2 is a lens with less than the 1.2 Nokton's quite pronounced barrel distortion, speed being less important; like a Summicron, Biogon, Color Skopar, etc. Given that most ZM lenses are made in the same factory as the 35/1.2, not sure what Zeiss could optically add to the commonly well liked 35/1.2.
Last edited:
papasnap
Well-known
Hahahaha there might be some truth in that! To clarify, I use two RF bodies (an M7 0.58x and a Zeiss Ikon) and mostly shoot available light at night, so speed is very important for me. I'm looking to have two fast 35mm lenses to use in parallel on 2 different bodies (probably loaded with different films or at different iso speeds).
I used to use a 35mm summicron asph as well, but left it in a taxi one night
bang. That was a great lens, although in the very dark f2 is too slow. My thinking at the moment is I'll either buy a Zeiss 35mm f2 Biogon (as ferider suggests amongst others), or simply just get another 35mm f1.2 nokton.Here's another 35mm f1.2 shot - a homeless guy, taken late at night in bangkok. I think I'd had too much thai redbull to keep this one totally steady alas
slungu
Established
I don't know. Look what they have done for the Contax in the past : usually slower lenses (2.8), a few fast ones (35,50,85 - 1.4), with only one standing out ( the 35mm Distagon 1.4 ) and then two ultra-expensive, very low volume, astonishing lenses the 55/1.2 and the 85/1.2 annyversary lenses. Usually they look for a more balanced design, that is best performance two stops down from wide open, at a lower cost than Leica. Not that they are rubbish wide open.
Looking at what they released for the other (SLR) mounts, it might take a while, even if the ZM lineup is pretty complete focal length wise.
Looking at what they released for the other (SLR) mounts, it might take a while, even if the ZM lineup is pretty complete focal length wise.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
What Zeiss should make is a fast 24-28 for the "new" M8 crowd that needs a good normal.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
If Leica comes out with a full frame digi, or Zeiss or Cosina or ANYBODY in M mount, there'd be a bunch of very upset owners of high priced, and now orphaned, fast glass. Let's not forget those who start out with a cropped sensor digi body and wan to try film. Trying to explain to some people why their brand new $3,000+ lens in M mount won't cover a film negative or their new full frame digi body? I wouldn't want to attempt it.