Wondering if going through a completely new path....

[italy74]

Hi guys

just to add to the list of those continuously haunted by doubts, and although I have always LOVED the Zeiss Ikon, I wonder if I could do something like this..

A little premise. I'm on the verge to get a ZF2 25/2 and whatever I'll do, I'll do as soon as the last ZM lens is revealed at Photokina. I'll try to win the 35 at the Zeiss contest and however I might get it later. Now I really need a wide angle. Although I've always been a 28 mm guy, I really need something wider and faster. Before venturing in extreme (and terribly expensive) wide angles - I'd rather get a 25/2 for Nikon. Eventually later, the 35.

Be aware I have here several bodies (unfortunately not as used as I'd love to) so I'm wondering if keeping only the FM3A (and eventually D700) with the 100 mm Zeiss (plus eventual other teles from Zeiss/Voigtlander later) and sell all the rest (included F6, 50, 28-75) and get an Ikon with 21 and 35 / 50 for wide angle coverage. I learned to shoot less and manual focusing isn't that bad for me. At time autofocusing might be handy but I could do less of it, if necessary. Put it simply, remaining with the best of two worlds. This however would mean I'd have two "handicapped" systems ( meaning none of the two would have all the necessary lenses but only those in which it's stronger) and I should probably go out with both every time an important event occurs. Plus, this would shift most of my load from digital to film and it might be not a painless move.
In any case, a relevant amount of money is involved, thus I'd like to listen to your thoughts about that.

1) go down this path, try to sell what I have and get a Zeiss Ikon + ZM
2) remain as I am and eventually get a Zeiss Ikon in ADDITION to what I have
3) other (pls explain)

 

[boomguy57]

Generally, less is more. GAS is hard to resist, but if you can make do with fewer sets, then I'd say go for it. Ultimately this is all speculative and very subjective to each one's own tastes.

I have a Zeiss Ikon and every time I consider selling it (since I have an MP) I can't bring myself to do it. I love the Ikon, so I'd recommend that. Since your F6 is worth a bit still, I'd sell that on and use the proceeds for something else. Then again, I'm not sure how much you use the F6.

I'd say...sell what you don't use regularly and fund gear you will use. Having gorgeous gear on a shelf doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[skírnir]

I actually went for that second option; I considered to get rid of some Nikon gear to finance the Zeiss Ikon. Now I have both a Zeiss Ikon with 28mm (and have ordered a 35mm), and Nikons with ZF and Nikkor lenses. I find that it's useful to have a wide range of lenses for an SLR, while I can do with the wide angles on the Zeiss Ikon.

In my view, some ZF lenses are a bit too heavy for the FM3a; it just doesn't feel right. They feel very nice and balanced on the quite heavy Nikkormat, though, so if I had an F6, I'd trade it in for an F3 or a Nikkormat and spend the rest on the lenses.

I bought used ZF lenses, as the CPU in the ZF.2s is a bit wasted on FM3a and Nikkormat (or am I mistaken?). They can often be had quite cheap when people trade them in for ZF.2s. I waited for the right offers and didn't spend much more than $1000 for three wonderful ZFs (!)

Good luck with the contest!

 

[thegman]

You could consider the Voigtlander 21mm, it's a lot cheaper.

I'd probably advise to get the ZI and a normal lens, and see how it goes. If you like it, consider adding a 21mm, but consider that you'll have to use a clip on finder.

You may be better off keeping an SLR for the wide angles, especially if you shoot close up, it's cheaper and of course more accurate framing.

 

[robbeiflex]

ZI is a great camera, but it's horses for courses here. You won't be happy with it if it replaces gear that is better fit for your main purpose. You will love it if you buy one just to load up with film and enjoy.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[mfogiel]

If you need to shoot with digital, the road is to get a Zeiss lens that you need - 21 or 25 or whatever you like. Having said this, a RF is in my opinion a better body for wide angles, so if money is no object, one should have an SLR or DSLR for lenses from 50mm on, and one or two rangefinders for the wide to 50mm range. The 50mm is sort of an overlap, although for normal purpose photography it is much better on a RF body, for closer portraiture I prefer it on a SLR.
If you only want a RF for wide angles, ZI is not the body to get, but the Bessa R4A.
I have learned, that when you find a lens you really like, you should then look for the best body for it, not vice versa, so start with the choice of the lens.
For me, in RF, the 21/4.5 Biogon is quite something, but admittedly I have not tried the Leica Summiluxes 21 and 24. On Nikon, my ZF line ends at 25mm, but at this FL the Biogon for RF is a whole class better.

 

[robert blu]

I know it's always difficult to make such a choice, I find difficult myself to decide sometimes. On theory the zeiss with a wide angle (21 or 24) and a normal (50) plus a SRL (FM3A or F6 depending on your preference) with a tele (or a zoom) should be a good combination, film shooting speaking. it seems me not an "handicapped" systems but two complementary systems, available for different goals.
Personally beside my RFs I use more the FM2 (with a 50mm 1,4) than the F100.
Not sure about your shooting style but 21 is not so extreme as you could think, when for my Nikons I had a similar problem the shop owner pushed me to go with the 20 mm and I had doubt about it being too extreme. But in a short time I learned to love it!
robert

 

[MCTuomey]

Not sure, but I think that you should buy the zeiss slr wide and shoot it awhile, see how it works for you, and then decide.

Simplifying the number of bodies sounds like a good idea in your case since you seem to have a lot of them.

I'd shoot what's most effective and familiar for "serious" event work, and not what's fun to shoot. Let the ZI be a "mistress" camera, at least at first.

 

[Godfrey]

Generally, less is more. GAS is hard to resist, but if you can make do with fewer sets, then I'd say go for it. Ultimately this is all speculative and very subjective to each one's own tastes.
...
I'd say...sell what you don't use regularly and fund gear you will use. Having gorgeous gear on a shelf doesn't do anyone any good.

Yes.

2012 has been a year of acquisition. My equipment cabinet is now so full I'm embarrassed. New visual ideas, new working methodologies, new equipment ... I started out looking to reduce the excess but had to find my way through what ideas I wanted to pursue.

2013 will be a year of reduction. I will pick and choose exactly what I will work with, and most of the rest will be gone. There are a few bits of equipment that I'll keep even if I don't use them much simply because I like them too much and they're not going to bring back anything worth noting when sold.

In 2013 I'll be concentrating on photos again, in a different way from this past year. 🙂

---

To contribute some advice to the original poster:

- Buy what inspires you to make photographs. Keep it if it does.
- Sell off whatever distracts you, does not get used, or is worth reclaiming the value of for other purposes.

These two rules are what I've used for the equipment dance for most of my life, at least those portions of my life where I had the wherewithal to freely spend money on photo equipment and photography.

In times of paucity, just use what you have and sell whatever you don't need, aren't using. Put your money in to making photos, not buying equipment.

 

[mw_uio]

All the way - Zeiss!

All the way - Zeiss!

Dino,
#2 - purchase the Zeiss ZF 25/2, stay with your F6 as the 25 will be amazing! You said you need wide, the 25 receives stellar reviews.

Here is a photographer with some reviews on Zeiss!
http://blog.mingthein.com/?s=zeiss+25+

Get your Zeiss, and Get the Shots you Need!

Mark
Quito, EC